instruction
stringlengths 462
44.8k
| output
stringclasses 332
values | task
stringclasses 139
values |
|---|---|---|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The respondent, Daniel Murphy, was convicted by a jury in an Oregon court of the second-degree murder of his wife. The victim died by strangulation in her home in the city of Portland, and abrasions and lacerations were found on her throat. There was no sign of a break-in or robbery. Word of the murder was sent to the respondent, who was not then living with his wife. Upon receiving the message, Murphy promptly telephoned the Portland police and voluntarily came into Portland for questioning. Shortly after the respondent's arrival at the station house, where he was met by retained counsel, the police noticed a dark spot on the respondent's finger. Suspecting that the spot might be dried blood and knowing that evidence of strangulation is often found under the assailant’s fingernails, the police asked Murphy if they could take a sample of scrapings from his fingernails. He refused. Under protest and without a warrant, the police proceeded to take the samples, which turned out to contain traces of skin and blood cells, and fabric from the victim’s nightgown. This incriminating evidence was admitted at the trial.
The respondent appealed his conviction, claiming that the fingernail scrapings were the product of an unconstitutional search under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Oregon Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, 2 Ore. App. 251, 465 P. 2d 900, and we denied certiorari, 400 U. S. 944. Murphy then commenced the present action for federal habeas corpus relief. The District Court, in an unreported decision, denied the habeas petition, and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, 461 F. 2d 1006. The Court of Appeals assumed the presence of probable cause to search or arrest, but held that in the absence of an arrest or other exigent circumstances, the search was unconstitutional. Id., at 1007. We granted certiorari, 409 U. S. 1036, to consider the constitutional question presented.
The trial court, the Oregon Court of Appeals, and the Federal District Court all agreed that the police had probable cause to arrest the respondent at the time they detained him and scraped his fingernails. As the Oregon Court of Appeals said,
“At the time the detectives took these scrapings they knew:
“The bedroom in which the wife was found dead showed no signs of disturbance, which fact tended to indicate a killer known to the victim rather than to a burglar or other stranger.
“The decedent’s son, the only other person in the house that night, did not have fingernails which could have made the lacerations observed on the victim’s throat.
“The defendant and his deceased wife had had a stormy marriage and did not get along well.
“The defendant had, in fact, been at his home on the night of the murder. He left and drove back to central Oregon claiming that he did not enter the house or see his wife. He volunteered a great deal of information without being asked, yet expressed no concern or curiosity about his wife’s fate.” 2 Ore. App., at 259-260, 465 P. 2d, at 904.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit did not disagree with the conclusion that the police had probable cause to make an arrest, 461 F. 2d, at 1007, nor do we.
It is also undisputed that the police did not obtain an arrest warrant or formally “arrest” the respondent, as that term is understood under Oregon law. The respondent was detained only long enough to take the fingernail scrapings, and was not formally “arrested” until approximately one month later. Nevertheless, the detention of the respondent against his will constituted a seizure of his person, and the Fourth Amendment guarantee of freedom from “unreasonable searches and seizures” is clearly implicated, cf. United States v. Dionisio, 410 U. S. 1, Terry v. Ohio, 392 U. S. 1, 19. As the Court said in Davis v. Mississippi, 394 U. S. 721, 726-727, “Nothing is more clear than that the Fourth Amendment was meant to prevent wholesale intrusions upon the personal security of our citizenry, whether these intrusions be termed 'arrests’ or 'investigatory detentions.’ ”
In Davis, the Court held that fingerprints obtained during the brief detention of persons seized in a police dragnet procedure, without probable cause, were inadmissible in evidence. Though the Court recognized that fingerprinting “involves none of the probing into an individual’s private life and thoughts that marks an interrogation or search,” id., at 727, the Court held the station-house detention in that case to be violative of the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. “Investigatory seizures would subject unlimited numbers of innocent persons to the harassment and ignominy incident to involuntary detention,” id., at 726.
The respondent in this case, like Davis, was briefly detained at the station house. Yet here, there was, as three courts have found, probable cause to believe that the respondent had committed the murder. The vice of the detention in Davis is therefore absent in the case before us. Cf. United States v. Dionisio, supra.
The inquiry does not end here, however, because Murphy was subjected to a search as well as a seizure of his person. Unlike the fingerprinting in Davis, the voice exemplar obtained in United States v. Dionisio, supra, or the handwriting exemplar obtained in United States v. Mara, 410 U. S. 19, the search of the respondent’s fingernails went beyond mere “physical characteristics . . . constantly exposed to the public,” United States v. Dionisio, supra, at 14, and constituted the type of “severe, though brief, intrusion upon cherished personal security” that is subject to constitutional scrutiny. Terry v. Ohio, supra, at 24-25.
We believe this search was constitutionally permissible under the principles of Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752. Chimel stands in a long line of cases recognizing an exception to the warrant requirement when a search is incident to a valid arrest. Id., at 755-762. The basis for this exception is that when an arrest is made, it is reasonable for a police officer to expect the arrestee to use any weapons he may have and to attempt to destroy any incriminating evidence then in his possession. Id., at 762-763. The Court recognized in Chimel that the scope of a warrantless search must be commensurate with the rationale that excepts the search from the warrant requirement. Thus, a warrantless search incident to arrest, the Court held in Chimel, must be limited to the area “into which an arrestee might reach.” Id., at 763.
Where there is no formal arrest, as in the case before us, a person might well be less hostile to the police and less likely to take conspicuous, immediate steps to destroy incriminating evidence on his person. Since he knows he is going to be released, he might be likely instead to be concerned with diverting attention away from himself. Accordingly, we do not hold that a full Chimel search would have been justified in this case without a formal arrest and without a warrant. But the respondent was not subjected to such a search.
At the time Murphy was being detained at the station house, he was obviously aware of the detectives’ suspicions. Though he did not have the full warning of official suspicion that a formal arrest provides, Murphy was sufficiently apprised of his suspected role in the crime to motivate him to attempt to destroy what evidence he could without attracting further attention. Testimony at trial indicated that after he refused to consent to the taking of fingernail samples, he put his hands behind his back and appeared to rub them together. He then put his hands in his pockets, and a “metallic sound, such as keys or change rattling” was heard. The rationale of Chimel., in these circumstances, justified the police in subjecting him to the very limited search necessary to preserve the highly evanescent evidence they found under his fingernails, cf. Schmerber v. California, 384 U. S. 757.
On the facts of this case, considering the existence of probable cause, the very limited intrusion undertaken incident to the station house detention, and the ready destructibility of the evidence, we cannot say that this search violated the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Mr. Justice White joins the opinion of the Court but does not consider the issue of probable cause to have been decided here or to be foreclosed on remand to the Court of Appeals where it has never been considered.
Oregon defines arrest as "the taking of a person into custody so that he may be held to answer for a crime.” Ore. Rev. Stat. § 133.210.
As the Court stated in Terry v. Ohio, “our inquiry is a dual one— whether the officer’s action was justified at its inception, and whether it was reasonably related in scope to the circumstances which justified the interference in the first place.” 392 U. S. 1, 19-20.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Wilkes, one of the petitioners, applied to respondent, one of New Jersey’s welfare agencies, for financial assistance based upon need by reason of permanent and total disability. As a condition of receiving assistance, a recipient is required by New Jersey law to execute an agreement to reimburse the county welfare board for all payments received thereunder. The purpose apparently is to enable the board to obtain reimbursement out of subsequently discovered or acquired real and personal property of the recipient.
Wilkes applied to respondent for such assistance in 1966 and he executed the required agreement. Respondent determined Wilkes’ monthly maintenance needs to be $108; and, finding that he had no other income, respondent fixed the monthly benefits at that amount and began making assistance payments, no later than January 1, 1967. The payments would have been less if Wilkes had been receiving federal disability insurance benefits under the Social Security Act, and respondent advised him to apply for those federal benefits.
In 1968 Wilkes was awarded retroactive disability insurance benefits under § 223 of the Social Security Act, 70 Stat. 815, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 423, covering the period from May 1966 into the summer of 1968. Those benefits, calculated on the basis of $69.60 per month for 20 months and $78.20 per month for six months, amounted to $1,864.20. A check in that amount was deposited in the account which Philpott holds as trustee for Wilkes. Under New Jersey law, we are told, the filing of a notice of such a reimbursement agreement has the same force and effect as a judgment. 59 N. J. 75, 80, 279 A. 2d 806, 809.
Respondent sued to reach the bank account under the agreement to reimburse. The trial court held that respondent was barred by the Social Security Act, 49 Stat. 624, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 407, from recovering any amount from the account. 104 N. J. Super. 280, 249 A. 2d 639. The Appellate Division affirmed. 109 N. J. Super. 48, 262 A. 2d 227. . The Supreme Court reversed. 59 N. J. 75, 279 A. 2d 806. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted. 406 U. S. 917.
On its face, the Social Security Act in § 407 bars the State of New Jersey from reaching the federal disability payments paid to Wilkes. The language is all-inclusive: “[N]one of the moneys paid or payable . . . under this subchapter shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process . . . .” The moneys paid as retroactive benefits were “moneys paid . . . under this subchapter”; and the suit brought was an attempt to subject the money to “levy, attachment ... or other legal process.”.
New Jersey argues that if the amount of social security benefits received from the Federal Government had been made monthly, the amount of state welfare benefits could have been reduced by the amount of the federal grant. We see no reason to base an implied exemption from § 407 on that ground. We see no reason why a State, performing its statutory duty to take care of the needy, should be in a preferred position as compared with any other creditor. Indeed, since the Federal Government provides one-half of the funds for assistance under the New Jersey program of disability relief, the State, concededly, on recovery of any sums by way of reimbursement, would have to account to the Federal Government for the latter’s share.
The protection afforded by § 407 is to “moneys paid” and we think the analogy to veterans’ benefits exemptions which we reviewed in Porter v. Aetna Casualty Co., 370 U. S. 159, is relevant here. We held in that case that veterans’ benefits deposited in a savings and loan association on behalf of a veteran retained the “quality of moneys” and had not become a permanent investment. Id., at 161-162.
In the present case, as in Porter, the funds on deposit were readily withdrawable and retained the quality of “moneys” within the purview of § 407. The Supreme Court of New Jersey referred to cases' where a State which has provided care and maintenance to an incompetent veteran at times is a “creditor” for purposes of 38 U. S. C. § 3101, and at other times is not. But § 407 does not refer to any “claim of creditors”; it imposes a broad bar against the use of any legal process to reach all social security benefits. That is broad enough to include all claimants, including a State.
The New Jersey court also relied on 42 U. S. C. § 404, a provision of the Social Security Act which permits the Secretary to recover overpayments óf old age, survivors, or disability insurance benefits. But there has been no overpayment of federal disability benefits here and the Secretary is not seeking any recovery here. And the Solicitor General, speaking for the Secretary, concedes that the pecuniary interest of the United States in the outcome of this case, which would be its aliquot share of any recovery, is not within the ambit of § 404.
By reason of the Supremacy Clause the judgment below is
Reversed.
The payment in controversy is in a bank account under the name of petitioner Philpott in trust for Wilkes.
N. J. Stat. Ann. §44:7-14 (a) (Supp. 1972-1973) provides: “Every county welfare board shall require, as a condition to granting assistance in any case, that all or any part of the property, either real or personal, of a person applying for old age assistance, be pledged to said county welfare board as a guaranty for the reimbursement of the funds so granted as old age assistance pursuant to the provisions of this chapter. The county welfare board shall take from each applicant a properly acknowledged agreement to reimburse for all advances granted, and pursuant to such agreement, said applicant shall assign to the welfare board, as collateral security for such advances, all or any part of his personal property as the board shall specify.”
Title 42 U. S. C. §407 provides:
“The right of any person to any future payment under this sub-chapter shall not be transferable or assignable, at law or in equity, and none of the moneys paid or payable or rights existing under this subchapter shall be subject to execution, levy, attachment, garnishment, or other legal process, or to the operation of any bankruptcy or insolvency law.”
Since respondent did not claim a right to the entire federal payment but only to the amount by which its own payments would have been reduced had the federal benefits been received currently rather than retroactively and because the stipulated facts were ambiguous as to when respondent actually began making assistance payments, the court remanded for a determination of the precise amount of respondent’s claim.
Supra, n. 3.
See Savoid v. District of Columbia, 110 U. S. App. D. C. 39, 288 F. 2d 851; District of Columbia v. Reilly, 102 U. S. App. D. C. 9, 249 F. 2d 524. See decision below, 59 N. J. 75, 85, 279 A. 2d 806, 812.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice KAGAN delivered the opinion of the Court.
Every four years, millions of Americans cast a ballot for a presidential candidate. Their votes, though, actually go toward selecting members of the Electoral College, whom each State appoints based on the popular returns. Those few "electors" then choose the President.
The States have devised mechanisms to ensure that the electors they appoint vote for the presidential candidate their citizens have preferred. With two partial exceptions, every State appoints a slate of electors selected by the political party whose candidate has won the State's popular vote. Most States also compel electors to pledge in advance to support the nominee of that party. This Court upheld such a pledge requirement decades ago, rejecting the argument that the Constitution "demands absolute freedom for the elector to vote his own choice." Ray v. Blair, 343 U.S. 214, 228, 72 S.Ct. 654, 96 L.Ed. 894 (1952).
Today, we consider whether a State may also penalize an elector for breaking his pledge and voting for someone other than the presidential candidate who won his State's popular vote. We hold that a State may do so.
I
Our Constitution's method of picking Presidents emerged from an eleventh-hour compromise. The issue, one delegate to the Convention remarked, was "the most difficult of all [that] we have had to decide." 2 Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, p. 501 (M. Farrand rev. 1966) (Farrand). Despite long debate and many votes, the delegates could not reach an agreement. See generally N. Peirce & L. Longley, The People's President 19-22 (rev. 1981). In the dying days of summer, they referred the matter to the so-called Committee of Eleven to devise a solution. The Committee returned with a proposal for the Electoral College. Just two days later, the delegates accepted the recommendation with but a few tweaks. James Madison later wrote to a friend that the "difficulty of finding an unexceptionable [selection] process" was "deeply felt by the Convention." Letter to G. Hay (Aug. 23, 1823), in 3 Farrand 458. Because "the final arrangement of it took place in the latter stage of the Session," Madison continued, "it was not exempt from a degree of the hurrying influence produced by fatigue and impatience in all such Bodies: tho' the degree was much less than usually prevails in them." Ibid. Whether less or not, the delegates soon finished their work and departed for home.
The provision they approved about presidential electors is fairly slim. Article II, § 1, cl. 2 says:
"Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector."
The next clause (but don't get attached: it will soon be superseded) set out the procedures the electors were to follow in casting their votes. In brief, each member of the College would cast votes for two candidates in the presidential field. The candidate with the greatest number of votes, assuming he had a majority, would become President. The runner-up would become Vice President. If no one had a majority, the House of Representatives would take over and decide the winner.
That plan failed to anticipate the rise of political parties, and soon proved unworkable. The Nation's first contested presidential election occurred in 1796, after George Washington's retirement. John Adams came in first among the candidates, and Thomas Jefferson second. That meant the leaders of the era's two warring political parties-the Federalists and the Republicans-became President and Vice President respectively. (One might think of this as fodder for a new season of Veep.) Four years later, a different problem arose. Jefferson and Aaron Burr ran that year as a Republican Party ticket, with the former meant to be President and the latter meant to be Vice. For that plan to succeed, Jefferson had to come in first and Burr just behind him. Instead, Jefferson came in first and Burr... did too. Every elector who voted for Jefferson also voted for Burr, producing a tie. That threw the election into the House of Representatives, which took no fewer than 36 ballots to elect Jefferson. (Alexander Hamilton secured his place on the Broadway stage-but possibly in the cemetery too-by lobbying Federalists in the House to tip the election to Jefferson, whom he loathed but viewed as less of an existential threat to the Republic.) By then, everyone had had enough of the Electoral College's original voting rules.
The result was the Twelfth Amendment, whose main part provided that electors would vote separately for President and Vice President. The Amendment, ratified in 1804, says:
"The Electors shall meet in their respective states and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President...; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President, and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to [Congress, where] the votes shall then be counted."
The Amendment thus brought the Electoral College's voting procedures into line with the Nation's new party system.
Within a few decades, the party system also became the means of translating popular preferences within each State into Electoral College ballots. In the Nation's earliest elections, state legislatures mostly picked the electors, with the majority party sending a delegation of its choice to the Electoral College. By 1832, though, all States but one had introduced popular presidential elections. See Peirce & Longley, The People's President, at 45. At first, citizens voted for a slate of electors put forward by a political party, expecting that the winning slate would vote for its party's presidential (and vice presidential) nominee in the Electoral College. By the early 20th century, citizens in most States voted for the presidential candidate himself; ballots increasingly did not even list the electors. See Albright, The Presidential Short Ballot, 34 Am. Pol. Sci. Rev. 955, 955-957 (1940). After the popular vote was counted, States appointed the electors chosen by the party whose presidential nominee had won statewide, again expecting that they would vote for that candidate in the Electoral College.
In the 20th century, many States enacted statutes meant to guarantee that outcome-that is, to prohibit so-called faithless voting. Rather than just assume that party-picked electors would vote for their party's winning nominee, those States insist that they do so. As of now, 32 States and the District of Columbia have such statutes on their books. They are typically called pledge laws because most demand that electors take a formal oath or pledge to cast their ballot for their party's presidential (and vice presidential) candidate. Others merely impose that duty by law. Either way, the statutes work to ensure that the electors vote for the candidate who got the most statewide votes in the presidential election.
Most relevant here, States began about 60 years ago to back up their pledge laws with some kind of sanction. By now, 15 States have such a system. Almost all of them immediately remove a faithless elector from his position, substituting an alternate whose vote the State reports instead. A few States impose a monetary fine on any elector who flouts his pledge.
Washington is one of the 15 States with a sanctions-backed pledge law designed to keep the State's electors in line with its voting citizens. As all States now do, Washington requires political parties fielding presidential candidates to nominate a slate of electors. See Wash. Rev. Code § 29A.56.320(1). On Election Day, the State gives voters a ballot listing only the candidates themselves. See § 29A.56.320(2). When the vote comes in, Washington moves toward appointing the electors chosen by the party whose candidate won the statewide count. See ibid. But before the appointment can go into effect, each elector must "execute [a] pledge" agreeing to "mark [her] ballots" for the presidential (and vice presidential) candidate of the party nominating her. § 29A.56.084. And the elector must comply with that pledge, or else face a sanction. At the time relevant here, the punishment was a civil fine of up to $1,000. See § 29A.56.340 (2016).
This case involves three Washington electors who violated their pledges in the 2016 presidential election. That year, Washington's voters chose Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump for President. The State thus appointed as its electors the nominees of the Washington State Democratic Party. Among those Democratic electors were petitioners Peter Chiafalo, Levi Guerra, and Esther John (the Electors). All three pledged to support Hillary Clinton in the Electoral College. But as that vote approached, they decided to cast their ballots for someone else. The three hoped they could encourage other electors-particularly those from States Donald Trump had carried-to follow their example. The idea was to deprive him of a majority of electoral votes and throw the election into the House of Representatives. So the three Electors voted for Colin Powell for President. But their effort failed. Only seven electors across the Nation cast faithless votes-the most in a century, but well short of the goal. Candidate Trump became President Trump. And, more to the point here, the State fined the Electors $1,000 apiece for breaking their pledges to support the same candidate its voters had.
The Electors challenged their fines in state court, arguing that the Constitution gives members of the Electoral College the right to vote however they please. The Washington Superior Court rejected the Electors' claim in an oral decision, and the State's Supreme Court affirmed that judgment. See In re Guerra, 193 Wash.2d 380, 441 P.3d 807 (2019). The court relied heavily on our decision in Ray v. Blair upholding a pledge requirement-though one without a penalty to back it up. See 193 Wash.2d at 393-399, 441 P.3d at 813-816. In the state court's view, Washington's penalty provision made no difference. Article II of the Constitution, the court noted, grants broad authority to the States to appoint electors, and so to impose conditions on their appointments. See id., at 393, 395, 441 P.3d at 813, 814. And nothing in the document "suggests that electors have discretion to cast their votes without limitation or restriction by the state legislature." Id., at 396, 441 P.3d at 814.
A few months later, the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit reached the opposite conclusion in a case involving another faithless elector. See Baca v. Colorado Dept. of State, 935 F.3d 887 (2019). The Circuit Court held that Colorado could not remove the elector, as its pledge law directs, because the Constitution "provide[s] presidential electors the right to cast a vote" for President "with discretion." Id., at 955.
We granted certiorari to resolve the split. 589 U. S. ----, 140 S.Ct. 918, 205 L.Ed.2d 519 (2020). We now affirm the Washington Supreme Court's judgment that a State may enforce its pledge law against an elector.
II
As the state court recognized, this Court has considered elector pledge requirements before. Some seventy years ago Edmund Blair tried to become a presidential elector in Alabama. Like all States, Alabama lodged the authority to pick electors in the political parties fielding presidential candidates. And the Alabama Democratic Party required a pledge phrased much like Washington's today. No one could get on the party's slate of electors without agreeing to vote in the Electoral College for the Democratic presidential candidate. Blair challenged the pledge mandate. He argued that the "intention of the Founders was that [presidential] electors should exercise their judgment in voting." Ray, 343 U.S., at 225, 72 S.Ct. 654. The pledge requirement, he claimed, "interfere[d] with the performance of this constitutional duty to select [a president] according to the best judgment of the elector." Ibid.
Our decision in Ray rejected that challenge. "Neither the language of Art. II, § 1, nor that of the Twelfth Amendment," we explained, prohibits a State from appointing only electors committed to vote for a party's presidential candidate. Ibid. Nor did the Nation's history suggest such a bar. To the contrary, "[h]istory teaches that the electors were expected to support the party nominees" as far back as the earliest contested presidential elections. Id., at 228, 72 S.Ct. 654. "[L]ongstanding practice" thus "weigh[ed] heavily" against Blair's claim. Id., at 228-230, 72 S.Ct. 654. And current voting procedures did too. The Court noted that by then many States did not even put electors' names on a presidential ballot. See id., at 229, 72 S.Ct. 654. The whole system presupposed that the electors, because of either an "implied" or an "oral pledge," would vote for the candidate who had won the State's popular election. Ibid.
Ray, however, reserved a question not implicated in the case: Could a State enforce those pledges through legal sanctions? See id., at 230, 72 S.Ct. 654. Or would doing so violate an elector's "constitutional freedom" to "vote as he may choose" in the Electoral College? Ibid. Today, we take up that question. We uphold Washington's penalty-backed pledge law for reasons much like those given in Ray. The Constitution's text and the Nation's history both support allowing a State to enforce an elector's pledge to support his party's nominee-and the state voters' choice-for President.
A
Article II, § 1's appointments power gives the States far-reaching authority over presidential electors, absent some other constitutional constraint. As noted earlier, each State may appoint electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." Art. II, § 1, cl. 2 ; see supra, at 2320. This Court has described that clause as "conveying the broadest power of determination" over who becomes an elector. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 27, 13 S.Ct. 3, 36 L.Ed. 869 (1892). And the power to appoint an elector (in any manner) includes power to condition his appointment-that is, to say what the elector must do for the appointment to take effect. A State can require, for example, that an elector live in the State or qualify as a regular voter during the relevant time period. Or more substantively, a State can insist (as Ray allowed) that the elector pledge to cast his Electoral College ballot for his party's presidential nominee, thus tracking the State's popular vote. See Ray, 343 U.S., at 227, 72 S.Ct. 654 (A pledge requirement "is an exercise of the state's right to appoint electors in such manner" as it chooses). Or-so long as nothing else in the Constitution poses an obstacle-a State can add, as Washington did, an associated condition of appointment: It can demand that the elector actually live up to his pledge, on pain of penalty. Which is to say that the State's appointment power, barring some outside constraint, enables the enforcement of a pledge like Washington's.
And nothing in the Constitution expressly prohibits States from taking away presidential electors' voting discretion as Washington does. The Constitution is barebones about electors. Article II includes only the instruction to each State to appoint, in whatever way it likes, as many electors as it has Senators and Representatives (except that the State may not appoint members of the Federal Government). The Twelfth Amendment then tells electors to meet in their States, to vote for President and Vice President separately, and to transmit lists of all their votes to the President of the United States Senate for counting. Appointments and procedures and... that is all. See id., at 225, 72 S.Ct. 654.
The Framers could have done it differently; other constitutional drafters of their time did. In the founding era, two States-Maryland and Kentucky-used electoral bodies selected by voters to choose state senators (and in Kentucky's case, the Governor too). The Constitutions of both States, Maryland's drafted just before and Kentucky's just after the U. S. Constitution, incorporated language that would have made this case look quite different. Both state Constitutions required all electors to take an oath "to elect without favour, affection, partiality, or prejudice, such persons for Senators, as they, in their judgment and conscience, believe best qualified for the office." Md. Declaration of Rights, Art. XVIII (1776); see Ky. Const., Art. I, § 14 (1792) (using identical language except adding "[and] for Governor"). The emphasis on independent "judgment and conscience" called for the exercise of elector discretion. But although the Framers knew of Maryland's Constitution, no language of that kind made it into the document they drafted. See 1 Farrand 218, 289 (showing that Madison and Hamilton referred to the Maryland system at the Convention).
The Electors argue that three simple words stand in for more explicit language about discretion. Article II, § 1 first names the members of the Electoral College: "electors." The Twelfth Amendment then says that electors shall "vote" and that they shall do so by "ballot." The "plain meaning" of those terms, the Electors say, requires electors to have "freedom of choice." Brief for Petitioners 29, 31. If the States could control their votes, "the electors would not be 'Electors,' and their 'vote by Ballot' would not be a 'vote.' " Id., at 31.
But those words need not always connote independent choice. Suppose a person always votes in the way his spouse, or pastor, or union tells him to. We might question his judgment, but we would have no problem saying that he "votes" or fills in a "ballot." In those cases, the choice is in someone else's hands, but the words still apply because they can signify a mechanical act. Or similarly, suppose in a system allowing proxy voting (a common practice in the founding era), the proxy acts on clear instructions from the principal, with no freedom of choice. Still, we might well say that he cast a "ballot" or "voted," though the preference registered was not his own. For that matter, some elections give the voter no real choice because there is only one name on a ballot (consider an old Soviet election, or even a down-ballot race in this country). Yet if the person in the voting booth goes through the motions, we consider him to have voted. The point of all these examples is to show that although voting and discretion are usually combined, voting is still voting when discretion departs. Maybe most telling, switch from hypotheticals to the members of the Electoral College. For centuries now, as we'll later show, almost all have considered themselves bound to vote for their party's (and the state voters') preference. See infra, at 2326 - 2328. Yet there is no better description for what they do in the Electoral College than "vote" by "ballot." And all these years later, everyone still calls them "electors"-and not wrongly, because even though they vote without discretion, they do indeed elect a President.
The Electors and their amici object that the Framers using those words expected the Electors' votes to reflect their own judgments. See Brief for Petitioners 18-19; Brief for Independence Institute as Amicus Curiae 11-15. Hamilton praised the Constitution for entrusting the Presidency to "men most capable of analyzing the qualities" needed for the office, who would make their choices "under circumstances favorable to deliberation." The Federalist No. 68, p. 410 (C. Rossiter ed. 1961). So too, John Jay predicted that the Electoral College would "be composed of the most enlightened and respectable citizens," whose choices would reflect "discretion and discernment." Id., No. 64, at 389.
But even assuming other Framers shared that outlook, it would not be enough. Whether by choice or accident, the Framers did not reduce their thoughts about electors' discretion to the printed page. All that they put down about the electors was what we have said: that the States would appoint them, and that they would meet and cast ballots to send to the Capitol. Those sparse instructions took no position on how independent from-or how faithful to-party and popular preferences the electors' votes should be. On that score, the Constitution left much to the future. And the future did not take long in coming. Almost immediately, presidential electors became trusty transmitters of other people's decisions.
B
"Long settled and established practice" may have "great weight in a proper interpretation of constitutional provisions." The Pocket Veto Case, 279 U.S. 655, 689, 49 S.Ct. 463, 73 L.Ed. 894 (1929). As James Madison wrote, "a regular course of practice" can "liquidate & settle the meaning of " disputed or indeterminate "terms & phrases." Letter to S. Roane (Sept. 2, 1819), in 8 Writings of James Madison 450 (G. Hunt ed. 1908); see The Federalist No. 37, at 225. The Electors make an appeal to that kind of practice in asserting their right to independence. But "our whole experience as a Nation" points in the opposite direction. NLRB v. Noel Canning, 573 U.S. 513, 557, 134 S.Ct. 2550, 189 L.Ed.2d 538 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Electors have only rarely exercised discretion in casting their ballots for President. From the first, States sent them to the Electoral College-as today Washington does-to vote for pre-selected candidates, rather than to use their own judgment. And electors (or at any rate, almost all of them) rapidly settled into that non-discretionary role. See Ray, 343 U.S., at 228-229, 72 S.Ct. 654.
Begin at the beginning-with the Nation's first contested election in 1796. Would-be electors declared themselves for one or the other party's presidential candidate. (Recall that in this election Adams led the Federalists against Jefferson's Republicans. See supra, at 2320 - 2321.) In some States, legislatures chose the electors; in others, ordinary voters did. But in either case, the elector's declaration of support for a candidate-essentially a pledge-was what mattered. Or said differently, the selectors of an elector knew just what they were getting-not someone who would deliberate in good Hamiltonian fashion, but someone who would vote for their party's candidate. "[T]he presidential electors," one historian writes, "were understood to be instruments for expressing the will of those who selected them, not independent agents authorized to exercise their own judgment." Whittington, Originalism, Constitutional Construction, and the Problem of Faithless Electors, 59 Ariz. L. Rev. 903, 911 (2017). And when the time came to vote in the Electoral College, all but one elector did what everyone expected, faithfully representing their selectors' choice of presidential candidate.
The Twelfth Amendment embraced this new reality-both acknowledging and facilitating the Electoral College's emergence as a mechanism not for deliberation but for party-line voting. Remember that the Amendment grew out of a pair of fiascos-the election of two then-bitter rivals as President and Vice President, and the tie vote that threw the next election into the House. See supra, at 2320 - 2321. Both had occurred because the Constitution's original voting procedures gave electors two votes for President, rather than one apiece for President and Vice President. Without the capacity to vote a party ticket for the two offices, the electors had foundered, and could do so again. If the predominant party's electors used both their votes on their party's two candidates, they would create a tie (see 1800). If they intentionally cast fewer votes for the intended vice president, they risked the opposite party's presidential candidate sneaking into the second position (see 1796). By allowing the electors to vote separately for the two offices, the Twelfth Amendment made party-line voting safe. The Amendment thus advanced, rather than resisted, the practice that had arisen in the Nation's first elections. An elector would promise to legislators or citizens to vote for their party's presidential and vice presidential candidates-and then follow through on that commitment. Or as the Court wrote in Ray, the new procedure allowed an elector to "vote the regular party ticket" and thereby "carry out the desires of the people" who had sent him to the Electoral College. Ray, 343 U.S., at 224, n. 11, 72 S.Ct. 654. No independent electors need apply.
Courts and commentators throughout the 19th century recognized the electors as merely acting on other people's preferences. Justice Story wrote that "the electors are now chosen wholly with reference to particular candidates," having either "silently" or "publicly pledge[d]" how they will vote. 3 Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States § 1457, p. 321 (1833). "[N]othing is left to the electors," he continued, "but to register [their] votes, which are already pledged." Id., at 321-322. Indeed, any "exercise of an independent judgment would be treated[ ] as a political usurpation, dishonourable to the individual, and a fraud upon his constituents." Id., at 322. Similarly, William Rawle explained how the Electoral College functioned: "[T]he electors do not assemble in their several states for a free exercise of their own judgments, but for the purpose of electing" the nominee of "the predominant political party which has chosen those electors." A View of the Constitution of the United States of America 57 (2d ed. 1829). Looking back at the close of the century, this Court had no doubt that Story's and Rawle's descriptions were right. The electors, the Court noted, were chosen "simply to register the will of the appointing power in respect of a particular candidate." McPherson, 146 U.S., at 36, 13 S.Ct. 3.
State election laws evolved to reinforce that development, ensuring that a State's electors would vote the same way as its citizens. As noted earlier, state legislatures early dropped out of the picture; by the mid-1800s, ordinary voters chose electors. See supra, at 2321. Except that increasingly, they did not do so directly. States listed only presidential candidates on the ballot, on the understanding that electors would do no more than vote for the winner. Usually, the State could ensure that result by appointing electors chosen by the winner's party. But to remove any doubt, States began in the early 1900s to enact statutes requiring electors to pledge that they would squelch any urge to break ranks with voters. See supra, at 2321 - 2322. Washington's law, penalizing a pledge's breach, is only another in the same vein. It reflects a tradition more than two centuries old. In that practice, electors are not free agents; they are to vote for the candidate whom the State's voters have chosen.
The history going the opposite way is one of anomalies only. The Electors stress that since the founding, electors have cast some 180 faithless votes for either President or Vice President. See Brief for Petitioners 7. But that is 180 out of over 23,000. See Brief for Republican National Committee as Amicus Curiae 19. And more than a third of the faithless votes come from 1872, when the Democratic Party's nominee (Horace Greeley) died just after Election Day. Putting those aside, faithless votes represent just one-half of one percent of the total. Still, the Electors counter, Congress has counted all those votes. See Brief for Petitioners 46. But because faithless votes have never come close to affecting an outcome, only one has ever been challenged. True enough, that one was counted. But the Electors cannot rest a claim of historical tradition on one counted vote in over 200 years. And anyway, the State appointing that elector had no law requiring a pledge or otherwise barring his use of discretion. Congress's deference to a state decision to tolerate a faithless vote is no ground for rejecting a state decision to penalize one.
III
The Electors' constitutional claim has neither text nor history on its side. Article II and the Twelfth Amendment give States broad power over electors, and give electors themselves no rights. Early in our history, States decided to tie electors to the presidential choices of others, whether legislatures or citizens. Except that legislatures no longer play a role, that practice has continued for more than 200 years. Among the devices States have long used to achieve their object are pledge laws, designed to impress on electors their role as agents of others. A State follows in the same tradition if, like Washington, it chooses to sanction an elector for breaching his promise. Then too, the State instructs its electors that they have no ground for reversing the vote of millions of its citizens. That direction accords with the Constitution-as well as with the trust of a Nation that here, We the People rule.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington is
Affirmed.
Justice THOMAS, with whom Justice GORSUCH joins as to Part II, concurring in the judgment.
The Court correctly determines that States have the power to require Presidential electors to vote for the candidate chosen by the people of the State. I disagree, however, with its attempt to base that power on Article II. In my view, the Constitution is silent on States' authority to bind electors in voting. I would resolve this case by simply recognizing that "[a]ll powers that the Constitution neither delegates to the Federal Government nor prohibits to the States are controlled by the people of each State." U. S. Term Limits, Inc. v. Thornton, 514 U.S. 779, 848, 115 S.Ct. 1842, 131 L.Ed.2d 881 (1995) (THOMAS, J., dissenting).
I
A
The Constitution does not address-expressly or by necessary implication-whether States have the power to require that Presidential electors vote for the candidates chosen by the people. Article II, § 1, and the Twelfth Amendment provide for the election of the President through a body of electors. But neither speaks directly to a State's power over elector voting.
The only provision in the Constitution that arguably addresses a State's power over Presidential electors is Clause 2 of Article II, § 1. That Clause provides, in relevant part, that "[e]ach State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors." As I have previously explained, this language "imposes an affirmative obligation on the States" to establish the manner for appointing electors. U. S. Term Limits, 514 U.S., at 864, 115 S.Ct. 1842 (dissenting opinion). By using the term "shall," "the Clause expressly requires action by the States." Id., at 862, 115 S.Ct. 1842 (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Maine Community Health Options v. United States, 590 U. S. ----, ----, 140 S.Ct. 1308, 1320, 206 L.Ed.2d 764 (2020) ("The first sign that the statute imposed an obligation is its mandatory language:'shall' "); Lexecon Inc. v. Milberg Weiss Bershad Hynes & Lerach, 523 U.S. 26, 35, 118 S.Ct. 956, 140 L.Ed.2d 62 (1998) (recognizing that "'shall' [n]ormally creates an obligation"). This obligation to provide the manner of appointing electors does not expressly delegate power to States; it simply imposes an affirmative duty. See U. S. Term Limits, supra, at 862-863, 115 S.Ct. 1842 (THOMAS, J., dissenting).
B
In a somewhat cursory analysis, the Court concludes that the States' duty to appoint electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct," Art. II, § 1, cl. 2, provides an express grant of "power to appoint an elector." Ante, at 2324. As explained above, this interpretation erroneously conflates the imposition of a duty with the granting of a power. But even setting that issue aside, I cannot agree with the Court's analysis. The Court appears to misinterpret Article II, § 1, by overreading its language as authorizing the broad power to impose and enforce substantive conditions on appointment. The Court then misconstrues the State of Washington's law as enforcing a condition of appointment.
1
The Court's conclusion that the text of Article II, § 1, expressly grants States the power to impose substantive conditions or qualifications on electors is highly questionable. Its interpretation appears to strain the plain meaning of the text, ignore historical evidence, and give the term "Manner" different meanings in parallel provisions of Article I and Article II.
First, the Court's attempt to root its analysis in Article II, § 1, seems to stretch the plain meaning of the Constitution's text. Article II, § 1, provides that States shall appoint electors "in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct." At the time of the founding, the term "manner" referred to a "[f]orm" or "method." 1 S. Johnson, A Dictionary of the English Language (6th ed. 1785); see also 1 J. Ash, The New and Complete Dictionary of the English Language (2d ed. 1795). These definitions suggest that Article II requires state legislatures merely to set the approach for selecting Presidential electors, not to impose substantive limitations on whom may become an elector. And determining the "Manner" of appointment certainly does not include the power to impose requirements as to how the electors vote after they are appointed, which is what the Washington law addresses. See infra, at 2332 - 2333.
Historical evidence from the founding also suggests that the "Manner" of appointment refers to the method for selecting electors, rather than the substantive limitations placed on the position. At the Convention, the Framers debated whether Presidential electors should be selected by the state legislatures or by other electors chosen by the voters of each State. Oliver Ellsworth and Luther Martin, for example, thought the President should be chosen by electors selected by state legislatures. McPherson v. Blacker, 146 U.S. 1, 28, 13 S.Ct. 3, 36 L.Ed. 869 (1892). Alexander Hamilton, however, preferred a system in which the President would be chosen "by electors chosen by electors
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Under the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, Pub. L. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111, a federal employee may challenge agency disciplinary action by appealing the agency’s decision to the Merit Systems Protection Board (Board). If, however, the employee is a member of a collective-bargaining unit of federal employees, he, in the alternative, may challenge the disciplinary action by pursuing any grievance and arbitration procedure provided by the collective-bargaining agreement. Neither the Board nor the arbitrator may sustain the agency’s decision if the employee “shows harmful error in the application of the agency’s procedures in arriving at such decision.” 5 U. S. C. § 7701(c)(2)(A). The Board has interpreted this statute to require the employee to show error that causes substantial prejudice to his individual rights by possibly affecting the agency’s decision. This case presents the issue whether a different “harmful-error” interpretation should apply in an arbitration, or, to phrase it another way, whether the arbitrator may overturn agency disciplinary action on the basis of a significant violation of the collective-bargaining agreement that is harmful only to the union.
I
The 1978 Act is “a comprehensive revision of the laws governing the rights and obligations of civil servants, [and] contains the first statutory scheme governing labor relations between federal agencies and their employees.” Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms v. FLRA, 464 U. S. 89, 91 (1983). Among the major purposes of the Act were the “preservation of] the ability of federal managers to maintain ‘an effective and efficient Government,’” ibid., quoting 5 U. S. C. § 7101(b), and the “strengthening of] the position of federal unions and [making] the collective-bargaining process a more effective instrument of the public interest,” 464 U. S., at 107.
To promote the first of these purposes, the Act provides that a federal employee may be removed or otherwise disciplined for unacceptable performance or for misconduct. Specifically, §4303 establishes procedures by which an agency may remove or demote an employee whose performance is unacceptable. In addition, §7512 provides that an agency may take adverse action against an employee, including removal, suspension for more than 14 days, reduction in grade or pay, or a furlough of 30 days or less, for, as § 7513 states, “such cause as will promote the efficiency of the service,” including misconduct. A federal employee subjected to agency disciplinary action taken pursuant to § 4303 or § 7512 may appeal the agency’s decision to the Board. §§ 4303(e), 7513(d), and 7701. The Board must sustain the agency’s decision if it is supported by appropriate evidence. § 7701(c)(1). The agency’s decision may not be sustained, however, if the employee “shows harmful error in the application of the agency’s procedures in arriving at such decision.” § 7701(c)(2)(A).
To promote the second of these purposes of the Act — “to strengthen the position of federal unions and to make the collective-bargaining process a more effective instrument of the public interest” — the Act requires federal agencies and unions representing agency employees to “negotiate over terms and conditions of employment, unless a bagaining proposal is inconsistent with existing federal law, rule, or regulation.” Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms v. FLRA, 464 U. S., at 92. Even matters reserved to agency-management discretion, such as discipline, are subject to negotiation concerning the procedures that management officials will observe in exercising their authority. § 7106(b)(2).
The Act also requires any collective-bargaining agreement between a federal agency and a union to provide for a grievance procedure and binding arbitration for the resolution of disputes arising under the agreement. §§ 7121(a) and (b). An employee in a bargaining unit having a negotiated grievance procedure that covers agency disciplinary action taken pursuant to §4303 or §7512 thus may elect to challenge such action by filing a grievance rather than appealing to the Board. § 7121(e)(1). If the employee elects so to proceed, and the union or the agency invokes binding arbitration, see § 7121(b)(3)(C), the arbitrator is to apply the same substantive standards that the Board would apply if the matter had been appealed. See S. Rep. No. 95-969, p. Ill (1978); H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 95-1717, p. 157 (1978). In particular, the Act provides: “In matters covered under sections 4303 and 7512 . . . which have been raised under the negotiated grievance procedure ... , an arbitrator shall be governed by section 7701(c)(1) . . . .” § 7121(e)(2). Section 7701(c)(1) incorporates by reference the provisions of subsection (c)(2), including the harmful-error rule. Thus, the statutory scheme mandates that the harmful-error rule is to apply whether the employee challenges the agency action through the Board or through binding arbitration.
f — 1 H-1
Thomas Rogers and Robert Wilson,-Jr. (grievants), were employed by General Services Administration (GSA) as Federal Protective Service (FPS) officers at the Federal Center in Denver, Colo. Rogers patrolled property owned or leased by the Federal Government at various locations in the Denver metropolitan area while maintaining contact either by radio or by telephone with the Command Center. Wilson worked as a dispatcher at the Center. Everything spoken over the radio and telephone lines of the Command Center is recorded on tape. This tape constitutes the record of activity at the Center.
On January 7, 1982, Rogers was on patrol in an official Government car. At the request of his shift supervisor, he drove to his home in a nearby suburb, picked up several cans of beer, and delivered the beer to the supervisor at the Center. The supervisor later drank the beer and left the empty cans at the Center when he went off duty. The following day, the supervisor, while off duty, became concerned that the unexplained presence of empty beer cans might lead to the discovery of his drinking beer while on duty. He therefore telephoned Wilson, at the Command Center, and instructed him to alter the tape for the previous day to include a false explanation for the presence of the beer cans. Wilson complied with this request.
Subsequently, an FPS official monitoring the tapes for an unrelated reason noted irregularities in them and concluded that they had been edited. GSA’s Inspector General initiated an investigation. Two special agents went to Rogers’ home and asked him to accompany them to the local police station for a “noncustodial” interrogation. The agents made detailed notes of the interview. Wilson was interviewed in the same manner. Neither was advised that he was entitled to have a union representative present at the interview, and neither requested the presence of a representative.
About a month later, the agents again interviewed the two men separately and asked them to sign affidavits prepared from the agents’ notes of the earlier interviews. The griev-ants made corrections in the proposed affidavits and then, under oath, signed them. In the affidavits, the grievants admitted their participation in the above-described incidents of wrongdoing. As before, the grievants were not advised that they were entitled to have a union representative present, and they did not request representation.
On April 2, 1982, almost three months after the incidents, GSA formally advised, the grievants that it proposed to remove them from federal service. Upon receiving written responses to the charges, GSA informed Wilson that he would be removed on grounds of falsification of records and of attempting to conceal activities of record. Similarly, GSA informed Rogers that he would be removed on grounds of falsification of records, failure to report irregularities, and use of a Government vehicle for a nonofficial purpose.
Both grievants elected to challenge their removal under the grievance and arbitration procedures established by the collective-bargaining agreement between GSA and their union, respondent American Federation of Government Employees. The union then invoked binding arbitration pursuant to § 7121(b)(3)(C). The arbitrator, respondent Nutt, found that the grievants had committed the alleged acts of wrongdoing and that this misconduct normally would justify the penalty of removal from Government service. The arbitrator also found, however, that GSA on its part had committed two procedural errors in violation of provisions of the collective-bargaining agreement. First, GSA had failed to give the grievants an opportunity to have a union representative present during interrogation. Second, GSA had permitted an unreasonable period of time to elapse between the date it first learned of the misconduct and the date it issued the notices of proposed removal. The arbitrator concluded that there was no prejudice to the grievants themselves due either to the failure to have a union representative present or to the delay in the issuance of the notices. He found, nevertheless, that the removals were not for just cause “[sjolely because of the Agency’s pervasive failure to comply with the due process requirements of the [collective-bargaining] agreement.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 38a. He therefore reduced the penalties imposed on the grievants from removal to not less than two weeks’ disciplinary suspension without pay. Id., at 39a. In addition, he required that Wilson be placed in a position in which the agency would be protected from his “demonstrated proclivity to tamper with the tape recording system.” Id., at 38a.
Pursuant to §§ 7703(d) and 7121(f), the Director of the Office of Personnel Management sought review of the arbitrator’s decision by the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See 28 U. S. C. § 1295(a)(9). The Director contended that the arbitrator had not properly applied the Act’s harmful-error rule. The Court of Appeals granted the petition for review, and it was heard by a 5-judge panel. The court affirmed the arbitrator’s decision in substantial part. 718 F. 2d 1048 (1983). It held that an arbitrator must apply the harmful-error standard of § 7701(c)(2)(A) in determining whether a grievant is personally prejudiced. The court noted that, in the present case, the arbitrator found that the grievants had not been personally prejudiced. Nevertheless, following whatxit deemed to be the lead of the decision in Devine v. White, 225 U. S. App. D. C. 179, 697 F. 2d 421 (1983), the Court of Appeals went on to hold that even though the particular grievants may not themselves have been adversely affected, the arbitrator, in making the ultimate award, could take into account significant violations of the collective-bargaining agreement that were important to the union. The court reasoned: “The union is a major (if not the major) party to the arbitration and its proper interests are to be protected, even though the interests of the particular grievants may not, alone, call for protection” (emphasis in original). 718 F. 2d, at 1054. Here, the union and the agency agreed to procedural safeguards concerning representation and notice, and these procedures effectively became union rights. Thus, “[violations of explicit and important procedural rights contained in a contract, such as these, could fairly be said to be tantamount to ‘harmful error’ to the union within the scope of 5 U. S. C. § 7701(c)(2)(A) (1982) for the purposes of collective bargaining arbitration in which the union is a proper party.” Id., at 1055. The court concluded that the arbitrator’s reduction of the griev-ants’ penalties was a proper means of “penalizing the agency” for disregarding the procedural protections of the collective-bargaining agreement. Ibid.
Because of the importance of the issue, we granted certio-rari. 469 U. S. 814 (1984).
M HH l — l
A
The harmful-error rule of 5 U. S. C. § 7701(c)(2)(A) provides that an agency’s decision that is appealable to the Board may not be sustained if the employee “shows harmful error in the application of the agency’s procedures in arriving at such decision.” Petitioner argues that “harmful error” is error that causes substantial prejudice to the rights of the individual employee by possibly affecting the agency’s decision.
The Act does not define the term “harmful error,” and the legislative history of § 7701(c)(2)(A) is inconclusive. The Act provides, however, that the Board “may prescribe regulations to carry out the purpose of [§ 7701],” the provision in which the harmful-error rule appears. See § 7701(j). Pursuant to this authority, the Board has promulgated a definition of “harmful error”:
“Error by the agency in the application of its procedures which, in the absence or cure of the error, might have caused the agency to reach a conclusion different than the one reached. The burden is upon the appellant to show that based upon the record as a whole the error was harmful, i. e., caused substantial harm or prejudice to his/her rights.” 5 CFR § 1201.56(c)(3) (1985).
The agency’s “procedures” considered by the Board in applying § 7701(c)(2)(A) include not only procedures required by statute, rule, or regulation, but also procedures required by a collective-bargaining agreement between the agency and a union. Thus, in an appeal of an agency disciplinary decision to the Board, the agency’s failure to follow bargained-for procedures may result in its action’s being overturned, but only if the failure might have affected the result of the agency’s decision to take the disciplinary action against the individual employee. At least insofar as it applies to proceedings before the Board, this interpretation of the harmful-error rule is entitled to substantial deference. See Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 844 (1984).
Respondents do not dispute the correctness of the Board’s definition of harmful error insofar as it applies to proceedings before the Board. Respondents argue, however, that an arbitral proceeding differs significantly from a Board proceeding, and that a different definition of harmful error should apply in the arbitral context. Respondents point out that an appeal to the Board is taken solely by the employee or applicant for employment, see 5 U. S. C. § 7701(a), and that the union has no statutory role in a Board proceeding. In contrast, according to respondents, the union should be considered to be a major party in an arbitration. The union and the agency negotiate the grievance procedures and the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement establishing the extent of the arbitrator’s authority. The union and the agency possess the exclusive power to invoke the arbitral process, and these parties jointly select an acceptable arbitrator. Thus, according to respondents, while the Board must focus exclusively on the rights of the individual employee, the arbitrator should take a broader view and consider the rights of the union as well. Respondents contend that the Court of Appeals therefore correctly held that “the arbitrator can take account of significant violations of the collective bargaining agreement, important to the union, even though the particular grievants may not have been themselves adversely affected.” 718 F. 2d, at 1054.
We are not persuaded by respondents’ arguments. Congress clearly intended that an arbitrator would apply the same substantive rules as the Board does in reviewing an agency disciplinary decision. Section 7121(e)(2) provides that in matters involving agency discipline “which have been raised under the negotiated grievance procedure ... , an arbitrator shall be governed by section 7701(c)(1) of this title, as applicable.” Section 7701(c)(1) incorporates by reference the harmful-error rule of § 7701(c)(2)(A). The Senate Report explains that, under this provision, “if an employee exercises the option to pursue a matter [involving agency discipline] through the negotiated grievance procedure an arbitrator must apply the same standards in deciding the case as would be applied by an administrative law judge or an appeals officer if the case had been appealed through the appellate procedures of 5 U. S. C. section 7701.” S. Rep. No. 95-969, p. 111 (1978). The version of the bill passed by the House did not contain a similar provision. The Conference Committee noted that, under the Senate provision, “when considering a grievance involving an adverse action otherwise appealable to the [Board] . . . the arbitrator must follow the same rules governing burden of proof and standard of proof that govern adverse actions before the Board.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 95-1717, p. 157 (1978). The Conference Committee “adopted the Senate provision in order to promote consistency in the resolution of these issues, and to avoid forum shopping.” Ibid.
Adoption of respondents’ interpretation of the harmful-error rule in the context of an arbitral proceeding would directly contravene this clear congressional intent. An employee who elects to appeal an agency disciplinary decision to the Board must prove that any procedural errors substantially prejudiced his rights by possibly affecting the agency’s decision. Under respondents’ interpretation, however, an employee who elects to use the grievance and arbitration procedures may obtain reversal merely by showing that significant violations of the collective-bargaining agreement, harmful to the union, occurred. In the present case, if the disciplined employees had elected to appeal to the Board, their discharges would have been sustained by the Board under its interpretation of the harmful-error rule. Because, however, they pursued the negotiated grievance and arbitration procedures, they benefited from the different interpretation of the harmful-error rule advocated by respondents and applied by the arbitrator and the Court of Appeals, and their discharges were replaced with brief suspensions. If respondents’ interpretation of the harmful-error rule as applied in the arbitral context were to be sustained, an employee with a claim that the agency violated procedures guaranteed by the collective-bargaining agreement would tend to select the forum — the grievance and arbitration procedures — that treats his claim more favorably. The result would be the very inconsistency and forum shopping that Congress sought to avoid.
B
We, however, do not rest our decision solely on deference to the Board’s interpretation of the harmful-error rule and on the clear congressional intent that an arbitrator apply the same substantive standards as does the Board. Rather, we rest our decision ultimately on the conclusion that we must interpret the harmful-error rule as does the Board if we are “‘to remain faithful to the central congressional purposes underlying the enactment of the CSRA.’” Lindahl v. Office of Personnel Management, 470 U. S. 768, 794 (1985), quoting Devine v. White, 225 U. S. App. D. C., at 183, 697 F. 2d, at 425. As noted above, one of the major purposes of the Act was to “preserv[e] the ability of federal managers to maintain ‘an effective and efficient Government.’” Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms v. FLRA, 464 U. S., at 92, quoting 5 U. S. C. § 7101(b). In order to achieve this purpose, one of the “central tasks” of the Act was to “[a]llow civil servants to be able to be hired and fired more easily, but for the right reasons.” S. Rep. No. 95-969, p. 4 (1978). In particular, the provisions of § 7701 of the Act, including the harmful-error rule, were intended “to give agencies greater ability to remove or discipline expeditiously employees who engage in misconduct, or whose work performance is unacceptable.” Id., at 51. In the present case, the grievants concededly committed improper acts that justified their removal from the federal service. Although the agency committed procedural errors, those errors do not cast doubt upon the reliability of the agency’s factfinding or decision. We do not believe that Congress intended to force the Government to retain these erring employees solely in order to “penalize the agency” for nonprejudicial procedural mistakes it committed while attempting to carry out the congressional purpose of maintaining an effective and efficient Government.
Respondents argue, however, that penalizing the Government in this manner is necessary in order to enforce the procedures arrived at through collective bargaining, and thus to promote a second major purpose of the Civil Service Reform Act — “to strengthen the position of federal unions and to make the collective-bargaining process a more effective instrument of the public interest.” Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms v. FLRA, 464 U. S., at 107. Respondents contend that if harmful error must be shown in the sense that an employee’s own case is prejudiced, then the procedures arrived at through collective bargaining really become meaningless. We find this concern overstated. Under any interpretation of the harmful-error rule, unions are free to bargain for procedures to govern agency action, see §§ 7106 (b)(2) and (3), and agencies are obligated to follow the agreed-upon procedures. If the agency violates those procedures with prejudice to the individual employee’s rights, any resulting agency disciplinary decision will be reversed by the Board or by an arbitrator.
Even if the violation is not prejudicial to the individual employee, the union is not without remedy. The Act permit.fi the union to file a grievance on its own behalf. § 7121 (b)(3)(A). The Act broadly defines “grievance” to include “any complaint... by any employee labor organization . . . concerning . . . the effect or interpretation, or a claim of breach, of a collective bargaining agreement.” § 7103(a)(9) (C)(i). This statutory authorization clearly permits the union to file a grievance alleging a violation of the procedural requirements established in the collective-bargaining agreement. The arbitrator can remedy such violation by ordering the agency to “cease and desist” from any further such violation. In addition, if the violation constitutes “a clear and patent breach of the terms of the agreement,” Iowa National Guard and National Guard Bureau, 8 F. L. R. A. 500, 510 (1982), the union may file an unfair labor practice charge with the Federal Labor Relations Authority. See §§7116 and 7118. Our holding today therefore does not prevent the union from obtaining a binding interpretation of a disputed provision of the collective-bargaining agreement or from enforcing agency compliance with that provision. We hold only that the means of compelling compliance do not include forcing the agency to retain an employee who is reliably determined to be unfit for federal service.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Justice Powell took no part in the decision of this case.
Section 7701(c)(1) reads:
“Subject to paragraph (2) of this subsection, the decision of the agency shall be sustained under subsection (b) only if the agency’s decision—
“(A) in the ease of an action based on unacceptable performance described in section 4303 of this title, is supported by substantial evidence, or
“(B) in any other case, is supported by a preponderance of the evidence.”
Section 7701(c)(2) reads:
“Notwithstanding paragraph (1), the agency’s decision may not be sustained under subsection (b) of this section if the employee or applicant for employment—
“(A) shows harmful error in the application of the agency’s procedures in arriving at such decision;
“(B) shows that the decision was based on any prohibited personnel practice described in section 2302(b) of this title; or
“(C) shows that the decision was not in accordance with law.”
Although § 7121(e)(2) explicitly refers only to § 7701(c)(1), it is clear from the language of the statute and the legislative history, discussed below, that the harmful-error rule of § 7701(c)(2)(A) is incorporated by § 7121(e)(2). See Devine v. White, 225 U. S. App. D. C. 179, 199, 697 F. 2d 421, 441 (1983). See also Devine v. Brisco, 733 F. 2d 867, 872 (CA Fed. 1984). Respondents concede that the harmful-error rule applies to an arbitration as well as to a proceeding before the Board, but they contend that the rule should be interpreted differently in the two contexts.
The supervisor involved in the incident also was discharged. His discharge was upheld by the Board.
Article XXVII, §2, of the collective-bargaining agreement between GSA and the union provides:
“The Employer agrees that during formal discussion where interrogation or written or sworn statements are taken from an employee, in connection with a charge that may result in disciplinary action against him, he will have the opportunity to have a representative present. It should be understood that counseling sessions are not formal discussions.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 22a.
The arbitrator interpreted this provision to require that the employee be advised of the right to representation before being investigated.
Article XXVII, §3, of the collective-bargaining agreement, as supplemented, provides in pertinent part:
“PROPOSED NOTICE: In the event an employee is issued a notice of proposed disciplinary or adverse action, that employee must be afforded and made aware of all his/her rights. These proposed notices shall be served on the employee(s) within a reasonable period of time (normally 40 calendar days) after the occurrence of the alleged offense or when the alleged offense becomes known to management.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 23a.
In Devine v. White, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit held that some bargained-for procedural rights are, by definition, substantial rights of an employee, and that an agency’s violation of those rights constitutes harmful error requiring reversal of the agency’s decision even absent a showing that the violation might have affected the outcome of the decision. See 225 U. S. App. D. C., at 201, 697 F. 2d, at 443. The Court of Appeals in Devine v. White therefore did not interpret the harmful-error rule to protect the rights of the union, as did the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in the present case. The decision in Devine v. White, however, is inconsistent with our decision today insofar as it dispenses with the requirement that harmful error have some likelihood of affecting the outcome of the agency’s decision.
The Court of Appeals, however, did not approve the arbitrator’s reduction of Rogers’ penalty to two weeks’ suspension, since there is a statutorily imposed minimum of one month’s suspension for the unauthorized operation of a Government vehicle. See 31 U. S. C. § 1349(b). It therefore ordered the imposition of a one month’s suspension for Rogers. 718 F. 2d, at 1055-1056.
It would be natural, however, to assume that Congress intended the term “harmful error” in § 7701(c)(2)(A) to have the same meaning that it has in the judicial context, that is, error that has some likelihood of affecting the result of the proceeding. See, e. g., United States v. Hasting, 461 U. S. 499, 507-509 (1983); Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U. S. 750, 760-762 (1946).
The original Senate version of the bill that became the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 provided that “agency action shall be upheld by the Board, the administrative law judge, or the appeals officer unless — (A) the agency’s procedures contained error that substantially impaired the rights of the employee.” See S. Rep. No. 95-969, p. 224 (1978); see also id., at 179. The Senate Report explains: “Henceforth, the Board and the courts should only reverse agency actions under the new procedures where the employee’s rights under this title have been substantially prejudiced.” Id., at 51. See also id., at 54, 64. The Senate Report does not refer directly to the application of the harmful-error rule in an arbitration. The Report, however, does state that in “the negotiated grievance procedure an arbitrator must apply the same standards in deciding the case as would be applied ... if the case had been appealed through the appellate procedures of 5 U. S. C. section 7701.” Id., at 111. Thus, it is clear that the Senate version of the harmful-error rule focused on the rights of the employee and did not suggest affirmatively that the Board or an arbitrator could take into account the rights of the union.
The Conference Committee did not adopt the Senate version. Petitioner points out that the Joint Explanatory Statement of the Committee on Conference, which explained “the effect of the major actions agreed upon by the managers” of the two bodies, H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 95-1717, p. 127 (1978), did not note that any substantive change in meaning was intended by the change in language. We decline, however, to infer congressional intent to adopt the substance of the Senate version solely on the basis of this legislative silence.
Similarly, in Parker v. Defense Logistics Agency, 1 M. S. P. B. 489, 493 (1980), the Board explained:
“Unless it is likely that an alleged error affected the result, its occurrence cannot have been prejudicial .... Stated another way, the question is whether it was within the range of appreciable probability that the error had a harmful effect upon the outcome before the agency.”
See also, e. g., Davies v. Department of the Navy, 4 M. S. P. B. 83, 85 (1980); Fuiava v. Department of Justice, 3 M. S. P. B. 217, 218 (1980).
See, e. g., Parker v. Defense Logistics Agency, 1 M. S. P. B., at 492-496.
See, e. g., Stalkfleet v. United States Postal Service, 6 M. S. P. B. 536, 537 (1981); Battaglia v. Department of Health and Human Services, 5 M. S. P. B. 212 (1981); Giesler v. Department of Transportation, 3 M. S. P. B. 367, 368-369 (1980), aff’d, 686 F. 2d 844 (CA10 1982).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has approved the Board’s construction of the harmful-error rule as applied in proceedings before the Board. See, e. g., Miguel v. Department of the Army, 727 F. 2d 1081, 1084-1086 (1984); Cheney v. Department of Justice, 720 F. 2d 1280, 1285 (1983); Shaw v. United States Postal Service, 697 F. 2d 1078, 1080-1081 (1983).
On the other hand, it is the employee who makes the initial election whether to use the negotiated grievance procedure at all, see 5 U. S. C. § 7121(e)(1), and who elects whether to seek judicial review of the arbitrator’s decision, see §§ 7121(f), 7703(a)(1). Also, by the plain terms of § 7701(c)(2)(A), it is the employee who bears the burden of showing harmful error.
In addition, Congress made arbitral decisions subject to judicial review “in the same' manner and under the same conditions as if the matter had been decided by the Board,” 6 U. S. C. § 7121(f), expressly “to assure conformity between the decisions of arbitrators with those of the Merit Systems Protection Board.” S. Rep. No. 95-969, p. 111 (1978).
See also S. Rep. No. 95-969, p. 52 (1978) (provisions of § 7701 intended “to eliminate unwarranted reversals of agency actions”); id,., at 54 (provisions of § 7701 intended to “avoid unnecessary reversal of agency actions because of technical procedural oversights”).
Respondents argue that requiring the union separately to file a grievance and invoke arbitration in order to enforce its own rights would result in duplicative proceedings. There is, however, no reason why, if the union’s institutional grievance and the employee’s individual grievance arise from the same factual situation, the two grievances cannot be consolidated by the arbitrator. The only constraint is that, under the harmful-error rule, the arbitrator may not give the employee a windfall by reversing the agency’s decision to discipline the employee in order to penalize the agency for violating rights of the union, whenever the violation had no effect on the agency’s decision.
In the present case, the union did file an unfair labor practice charge with the Authority. It alleged that “on February 4, 1982, agents of the General Services Administration (GSA) patently breached the applicable collective bargaining agreement by failing to advise unit employees during an interrogation of their right to have a Union representative/present.” App. to Reply Memorandum for Petitioner 4a. The Acting Regional Director found that it was not clear whether the collective-bargaining agreement required the agency to advise unit employees being interrogated of their right to union representation. She therefore concluded that “the dispute in this case involves differing and arguable interpretations of the contracts’ intent and meanings, and should therefore appropriately be resolved through the parties’ negotiated grievance/arbitration procedures, rather than in the unfair labor practice forum.” Id., at 6a. In a case such as this where the meaning of the contract is unclear, the union need only obtain a favorable construction of the contract and an- appropriate cease- and-desist order by filing a grievance and invoking arbitration. Any subr sequent violation by the agency would then provide a basis for an unfair labor practice charge.
Respondents suggest that § 7116(d) precludes the union from filing an unfair labor practice charge when, as in the present case, an employee initiates a grievance procedure or appeal to the Board based on the same factual situation. Section 7116(d) states:
“Issues which can properly be raised under an appeals procedure may not be raised as unfair labor practices prohibited under this section. Except for matters wherein, under section 7121(e) and (f) of this title, an employee has an option of using the negotiated grievance procedure or an appeals procedure, issues which can be raised under a grievance procedure may, in the discretion of the aggrieved party, be raised under the grievance procedure or as an unfair labor practice under this section, but not under both procedures.”
This section provides only that the same aggrieved party cannot raise identical issues under an appeal or grievance procedure and also as an unfair labor practice. It does not preclude a union in its institutional capacity as an aggrieved party from filing an unfair labor practice charge to enforce its own independent rights merely because an employee has initiated an appeal or grievance procedure, based on the same factual situation, to enforce his individual rights. See Internal Revenue Service, Western Region, 9 F. L. R. A. 480, 480-481, n. 2 (1982); United States Air Force, 4 F. L. R. A. 512, 527 (1980).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | D | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Pro se petitioner Carson Lynn Brown seeks leave to proceed in forma pauperis in order that he may file a petition for a writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, which dismissed his appeal after he failed to pay the required filing fee.
We deny petitioner leave to proceed in forma pauperis. He is allowed until November 10, 1997, within which to pay the docketing fee required by this Court’s Rule 38(a) and to submit his petition in compliance with Rule 33.1. For the reasons discussed below, we also direct the Clerk of the Court not to accept any further petitions for certiorari in noncriminal matters from petitioner unless he first pays the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and submits his petition in compliance with Rule 33.1.
Petitioner has a history of abusing this Court’s certiorari process. In 1994, we invoked Rule 39.8 to deny petitioner informa pauperis status. Brown v. Brown, 513 U. S. 1040 (1994). Undeterred by this action, petitioner has continued filing frivolous petitions with this Court. To date, petitioner has filed eight petitions over the last eight years, each of which has been denied without recorded dissent. In the instant petition, Brown alleges that certain prison officials conspired to violate his constitutional rights by, inter alia, denying him access to the courts and sabotaging his laundry, and that the District Judge below was biased against him as an “African Jew.” These claims are patently frivolous.
We enter this order barring prospective in forma pauperis filings by petitioner for the reasons discussed in Martin v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 506 U. S. 1 (1992) (per curiam). Because petitioner has limited his abuse of the certiorari process to noneriminal cases, we limit our sanction accordingly.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
It is contended here that the United States as a shipper is barred from challenging in federal courts an Interstate Commerce Commission order which denies the Government a recovery in damages for exaction of an allegedly unlawful railroad rate. Other contentions if sustained would deny federal courts all power to entertain an action by any shipper challenging a Commission order denying damages to the shipper.
During the war, existing tariffs of many railroads embodied wharfagé- charges to compensate the railroads for moving goods from railroad cars to piers and from piers to railroad cars. When the United States took over certain piers at Norfolk, Virginia, it began to perform these wharfage services for itself and requested the railroads to'make the United States an allowance for the expenses incurred in performing the services. The railroads refused to make an allowance. Upon this refusal the Government requested the railroads to perform the services' themselves. The railroads refused to perform the services.
The United States filed with the Interstate Commerce Commission a complaint against the railroads charging that exaction of pay for unperformed services was unjust, unreasonable, discriminatory, excessive, and in violation of certain sections of the Interstate Commerce Act. The complaint asked the Commission to find the cnarges unlawful. Further relief asked, under the Interstate Commerce Act, was that the Government be awarded damages (reparations) on account of the alleged unlawful exactions. The Commission found that the charges were not unjustly discriminatory, unreasonable, or otherwise in violation of the Act. Accordingly, the Commission denied reparations and ordered the complaint dismissed. United States v. Aberdeen & Rockfish R. Co., 269 I. C. C. 141 (1947).
The United States brought this action in a United States District Court to set aside the Commission order. The complaint charged that the Commission’s conclusions were not supported by its findings, that the findings were not supported by any substantial evidence, that the order was based-on a misapplication of law and was “otherwise arbitrary, capricious and without support in and pontrary to law and the evidence.” The Interstate Commerce Commission was made a defendant. The United States was also made a defendant because of a statutory requirement that any action to set aside an order, of the Interstate Commerce Commission “shall be brought . . . against the United States.” 28 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 46, now § 2322. Railroads that collected the wharfage, charges intervened as defendants under authority of 28. U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 45a, now § 2323. The'Attorney General appeared for the Government as both plaintiff and defendant. Without reaching the merits of the case, the District Court composed of three judges dismissed the cause on the theory that the Govérnment could not maintain a suit against itself. - The court also indicated its belief that a three-judge court was without jurisdiction of the suit. 78 F. Supp. 580. The case is here on direct appeal under 28 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 47a, now § 1253.
In this Court the Commission and the railroad intervenor defendants support the District Court’s dismissal for the reasons given by that court. Alternative reasons are also urged. We hold that the dismissal was error and that the case should have been considered on its merits.
First. There is much argument with citation of many cases to establish the long-recognized general principle that no person may sue himself. Properly understood the general principle is sound, for courts only adjudicate justiciable controversies. They do not engage in the academic pastime of rendering judgments in favor of persons against themselves. Thus a suit filed by John Smith against John Smith might present no case or controversy which courts could determine. But one person named John Smith might have a justiciable controversy with another John Smith: This illustrates that courts must look behind names that symbolize the parties to determine whether a justiciable case or controversy is presented.
While this case is United States v. United States, et al., it involves .controversies of a type which are traditionally justiciable. The basic question is whether railroads have illegally exacted sums of money from the United States. Unless barred by statute, the Government is not less entitled than any other shipper to invoke administrative and judicial protection. To collect the alleged illegal- exactions from the railroads the United States instituted, proceedings before the-Interstate Commerce Commission, . In pursuit of the same, objective the Government challenged the legality of the Commission’s action. This suit therefore.is a Step in proceedings to settle who is legally entitled to sums of money, the Government or the railroads. The order if valid wodld defeat the Government’s claim to that money. But the Government charged that the order was issued arbitrarily and without substantial evidence. This charge alone would be enough to present a justiciable controversy. Chicago Junction Case, 264 U. S. 258, 262-266. Consequently, the established principle that a person cannot create a justiciable controversy against himself has no application here.
Second. It is contended that the provisions of the Act making the Government a statutory defendant in court actions challenging Commission orders, show a congressional purpose to bar the Government from challenging such orders. Legislative history is cited in support of this contention. If the. contention be accepted, Congress by making the Government a statutory defendant in such cases has deprived the United States as a shipper of powers of self-protection accorded all other shippers. We cannot agree that Congress intended to make it impossible for the Government to press a just claim which could be vindicated only by a court challenge of a Commission order. See United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co., 125 U. S. 273, 279.
In support of their contention that Congress did not intend for the Government to press its claims as a shipper, the Commission and railroads emphasize the anomaly of having the Attorney General appear on both sides of the same controversy. However anomalous, this situation results from the statutes defining the Attorney General’s duties. The Interstate Commerce Act requires the Attor-r ney General to appear for the Government as a statutory defendant in cases challenging Commission orders. 28 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 45a, now § 2323. The Attorney General is also, under a statutory duty “to determine when the United States shall sue, to decide for what, it shall sue, and to be responsible that such suits shall be brought'in appropriate cases.” United States v. San Jacinto Tin Co., 125 U. S. 273, 279. See also United States v. California, 332 U. S. 19, 26-29. Nothing in the Interstate. Commerce Act indicates a congressional purpose to amend prior statutes which had imposed primary responsibility on the Attorney General to seek judicial, redress for the Government.
Although the formal appearance of the Attorney General for the Government as statutory defendant does create a surface anomaly, his representation of the Government as a shipper does not in any way prevent a full defense of the Commission’s order. The Interstate Commerce Act contains adequate provisions for protection of Commission orders by the Commission and by the railroads when, as here, they are the real parties in interest. Eor, whether the Attorney General defends or not, the Commission and the railroads are authorized to interpose all defenses to the Government’s charges and claims that can be interposed to charges and claims of other shippers. In this case the Commission and the railroads have availed themselves of this statutory authorization. They have vigorously defended the legality of the allowances and the validity of the Commission order at every stage of the litigation.
Third. 28 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 41 (28) provides that “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction . Of' cases brought to enjoin, set aside, annul, or suspend in whole or in part any order of the Interstate Commerce Commission.” The legal consequences of this order if-upheld will finally relieve the railroad of any' obligations to the Government on account of the alleged unlawful charges; the order thus falls squarely within the type made subject to judicial review by § 41 (28). Rochester Telephone Corp. v. United States, 307 U. S. 125, 131-132, 142-143; El Dorado Oil Works v. United States, 328 U. S. 12, 18-19.
The Commission and the railroads contend, however,that § 9 of the Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U. S. C. § 9, bars the United States or any other shipper from judicial review of an order denying damages in reparation proceedings initiated before the Commission.. Section 9 provides-in part:
“Any person or persons claiming to be damaged by any common carrier . . . may either make complaint to the commission ... or may bring suit . . . for the recovery of the damages ... in any district court of the United States of competent jurisdiction; but such person or persons shall not have the right .to pursue both .of said remedies, and must in each case elect which one of the two methods of procedure herein provided for he or they will adopt.”
The contention of the Commission and the railroads as to § 9 is this. A shipper has an alternative. He may bring his action before the Commission or before the courts. But he must make an election. If he elects to “bring suit” in a court and is unsuccessful, he retains the customary right of appellate review. If he elects to “make complaint to” the Commission, as the Government did, and relief, is denied, he is said to be barred by the statutory language of § 9 from seeking any judicial review of the Commission order. Under the contention the order is final and not reviewable by any court even though entered arbitrarily, without substantial supporting evidence, and in defiance of law.
Such a sweeping contention for administrative finality is out of harmony with the general legislative pattern of administrative and judicial relationships. See, e., g., Shields v. Utah I. C. R. Co., 305 U. S. 177, 181-185; Stark v. Wickard, 321 U. S. 288, 307-310. And this Court has consistently held Commission orders reviewable upon charges that the Commission had exceeded its lawful powers. See, e. g., Interstate Commerce Commission v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 227 U. S. 88, 91-93; Chicago Junction Case, 264 U. S. 258, 266. The language of § 9 does not suggest an abandonment of these consistent holdings. It does suggest that a shipper whot elects either to “make complaint to” the Commission or to “bring suit” in a court is thereafter precluded from initiating a § 9 proceeding in the other. . It may therefore be assumed that after a shipper has elected to initiate a Commission proceeding for damages he could not later initiate an original district court action for the same damages. But forfeiture of the right to initiate his claim in the court under § 9 is one thing; forfeiture of his fight under 28 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) §41 (28), now § 1336,. to obtain judicial review of an unlawful Commission order is another. Section 9’s language controls the forum in which reparation claims may be begun-and tried to judgment or order; it does not-purport to-give complete finality to a-court judgment or to a Commission, order merely because a shipper elected to proceed in one forum rather than the other. So we can find nothing in the language of § 9 that bars á court from reviewing a reparation order upon allegations by a shipper that the order was entered in defiance of standards established by Congress to determine when reparations are due.
Furthermore, the section’s careful provision for judicial protection of railroads against improper Commission awards argues against interpretation of the same section to deny to shippers any judicial review whatever. Under the suggested interpretation a shipper could recover nothing if the Commission decided against him. But a Commission award favorable to a shipper is not final or binding upon the railroad. Such an award “only establishes a rebuttable presumption. It cuts off no defense, interposes no obstacle to a full contestation of all the issues, and takes no question of fact from either court or jury. ... Nor does it in any wise work a denial of due process of law.” Meeker & Co. v. Lehigh Valley R. Co., 236 U. S. 412, 430. And see Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Weber, 257 U. S. 85, 90-91. It hardly seems possible to. find from the language of § 9 a congressional intent to guarantee railroads complete judicial review of adverse reparation orders while denying shippers any judicial review at all.
What we have said would dispose of the § 9 contention but for the argument of the Commission and the railroads that their suggested interpretation of the section is required by this Court’s holding in Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 283 U. S. 235, and other cases that followed it. In that case the Standard Oil Co., a shipper, was denied the right to judicial review of a-Commission order denying reparations. Judicial review was denied on four grounds: (1) The order in the Standard Oil case denying reparations was “negative” in form, and was therefore beyond judicial appraisal under the “negative order” doctrine. This doctrine was wholly abandoned in Rochester Tel. Corp. v. United States, 307 U. S. 125. (2) The decision in the Standard Oil case held that the Commission order was supported by substantial evidence and was not otherwise in violation of law. The Government’s claim here is that this order cannot meet that test. (3) The third ground for denial of judicial review was that having elected to test its damage claim before the Commission, Standard was precluded from judicial review. (4) A three-judge court' was an improper tribunal to adjudicate damage claims under § 9.
The Standard Oil interpretation of § 9 denying shippers any judicial review was made by a court usually careful to protect against arbitrary or unlawful administrative action. And, as shown, the court there first satisfied itself that the Commission order was not the product of an unlawful exercise of power by the Commission. Furthermore, the “negative order” philosophy, then at its peak, clearly barred review of all orders denying reparations. Consequently, the Standard Oil §9 interpretation barred judicial review of no class of Commission orders except orders already immune from such review under the “negative order” doctrine. The Standard Oil holding was thus clearly supported by and rooted in the now rejected “negative order” doctrine.
Another reason for the Court’s construction of § 9 in the Standard Oil case was that Standard’s damage claim could have been adjudicated by a district court since it involved no question as to reasonableness of rates that called for exercise of the Commission’s primary jurisdiction. The importance of this factor was emphasized by this Court in applying the Standard Oil construction of § 9 in Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Brady, 288 U. S. 448, 457-459. First pointing out that there was no question in that case “requiring the exercise of the Commission’s administrative powers,” the Court said:
“It is to be remembered that, by electing to call on the Commission for the determination of his damages, plaintiff waived his right to maintain an action at law upon his claim. But the carriers made no such election. Undoubtedly it was to the end that they be not denied the right of trial by jury that Congress saved their right to be heard in court upon the merits of claims asserted against them. The right of election given to a claimant reasonably may have been deemed an adequate ground for making the Commission’s award final as to him.”
And see Terminal Warehouse Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 297 U. S. 500, 507-508.
Thus, a crucial support for the Court’s holding in the Standard Oil and Brady cases was that the shippers in those cases could have commenced original § 9 actions in the district court. But it has been established doctrine since this Court’s holding in Texas & P. R. Co. v. Abilene Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426, that a shipper cannot file a § 9 proceeding in a district court where his claim for damages necessarily involves a question of “reasonableness” calling for exercise of the Commission’s primary jurisdiction.. The Government’s claim here does involve such a question of “reasonableness.” For the allowances exacted’ from the Government were authorized in the railroads’ published tariffs and were therefore not unlawful unless “unreasonable.” Consequently the Government here had no “right of election” between Commission and 'court that could be “deemed an adequate ground for making the Commission’s award final . ; Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Brady, supra, at 458.
Ashland Coal Co. v. United States, 325 U. S. 840, is the only case in this Court that relied on the Standard Oil decision after we had abandoned the “negative order” doctrine. Cf. Allison & Co. v. United States, 296 U. S. 546. And it is doubtful i'f the shipper in the Ashland Coal Co. case could-have sought reparations in a district court under the “primary jurisdiction” doctrine. In affirming without argument the judgment of a three-judge court in the Ashland Coal Co. case, this Court’s per curiam opinion cited two pages of the Standard Oil. opinion that support the interpretation of § 9 urged here by the Com-, mission and railroads. It is a fair inference that the ’ pages were cited for that interpretation although other grounds for the Court’s decision also appear there. One such ground was that a three-judge court is an improper tribunal for the review of such Commission orders. Another ground was that there was “nothing to suggest that the Commission acted arbitrarily or without evidence to support its conclusions, or that it transcended its constitutional or statutory powers.” The three-judge district court in the Ashland case in sustaining "the Commission order had also held that a three-judge court was not a proper tribunal and that the Commission order was supported by substantial evidence and was in accordance with law. Ashland Coal & Ice Co. v. United States, 61 F. Supp. 708, 713.
We cannot accept the Ashland Coal Co. per curiam holding nor the Standard Oil case on which it rested as requiring the interpretation of § 9 which the railroads and Commission here urge. Our acceptance of that interpretation would mean that a shipper who submitted to the Commission only a question of the reasonableness of rates could have an adverse order reviewed by a court, Skinner & Eddy Corp. v. United States, 249 U. S. 557, 562-563, while a shipper who asked for that administrative determination plus reparations could get no judicial review at all. Terminal Warehouse Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., supra, at 507-508. On any ground except the now discarded “negative order” doctrine, this would appear to be an unsupportable and totally illogical limitation of the congressional command for judicial review. See Chicago Junction Case, 264 U. S. 258, 269-270; Southern R. Co. v. Tift, 206 U. S. 428, 440. Accordingly we hold that § 9 does not irripair the right of shippers to obtain judicial review of adverse Commissión orders under § 41 (28) merely because the order is sought as a basis for reparations.
Fourth. For. reasons already stated we hold that a Commission order dismissing a shipper’s claim for damages under 49 U. S. C. § 9 is an “order” subject to challenge under 28 U. S. C. ,(1946 ed.) § 4,1 (28). .The remaining question is whether a district court entertaining such a challenge shall be composed of one judge or three judges and whether the judgment of a district court in such a case can be appealed directly to this Court.
The Urgent Deficiencies Act from which § 41 (28) was derived contains provisions for a three-judge district court to hear and determine suits brought to set aside a Commission , “order,” and authorizes judgments rendered in such cases to be appealed directly to this Court. For reasons now stated we hold that judicial review of an order denying reparations does not require a three-judge court.
. The provisions of the Urgent Deficiencies Act here considered derive from a 1910 congressional enactment creating the Commerce Court, defining its powers and providing for review of its judgments. That court was given jurisdiction of all actions to enjoin, set aside and modify Commission orders. Section 2 provided for direct appeals from the Commerce Court to the Supreme Court. The purpose of creating the Commerce Court with such direct appeals was expedition of final determination of the validity of certain types' of Commission orders. This éxpedition was sought for orders of national or widespread interest, such, for example, as railroad rate orders. Congress saw the necessity for an accelerated appellate procedure to prevent railroads from nullifying the effect of such orders in prolonged litigation. The Commerce Act itself indicated that the same expedition necessary in cases affecting the public generally was not necessary in other kinds of cases involving “local and isolated questions which arise in th,e ordinary courts.” The Act’s first section excluded from the . Commerce Court’s jurisdiction power to enforce “any order of the Interstate Commerce Commission ... for the payment of money.”
Provisions of the Urgent Deficiencies Act of 1913 abolished the Commerce Court and transferred its jurisdiction to district courts composed of three judges. In considering this Act Congress was urged to bear in mind the necessity for providing a forum that could expeditiously review Commission orders of widespread importance. .But in passing the 1913 Act Congress denied power to three-judge courts to enforce Commission orders for the payment of money. And in a case not involving reparations this Court held that orders relating merely to the payment of money are not likely to be' of sufficient public importance to‘justify use of the three-judge procedure. See United States v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 226, 233, 234-237. But cf. El Dorado Oil Works v. United States, 328 U. S. 12, 18-19; United States v. Jones, 336 U. S. 641, 647. The Urgent Deficiencies Act with 49 U. S. C. § 9, which requires enforcement of Commission reparation awards in one-judge courts, indicates the belief of Congress that such orders are not of sufficient public importance to justify the accelerated judicial review procedure.
While the Government here does not seek enforcement of a Commission order for the payment of money, the root of the controversy concerns the payment of money damages under 49 U. S. C. § § 8, 9. Had the Commission made an award to the Government it could have filed a civil suit to recover money damages under the provisions of 49 U. S. C. § 16 (2). That section provides that such a suit “shall proceed in all respects like other civil suits for damages . . —that is, before one district judge. And an appeal from a judgment in such a case goes to the Court of Appeals. The same one-judge trial and appeal procedure available for enforcement of an award order would appear to be an equally appropriate and adequate tribunal for adjudication of validity of a Commission order denying reparations. For actions to enforce Commission orders awarding reparation, and actions to challenge Commission orders denying reparations, basically involve the same parties, the same disputes, the same claims for money.damage?, and the same statutes. We think the orders in both instances should be reviewed in the same one-judge tribunal.
We have frequently pointed out the importance of limiting the three-judge court procedure within its expressly stated confines. We are confident that in holding that one judge rather than three should entertain cases challenging Commission reparation orders we interpret the congressional expediting procedure and the Interstate Commerce Act in accordance with their basic purpose.
Fifth. There remains the question of the proper disposition of this case. Three judges heárd it. This, however, is no reason for dismissal of the cause. See Stain- back v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, 336 U. S. 368, 381. If the allegations of the bill are true, the Commission’s order cannot stand. Chicago Junction Case, 264 U. S. 258, 264-266. Since the District Court did not pass on the merits of the allegations of the complaint, the cause is remanded to it for that'purpose. '
Reversed aryl remanded.
49 U. S. C. §§ 1 (5) (a), 1 (6), 2', 6 (8), 15 (13).
49 U. S. C. §§ 8, 9. The complaint also sought relief from future exactions, but prior to the Commission’s final order the piers were returned to private ownership and this prayer was abandoned.
The substance of 28 U. S. C. § 41 (28) of the 1946 United States ■Code now appears as § 1336 of the 1948 Code. The provision for judicial review of Interstate Commerce Commission orders first appeared in 1910 in an Act creating the Commerce Court'. 36 Stat. 539. Congress abolished the Commerce Court in 1913 and transferred lio district courts, the Commerce Court’s jurisdiction do review Commission orders. Urgent Deficiencies Act, 38 Stat. 208, 219-220.
The Administrative Procedure Act, 60 Sta't. 237, 243, 5 U. S. C. §§ 1001 (d), 1009, provides:
“Sec. 2. . . . (d) Order and Adjudication. — ‘Ordér’ means the whole or any part of the final disposition (whether affirmative, negative, injunctive, or declaratory in form) of any agency in any matter other than rule making but including licensing. ‘Adjudication’ means agency process fo.r the formulation of an order.”
“Sec. 10. Except so far-, as (1) statutes preclude judicial review or_ (2) agency action is by law committed to agency discretion—
“(a) Right op review. — Any person suffering legal wrong because of any agency action, or adversely affected or aggrieved by such action within the' meaning of any relevant statute, shall be entitled to judicial review thereof.”
Mr. Justice Cardozo so treated the Standard Oil holding in I. C. C. v. United States, 289 U. S. 385, 388, a case decided prior to this Court’s repudiation of the “negative order” doctrine. He there said that in denying'reparations “the Commission speaks with finality. Its orders purely negative — negative in form and substance— are not subject to review by this court or any other.” Authorities for this statement were “negative order” cases. These same eases were relied on by the court in a later case that referred with approval to the Standard Oil § 9 interpretation. Terminal Warehouse Co. v. Pennsylvania, R. Co., 297 U. S. 500, 507-508.
See cases collected in Rochester Tel. Corp. v. United States, 307 U. S. 125, 139, n. 22, and Armour & Co. v. Alton R. Co., 312 U. S. 195; Skinner & Eddy Corp. v. United States, 249 U. S. 557, 562.
The Commission argues that § 9 does authorize a shipper to initiate damage claims in a district court even though the claim necessarily involves questions upon which the Commission’s primary jurisdiction must be invoked. The railroads more cautiously say that such suits can be filed upon an initial showing1 by a shipper that it might work a hardship on a shipper .for the court to refuse to entertain the case. Both contentions run counter.to this Court’s previous cases. Particular circumstances were held sufficient in one case to justify a court in staying further judicial proceedings to await Commission action. Mitchell Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 230 U. S. 247, 266-267. The same course was followed in another case, over the Commission’s .objection, where the action was in assumpsit, and the administrative problem did not emerge until the case was in course of litigation. Tank Car Corp. v. Terminal Co., 308 U. S. 422, 432.
The “negative order” doctrine was first adopted by this Court in Procter & Gamble v. United States, 225 U. S. 282, decided in 1912. A shipper there brought action in the Commerce Court to set aside a Commission order dismissing the shipper’s complaint. The complaint was that the charges were unjust and unreasonable. The Commerce Court was asked to annul the Commission’s order of dismissal, to enjoin future collection of the charges, and to require the railroads to repay sums alleged to have been wrongfully collected from the shipper. ^The Commerce Court reviewed the action of the Commission and on the merits declined to grant the shipper the requested relief. This Court held that this “negative” order was not reviewable at the instance of the shipper. The Court’s ruling brought sharp criticism in Congress. Corrective legislation was proposed, exhaustive committee hearings were held, debate was taken to the floor of Congress. In spite of the strenuous efforts to get Congress to repudiate the “negative order” doctrine, Congress in 1913 declined, to act. But in all of the congressional hearings and debates on the subject, the critics of the Procter & Gamble “negative order” rule urged without contradiction that repudiation of the “negative order” rule would afford shippers the same judicial review of reparation and other orders then afforded to railroads. Not once do we find the argument suggested that 49 U. S. C. § 9 would bar shippers from judicial review of adverse reparation orders by the Commission, although this section was at the time part of the original Interstate Commerce Act, enacted in 1887, more .than a quarter of a century before this congressional consideration.
This Court nevertheless abandoned the “negative order” doctrine in 1938, and in doing so effectively overruled a host of prior decisions. See cases collected in footnote to Mr. Justice Butler’s opinion in the Rochester case, 307 U. S. 146, 148. The effect of today’s decision is merely to recognize that the Standarri Oil doctrine, barring judicial review to shippers, cannot stand consistently with the Rochester case which itself overruled the Procter & Gamble and other “negative order” decisions. It was therefore the Rochester case, not today’s decision, that overruled a line of ehses and granted relief where Congress had declined to afford any. H. R. Rep. No. 1012, 62d Cong., 2d Sess. 1-4 (1912); Hearings before the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Appropriations on H. R. 7898, 63d Cong., 1st Sess. 140-148 (1913); Hearings before the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Appropriations on H. R. 7898, 63d Cong., 1st Sess. 305-343 (1913); Hearings béfore the House Committee oh Interstate and Foreign Commerce onf H. R. 25596 and H. R. 25572, 62d Cong., 2d Sess. 1-298 (1912); 5,0.Cong. Rec. 4532-4537, 4542-4545 (1913).
38 Stat. 208, 219, 220 ; 28 U. S. C. §2325 (1948). See also 28 U.S.C. (1946 ed.) §47.
36 Stat. 539.
See President’s Message to Congress, 45 Cong. Rec. 7567-7568 (1910).
S. Rep. No. 355, 61st Cong., 2d Sess. 1-2 (1910).
See Procter & Gamble v. United States, 225 U. S. 282; Texas & P. R. Co. v. Abilene Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426.
Hearings before the subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Appropriations on H. R. 7898, 63d Cong., 1st Sess. 293-299, 300 (1913).
It is also significant that the new judicial code does not give a three-judge court jurisdiction to adjudicate the validity of commission orders “for the payment of money.” 28 Ü. S. C. § 2321.
United States v. Griffin, supra, 234—237; Ayrshire Corp. v. United States, 331 U. S. 132, 136-137; Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, 336 U. S. 368, 378, n. 19; Phillips v. United States, 312 U. S. 246, 250.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Under a rule adopted by the Commissioner of Social Security, in determining whether a claimant is entitled to Social Security disability benefits, special weight is accorded opinions of the claimant’s treating physician. See 20 CFR §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2) (2002). This case presents the question whether a similar “treating physician rule” applies to disability determinations under employee benefits plans covered by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA or Act), 88 Stat. 882, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 1001 et seq. We hold that plan administrators are not obliged to accord special deference to the opinions of treating physicians.
ERISA and the Secretary of Labor’s regulations under the Act require “full and fair” assessment of claims and clear communication to the claimant of the “specific reasons” for benefit denials. See 29 U. S. C. § 1133; 29 CFR §2560.503-1 (2002). But these measures do not command plan administrators to credit the opinions of treating physicians over other evidence relevant to the claimant’s medieal condition. Because the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit erroneously applied a “treating physician rule” to a disability plan governed by ERISA, we vacate that court’s judgment and remand for further proceedings.
I
Petitioner Black & Decker Disability Plan (Plan), an ERISA-governed employee welfare benefit plan, covers employees of Black & Decker Corporation (Black & Decker) and certain of its subsidiaries. The Plan provides benefits for eligible employees with a “disability.” As relevant here, the Plan defines “disability” to mean “the complete inability ... of a Participant to engage in his regular occupation with the Employer.” 296 F. 3d 823, 826, n. 2 (CA9 2002). Black & Decker both funds the Plan and acts as plan administrator, but it has delegated authority to Metropolitan Life Insurance Company (MetLife) to render initial recommendations on benefit claims. Disability determinations, the Black & Decker Plan provides, “[are to] be made by the [plan administrator] based on suitable medical evidence and a review of the Participant’s employment history that the [plan administrator] deems satisfactory in its sole and absolute discretion.” Id., at 826, n. 1.
Respondent Kenneth L. Nord was formerly employed by a Black & Decker subsidiary as a material planner. His job, classed “sedentary,” required up to six hours of sitting and two hours of standing or walking per day. Id., at 826.
In 1997, Nord consulted Dr. Leo Hartman about hip and back pain. Dr. Hartman determined that Nord suffers from a mild degenerative disc disease, a diagnosis confirmed by a Magnetic Resonance Imaging scan. After a week’s trial on pain medication prescribed by Dr. Hartman, Nord’s condition remained unimproved. Dr. Hartman told Nord to cease work temporarily, and recommended that he consult an orthopedist while continuing to take the pain medication.
Nord submitted a claim for disability benefits under the Plan, which MetLife denied in February 1998. Nord next exercised his right to seek further consideration by Met-Life’s “Group Claims Review.” Id., at 827. At that stage, Nord submitted letters and supporting documentation from Dr. Hartman and a treating orthopedist to whom Hartman had referred Nord. Nord also submitted a questionnaire form, drafted by Nord’s counsel, headed “Work Capacity Evaluation.” Black & Decker human resources representative Janmarie Forward answered the questions, as the form instructed, by the single word “yes” or “no.” One of the six items composing the “Work Capacity Evaluation” directed Forward to “[a]ssume that Kenneth Nord would have a moderate pain that would interfere with his ability to perform intense interpersonal communications or to act appropriately under stress occasionally (up to one-third) during the day.” Lodging for Pet. for Cert. L-37. The associated question asked whether an “individual of those limitations [could] perform the work of a material planner.” Ibid. Forward marked a space labeled “no.”
During the MetLife review process, Black & Decker referred Nord to neurologist Antoine Mitri for an independent examination. Dr. Mitri agreed with Nord’s doctors that Nord suffered from a degenerative disc disease and chronic pain. But aided by pain medication, Dr. Mitri concluded, Nord could perform “sedentary work with some walking interruption in between.” Id., at L-45. MetLife thereafter made a final recommendation to deny Nord’s claim.
Black & Decker accepted MetLife’s recommendation and, on October 27,1998, so informed Nord. The notification letter summarized the conclusions of Nord’s doctors, the results of diagnostic tests, and the opinion of Dr. Mitri. See id., at L-155 to L-156. It also recounted that Black & Decker had forwarded Dr. Mitri’s report to Nord’s counsel with a request for comment by Nord’s attending physician. Although Nord had submitted additional information, the letter continued, he had “provided ... no new or different information that would change [MetLife’s] original decision.” Id., at L-156. The letter further stated that the Work Capacity Evaluation form completed by Black & Decker human resources representative Forward was “not sufficient to reverse [the Plan’s] decision.” Ibid.
Seeking to overturn Black & Decker’s determination, Nord filed this action in Federal District Court “to recover benefits due to him under the terms of his plan.” 29 U. S. C. § 1132(a)(1)(B). On cross-motions for summary judgment, the District Court granted judgment for the Plan, concluding that Black & Decker’s denial of Nord’s claim was not an abuse of the plan administrator’s discretion.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit roundly reversed and itself “grant[ed] Nord’s motion for summary judgment.” 296 F. 3d, at 832. Nord’s appeal, the Ninth Circuit explained, was controlled by that court’s recent decision in Regula v. Delta Family-Care Disability Survivorship Plan, 266 F. 3d 1130 (2001). 296 F. 3d, at 829. The Ninth Circuit had held in Regula that, when making benefit determinations, ERISA plan administrators must follow a “treating physician rule.” See 266 F. 3d, at 1139-1144. As described by the appeals court, the rule required an administrator “who rejects [the] opinions [of a claimant’s treating physician] to come forward with specific reasons for his decision, based on substantial evidence in the record.” Id., at 1139. Declaring that Nord was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the Ninth Circuit emphasized that Black & Decker fell short under the treating physician rule: The plan administrator had not provided adequate justification, the Court of Appeals said, for rejecting opinions held by Dr. Hartman and others treating Nord on Hartman’s recommendation. 296 F. 3d, at 830-832.
We granted certiorari, 537 U. S. 1098 (2002), in view of the division among the Circuits on the propriety of judicial installation of a treating physician rule for disability claims within ERISA’s domain. Compare Regula, 266 F. 3d, at 1139; Donaho v. FMC Corp., 74 F. 3d 894, 901 (CA8 1996), with Elliott v. Sara Lee Corp., 190 F. 3d 601, 607-608 (CA4 1999); Delta Family-Care Disability and Survivorship Plan v. Marshall, 258 F. 3d 834, 842-843 (CA8 2001); Turner v. Delta Family-Care Disability and Survivorship Plan, 291 F. 3d 1270, 1274 (CA11 2002). See also Salley v. E. I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., 966 F. 2d 1011, 1016 (CA5 1992) (expressing “considerable doubt” on the question whether a treating physician rule should govern ERISA cases). Concluding that courts have no warrant to order application of a treating physician rule to employee benefit claims made under ERISA, we vacate the Ninth Circuit’s judgment and remand the case for further proceedings.
► — (
The treating physician rule at issue here was originally developed by Courts of Appeals as a means to control disability determinations by administrative law judges under the Social Security Act, 49 Stat. 620, 42 U. S. C. § 231 et seq. See Maccaro, The Treating Physician Rule and the Adjudication of Claims for Social Security Disability Benefits, 41 Soc. Sec. Rep. Serv. 833, 833-834 (1993). In 1991, the Commissioner of Social Security adopted regulations approving and formalizing use of the rule in the Social Security disability program. See 56 Fed. Reg. 36961, 36968 (codified at 20 CFR §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2) (2002)). The Social Security Administration, the regulations inform, will generally “give more weight to opinions from ... treating sources,” and “will always give good reasons in our notice of determination or decision for the weight we give your treating source’s opinion.” §§ 404.1527(d)(2), 416.927(d)(2).
Concluding that a treating physician rule should similarly govern private benefit plans under ERISA, the Ninth Circuit said in Regula that its “reasons ha[d] to do with common sense as well as consistency in [judicial] review of disability determinations where benefits are protected by federal law.” 266 F. 3d, at 1139. “Just as in the Social Security context,” the court observed, “the disputed issue in ERISA disability determinations concerns whether the facts of the beneficiary’s case entitle him to benefits.” Ibid. The Ninth Circuit perceived “no reason why the treating physician rule should not be used under ERISA in order to test the reasonableness of the [plan] administrator’s positions.” Ibid. The United States urges that the Court of Appeals “erred in equating the two [statutory regimes].” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 23. We agree.
“ERISA was enacted to promote the interests of employees and their beneficiaries in employee benefit plans, and to protect contractually defined benefits.” Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Bruch, 489 U. S. 101, 113 (1989) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The Act furthers these aims in part by regulating the manner in which plans process benefits claims. Plans must “provide adequate notice in writing to any participant or beneficiary whose claim for benefits under the plan has been denied, setting forth the specific reasons for such denial, written in a manner calculated to be understood by the participant.” 29 U. S. C. § 1133(1). ERISA further requires that plan procedures “afford a reasonable opportunity ... for a full and fair review” of dispositions adverse to the claimant. §1133(2). Nothing in the Act itself, however, suggests that plan administrators must accord special deference to the opinions of treating physicians. Nor does the Act impose a heightened burden of explanation on administrators when they reject a treating physician’s opinion.
ERISA empowers the Secretary of Labor to “prescribe such regulations as he finds necessary or appropriate to carry out” the statutory provisions securing employee benefit rights. § 1135; see § 1133 (plans shall process claims “[i]n accordance with regulations of the Secretary”). The Secretary’s regulations do not instruct plan administrators to accord extra respect to treating physicians’ opinions. See 29 CFR §2560.503-1 (1997) (regulations in effect when Nord filed his claim); 29 CFR § 2560.503-1 (2002) (current regulations). Notably, the most recent version of the Secretary’s regulations, which installs no treating physician rule, issued more than nine years after the Social Security Administration codified a treating physician rule in that agency’s regulations. Compare 56 Fed. Reg. 36932, 36961 (1991), with 65 Fed. Reg. 70265 (2000).
If the Secretary of Labor found it meet to adopt a treating physician rule by regulation, courts would examine that determination with appropriate deference. See Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837 (1984). The Secretary has not chosen that course, however, and an amicus brief reflecting the position of the Department of Labor opposes adoption of such a rule for disability determinations under plans covered by ERISA. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 7-27. Although Congress “expect[ed]” courts would develop “a federal common law of rights and obligations under ERISA-regulated plans,” Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U. S. 41, 56 (1987), the scope of permissible judicial innovation is narrower in areas where other federal actors are engaged, cf. Milwaukee v. Illinois, 451 U. S. 304, 317-332 (1981) (because Congress had enacted a comprehensive regulatory program dealing with discharge of pollutants into the Nation’s waters, the State could not maintain a federal common-law nuisance action against the city based on the latter’s pollution of Lake Michigan).
The question whether a treating physician rule would “in-creaste] the accuracy of disability determinations” under ERISA plans, as the Ninth Circuit believed it would, Regula, 266 F. 3d, at 1139, moreover, seems to us one the Legislature or superintending administrative agency is best positioned to address. As compared to consultants retained by a plan, it may be true that treating physicians, as a rule, “ha[ve] a greater opportunity to know and observe the patient as an individual.” Ibid, (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Nor do we question the Court of Appeals’ concern that physicians repeatedly retained by benefits plans may have an “incentive to make a finding of ‘not disabled’ in order to save their employers money and to preserve their own consulting arrangements.” Id., at 1143. But the assumption that the opinions of a treating physician warrant greater credit than the opinions of plan consultants may make scant sense when, for example, the relationship between the claimant and the treating physician has been of short duration, or when a specialist engaged by the plan has expertise the treating physician lacks. And if a consultant engaged by a plan may have an “incentive” to make a finding of “not disabled,” so a treating physician, in a close case, may favor a finding of “disabled.” Intelligent resolution of the question whether routine deference to the opinion of a claimant’s treating physician would yield more accurate disability determinations, it thus appears, might be aided by empirical investigation of the kind courts are ill equipped to conduct.
Finally, and of prime importance, critical differences between the Social Security disability program and ERISA benefit plans caution against importing a treating physician rule from the former area into the latter. The Social Security Act creates a nationwide benefits program funded by Federal Insurance Contributions Act payments, see 26 U. S. C. §§3101(a), 3111(a), and superintended by the Commissioner of Social Security. To cope with the “more than 2.5 million claims for disability benefits [filed] each year,” Cleveland v. Policy Management Systems Corp., 526 U. S. 795, 803 (1999), the Commissioner has published detailed regulations governing benefits adjudications. See, e. g., id., at 803-804. Presumptions employed in the Commissioner’s regulations “grow out of the need to administer a large benefits system efficiently.” Id., at 804. By accepting and codifying a treating physician rule, the Commissioner sought to serve that need. Along with other regulations, the treating physician rule works to foster uniformity and regularity in Social Security benefits determinations made in the first instance by a corps of administrative law judges.
In contrast to the obligatory, nationwide Social Security program, “[n]othing in ERISA requires employers to establish employee benefits plans. Nor does ERISA mandate what kind of benefits employers must provide if they choose to have such a plan.” Lockheed Corp. v. Spink, 517 U. S. 882, 887 (1996). Rather, employers have large leeway to design disability and other welfare plans as they see fit. In determining entitlement to Social Security benefits, the adjudicator measures the claimant’s condition against a uniform set of federal criteria. “[T]he validity of a claim to benefits under an ERISA plan,” on the other hand, “is likely to turn,” in large part, “on the interpretation of terms in the plan at issue.” Firestone Tire, 489 U. S., at 115. It is the Secretary of Labor’s view that ERISA is best served by “preserving] the greatest flexibility possible for ... operating claims processing systems consistent with the prudent administration of a plan.” Department of Labor, Employee Benefits Security Administration, http://www.dol.gov/ebsa/faqs/faq_ claims_proc_reg.html, Question B-4 (as visited May 6, 2003) (available in Clerk of Court’s case file). Deference is due that view.
Plan administrators, of course, may not arbitrarily refuse to credit a claimant’s reliable evidence, including the opinions of a treating physician. But, we hold, courts have no warrant to require administrators automatically to accord special weight to the opinions of a claimant’s physician; nor may courts impose on plan administrators a discrete burden of explanation when they credit reliable evidence that conflicts with a treating physician’s evaluation. The Court of Appeals therefore erred when it employed a treating physician rule lacking Department of Labor endorsement in holding that Nord was entitled to summary judgment.
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The Plan sets out a different standard for determining whether an employee is entitled to benefits for a period longer than 30 months. Because respondent Nord sought benefits “for up to 30 months,” 296 F. 3d 823, 826 (CA9 2002), the standard for longer term disability is not in play in this case.
The Plan sought review only of the Court of Appeals’ holding “that an ERISA disability plan administrator’s determination of disability is subject to the ‘treating physician rule.’” Pet. for Cert. i. We express no opinion on any other issues.
The treating physician rule has not attracted universal adherence outside the Social Security context. Some courts have approved a rule similar to the Social Security Commissioner’s for disability determinations under the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U. S. C. § 901 et seq., see, e. g., Pietrunti v. Director, Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs, 119 F. 3d 1035, 1042 (CA2 1997), and the Secretary of Labor has adopted a version of the rule for benefit determinations under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U. S. C. § 901 et seq., see 20 CFR § 718.104(d)(5) (2002). One Court of Appeals, however, has rejected a treating physician rule for the assessment of claims of entitlement to veterans’ benefits for service-connected disabilities, see White v. Principi, 243 F. 3d 1378, 1381 (CA Fed. 2001), and another has rejected such a rule for disability determinations under the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974, 45 U. S. C. § 231 et seq., see Dray v. Railroad Retirement Bd., 10 F. 3d 1306, 1311 (CA7 1993). Furthermore, there appears to be no uniform practice regarding application of a treating physician rule under state workers’ compensation statutes. See Conradt v. Mt. Carmel School, 197 Wis. 2d 60, 69, 539 N. W. 2d 713, 717 (Ct. App. 1995) (“Conradt misrepresents the state of the law when she claims that a majority of states have adopted the ‘treating physician rule.’ ”).
Nord asserts that there are two treating physician rules: a “procedural” rule, which requires a hearing officer to explain why she rejected the opinions of a treating physician, and a “substantive” rule, which requires that “more weight” be given to the medical opinions of a treating physician. Brief for Respondent 12-13 (internal quotation marks omitted). In this case, Nord contends, the Court of Appeals applied only the “procedural” version of the rule. Id., at 13. We are not certain that Nord’s reading of the Court of Appeals decision is correct. See 296 F. 3d, at 831 (faulting the Plan for, inter alia, having “[n]o evidence . . . that Nord’s treating physicians considered inappropriate factors in making their diagnosis or that Nord’s physicians lacked the requisite expertise to draw their medical conclusions”). At any rate, for the reasons explained in this opinion, we conclude that ERISA does not support judicial imposition of a treating physician rule, whether labeled “procedural” or “substantive.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 decide whether a state court may order implementation of a change in election procedure over objections that the change is subject to preclearance under §5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
I — I
Since 1960, the Louisville School District has been coextensive with Winston County, Miss. Until last December, the Louisville mayor and city aldermen appointed three of the five members of the District’s Board of Trustees, and Winston County voters residing outside Louisville elected the other two members.
In 1964, the Mississippi Legislature enacted a statute providing in part:
“The boards of trustees of all municipal separate school districts, either with or without added territory, shall consist of five (5) members, each to be chosen for a term of five (5) years, but so chosen that the term of office of one (1) member shall expire each year. . . . [I]n any county in which a municipal separate school district embraces the entire county in which Highways 14 and 15 intersect, one (1) trustee shall be elected from each supervisors district.” 1964 Miss. Gen. Laws, ch. 391, p. 563, codified, as amended, in Miss. Code Ann. §37-7-203(1) (Supp. 1981).
Winston County is the only Mississippi county in which Highways 14 and 15 intersect. Officials in that county never implemented § 37-7-203(1) because they believed the statute’s reference to Highways 14 and 15 violated a state constitutional prohibition against local, private, or special legislation.
In 1975, five Winston County voters filed an action in the Chancery Court of Winston County, seeking to enforce the neglected 1964 state statute. These plaintiffs, respondents here, named numerous Louisville and Winston County officials as defendants. The Chancery Court dismissed respondents’ complaint, holding that the statute violated Mississippi’s constitutional bar against local legislation. The Mississippi Supreme Court reversed, striking only the specific reference to Highways 14 and 15 and upholding the remaining requirement that, “in any county in which a municipal separate school district embraces the entire county,” each supervisors district must elect one trustee. Lovorn v. Hathom, 365 So. 2d 947 (1979) (en banc). The court then “remanded to the chancery court for further proceedings not inconsistent with [its] opinion.” Id., at 952.
The local officials, petitioners here, filed a petition for rehearing, in which they argued for the first time that the Chancery Court could not implement the reformed statute until the change had been precleared under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act. The Mississippi Supreme Court denied the petition without comment, and this Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari. Hathorn v. Lovorn, 441 U. S. 946 (1979).
On remand, the Chancery Court ordered an election pursuant to the redacted statute. The court set out detailed procedures governing the election, including the requirement that “[i]f no candidate receives a majority of the vote cast at any of said elections . . . , a runoff election shall be held . . . between the two candidates receiving the highest vote [in the first election].” Record 143. The court derived the latter requirement from Miss. Code Ann. § 37-7-217 (Supp. 1981), which mandates runoffs in elections conducted under §37-7-203(1). See Miss. Code Ann. §37-7-209 (Supp. 1981). The Chancery Court also agreed with petitioners’ claim that the changes in election procedure fell within § 5 of the Voting Rights Act, and directed petitioners to submit the election plan to the United States Attorney General for preclearance. Record 141, 146-147.
Upon review of petitioners’ submission, the Attorney General objected to the proposed change in election procedure “insofar as it incorporate[d] a majority vote requirement.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-8. Because of the substantial black population in Winston County, an apparent pattern of racially polarized voting in the county, and the historical absence of blacks from various local governing boards, the Attorney General concluded that the runoff procedure could have a discriminatory effect. Ibid,.
Respondents attempted to overcome this obstacle by both joining the Attorney General as a defendant and persuading the Chancery Court to hold the election without the runoff procedure. The court, however, refused to join the Attorney General and held that state law unambiguously required runoff elections. Buffeted by apparently conflicting state and federal statutes, the Chancery Court concluded that its decree calling for an election would “remain in force subject to compliance with the Federal Voters Rights Act [sic] as previously ordered by this Court.” Record 342.
Failing to obtain an election from the Chancery Court, respondents once again appealed to the Mississippi Supreme Court. That court observed that its “prior decision, which the United States Supreme Court declined to reverse or alter in any respect, became and is the law of the case.” Carter v. Luke, 399 So. 2d 1356, 1358 (1981). The court explained that because the prior decision upheld a statute referring to the statute requiring runoffs, and because both parties had agreed during oral argument to abide by the runoff procedure, the Chancery Court properly enforced the law requiring runoffs and improperly conditioned the election on compliance with the Voting Rights Act. Accordingly, the Mississippi Supreme Court reversed the portion of the Chancery Court’s decree referring to the Voting Rights Act and “remanded with directions for the lower court to call and require the holding of an election.” Ibid. We granted certio-rari to decide whether the Mississippi Supreme Court properly ordered the election without insuring compliance with federal law. 454 U. S. 1122 (1981).
II
Before addressing the federal question raised by the Mississippi Supreme Court’s decision, we must consider respondents’ assertion that the lower court decision rests upon two adequate and independent state grounds. First, respondents contend that the state court’s reliance upon the law of the case bars review of the federal question. It has long been established, however, that “[w]e have jurisdiction to consider all of the substantial federal questions determined in the earlier stages of [state proceedings],. . . and our right to re-examine such questions is not affected by a ruling that the first decision of the state court became the law of the case . . . .” Reece v. Georgia, 350 U. S. 85, 87 (1955). See also Davis v. O'Hara, 266 U. S. 314, 321 (1924); United States v. Denver & Rio Grande R. Co., 191 U. S. 84, 93 (1903). Because we cannot review a state court judgment until it is final, a contrary rule would insulate interlocutory state court rulings on important federal questions from our consideration.
In this case the Mississippi Supreme Court’s first decision plainly did not appear final at the time it was rendered. The court’s remand “for further proceedings not inconsistent with [its] opinion,” 365 So. 2d, at 952 (en banc), together with its failure to address expressly the Voting Rights Act issue, suggested that the Chancery Court could still consider the federal issue on remand. Indeed, the Chancery Court interpreted its mandate in precisely this manner. Under these circumstances, the Mississippi Supreme Court’s subsequent reliance on the law of the case cannot prevent us from reviewing federal questions determined in the first appeal.
Respondents also argue that the Mississippi Supreme Court pretermitted consideration of the Voting Rights Act because petitioners’ reliance upon the issue in a petition for rehearing was untimely. We have recognized that the failure to comply with a state procedural rule may constitute an independent and adequate state ground barring our review of a federal question. Our decisions, however, stress that a state procedural ground is not “adequate” unless the procedural rule is “strictly or regularly followed.” Barr v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 146, 149 (1964). State courts may not avoid deciding federal issues by invoking procedural rules that they do not apply evenhandedly to all similar claims. Even if we construe the Mississippi Supreme Court’s denial of petitioners’ petition for rehearing as the silent application of a procedural bar, we cannot conclude that the state court consistently relies upon this rule.
Respondents cite two cases indicating that the Mississippi Supreme Court will consider an issue raised for the first time in a petition for rehearing “[o]nly in exceptional cases. ” New & Hughes Drilling Co. v. Smith, 219 So. 2d 657, 661 (Miss. 1969); Rigdon v. General Box Co., 249 Miss. 239, 246, 162 So. 2d 863, 864 (1964). Although these opinions may summarize the court’s practice prior to 1969, we have been unable to find any more recent decisions repeating or applying the rule. On the contrary, the Mississippi Supreme Court now regularly grants petitions for rehearing without mentioning any restrictions on its authority to consider issues raised for the first time in the petitions.
One particular decision by the Mississippi Supreme Court, decided only last year, demonstrates that the court does not consistently preclude consideration of issues raised for the first time on rehearing. In Quinn v. Branning, 404 So. 2d 1018 (1981), the court held that part of a criminal statute violated the State Constitution’s prohibition against local legislation. Striking the offensive language, the court approved the rest of the statute and affirmed the underlying conviction. The defendant then petitioned for rehearing, pointing out that the affidavit against him did not allege a crime under the reformed statute. The court agreed with this contention, granted the petition in part, and reversed the conviction, all without mentioning the rule against consideration of new issues on rehearing. The striking similarity between Quinn and this case, both involving issues that the parties could have foreseen but that arose with urgency only after the court upheld part of a challenged statute, persuades us that the Mississippi Supreme Court is not “strictly or regularly” following a procedural rule precluding review of issues raised for the first time in a petition for rehearing. The denial of rehearing in this case, although not appearing sufficiently final to permit our immediate review, must have rested either upon a substantive rejection of petitioners’ federal claim or upon a procedural rule that the state court applies only irregularly. Thus, there are no independent and adequate state grounds barring our review of the federal issue.
Ill
Respondents do not dispute that the change in election procedures ordered by the Mississippi courts is subject to pre-clearance under §5. They urge, however, that the Voting Rights Act deprives state courts of the power even to decide whether §5 applies to a proposed change in voting procedures. Under their analysis of the Act, a state court asked to implement a change in the State’s voting laws could not inquire whether the change was subject to §5. Even if the change plainly fell within § 5, the court would have to ignore that circumstance and enter a decree violating federal law. Both the language and purposes of the Voting Rights Act refute this notion.
Only last Term we summarized the principles governing state court jurisdiction to decide federal issues. Gulf Offshore Co. v. Mobil Oil Corp., 453 U. S. 478 (1981). We begin, in every case, “with the presumption that state courts enjoy concurrent jurisdiction” over those claims. Id., at 478. Only “an explicit statutory directive, [an] unmistakable implication from legislative history, or ... a clear incompatibility between state-court jurisdiction and federal interests” will rebut the presumption. Ibid. Most important for our purposes, even a finding of exclusive federal jurisdiction over claims arising under a federal statute usually “will not prevent a state court, from deciding a federal question collaterally.” Id., at 483, n. 12.
Respondents rest their jurisdictional argument on three sections of the Act. Section 14(b) provides that “[n]o court other than the District Court for the District of Columbia. . . shall have jurisdiction to issue any declaratory judgment pursuant to . . . section 5 . . . 79 Stat. 445, 42 U. S. C. § 19737(b). We have already held, however, that this provision governs only declaratory judgments approving proposed changes in voting procedure. Other courts may decide the distinct question of whether a proposed change is subject to the Act. See Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U. S. 544, 557-560 (1969); McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U. S. 130 (1981).
Sections 5 and 12(f) of the Act provide somewhat stronger support for respondents’ claim. Section 5 provides that “[ajny action under this section shall be heard and determined by a court of three judges in accordance with the provisions of section 2284 of title 28 of the United States Code,” 79 Stat. 439, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c, while § 12(f) declares that “[t]he district courts of the United States shall have jurisdiction of proceedings instituted pursuant to this section.” 79 Stat. 444, 42 U. S. C. § 1973j(f). It is possible that these sections grant the federal courts exclusive jurisdiction over “action[s] under” § 5 or “proceedings instituted pursuant” to § 12. We need not resolve that question in this case, however, because respondents’ state suit fell within neither of these categories. Instead, respondents’ initial suit was an action to compel compliance with a forgotten state law. Nothing in § 5 or § 12 negates the presumption that, at least when the issue arises collaterally, state courts may decide whether a proposed change in election procedure requires preclearance under § 5.
The policies of the Act support the same result. The Voting Rights Act “implemented Congress’ firm intention to rid the country of racial discrimination in voting.” Allen v. State Board of Elections, supra, at 548. Fearing that covered jurisdictions would exercise their ingenuity to devise new and subtle forms of discrimination, Congress prohibited those jurisdictions from implementing any change in voting procedure without obtaining preclearance under § 5. Granting state courts the power to decide, as a collateral matter, whether § 5 applies to contemplated changes in election procedures will help insure compliance with the preclearance scheme. Approval of this limited jurisdiction also avoids placing state courts in the uncomfortable position of ordering voting changes that they suspect, but cannot determine, should be precleared under § 5. Accordingly, we hold that the Mississippi courts had the power to decide whether §5 applied to the change sought by respondents.
If the Mississippi courts had the power to make this determination, then it is clear that they also had the duty to do so. “State courts, like federal courts, have a constitutional obligation ... to uphold federal law.” Stone v. Powell, 428 U. S. 465, 494, n. 35 (1976) (citing Martin v. Hunter’s Lessee, 1 Wheat. 304, 341-344 (1816)). Section 5 declares that whenever a covered jurisdiction shall “enact or seek to administer any . . . standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1964,” see n. 1, swpra, it must obtain either preclearance from the Attorney General or a declaratory judgment from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Our opinions repeatedly note that failure to follow either of these routes renders the change unenforceable. See, e. g., Dougherty County Board of Education v. White, 439 U. S. 32, 46 (1978); United States v. Board of Supervisors, 429 U. S. 642, 645 (1977) (per curiam). When a party to a state proceeding asserts that § 5 renders the contemplated relief unenforceable, therefore, the state court must examine the claim and refrain from ordering relief that would violate federal law.
IV
Our holding mandates reversal of the lower court judgment. Under our analysis, the change in election procedure is subject to § 5, see n. 16, supra, and the Mississippi courts may not further implement that change until the parties comply with §5. At this time, however, we need not decide whether petitioners are entitled to any additional relief. The United States has initiated a federal suit challenging the change at issue here, see n. 8, supra, and we agree with the Solicitor General that the District Court entertaining that suit should address the problem of relief in the first instance. As we noted in Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U. S. 379, 395-397 (1971), a local district court is in a better position than this Court to fashion relief, because the district court “is more familiar with the nuances of the local situation” and has the opportunity to hear evidence. Id., at 397. In this case, the District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi will be better able to decide whether a special election is necessary, whether a more moderate form of interim relief will satisfy § 5, or whether new elections are so imminent that special relief is inappropriate. We hold only that the Mississippi courts must withhold further implementation of the disputed change in election procedures until the parties demonstrate compliance with § 5. Accordingly, the judgment of the Mississippi Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Justice Powell concurs in the judgment.
Section 5 provides in relevant part:
“Whenever a [covered] State or political subdivision . . . shall enact or seek to administer any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting different from that in force or effect on November 1, 1964,. . . such State or subdivision may institute an action in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia for a declaratory judgment that such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure does not have the purpose and will not have the effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 1973b(f )(2) of this title, and unless and until the court enters such judgment no person shall be denied the right to vote for failure to comply with such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure: Provided, That such qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure may be enforced without such proceeding if the qualification, prerequisite, standard, practice, or procedure has been submitted by the chief legal officer or other appropriate official of such State or subdivision to the Attorney General and the Attorney General has not interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission, or upon good cause shown, to facilitate an expedited approval within sixty days after such submission, the Attorney General has affirmatively indicated that such objection will not be made. . . .” 79 Stat. 439, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c.
Section 4 of the Act, 79 Stat. 438, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1973b, defines covered jurisdictions.
Mississippi Const., Art. 4, §90, provides:
“The legislature shall not pass local, private, or special laws in any of the following enumerated cases, but-such matters shall be provided for only by general laws, viz.:
“(p) Providing for the management or support of any private or common school, incorporating the same, or granting such school any privileges.”
The voters initially filed their suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi. That court stayed federal proceedings to give the Mississippi courts an opportunity to construe the state statute at issue. Record 320. In 1979, pursuant to a notice of voluntary dismissal by stipulation, the court dismissed the federal action without prejudice. Id,., at 323.
The voters also charged that the electoral system then in force violated the constitutional principle of one person/one vote. This issue is not before us.
As we have explained on numerous occasions, covered jurisdictions may satisfy § 5 by submitting proposed changes to the Attorney General. If the Attorney General objects to the proposal, the jurisdiction may either request reconsideration or seek a declaratory judgment from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. A covered jurisdiction, of course, also may seek a declaratory judgment in the first instance, omitting submission to the Attorney General. See generally Blanding v. DuBose, 454 U. S. 393 (1982); Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U. S. 544, 548-550 (1969).
At that time, the Attorney General noted, blacks constituted approximately 39% of the Winston County population but were not a majority in any of the districts from which trustees were to be elected.
The Attorney General also observed that the Louisville School District appears to be the only countywide district in which Mississippi requires runoff elections.
Shortly before petitioners filed their petition for certiorari, the Chancery Court set an election for December 5, 1981. That court, the Mississippi Supreme Court, and this Court denied motions to stay the election. See 454 U. S. 1070 (1981). On December 1, the United States filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Mississippi, seeking to enjoin implementation of the voting change involved in this case. The District Court refused to issue a temporary restraining order and has not taken any other action.
The December 5 election was held as scheduled. Although the record does not reflect the results of the election, the United States has informed us that a runoff election was held. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 10, n. 12.
28 U. S. C. §1257; O’Dell v. Espinoza, 456 U. S. 430 (1982); Market Street R. Co. v. Railroad Comm’n of California, 324 U. S. 548, 551 (1945).
The Chancellor, in fact, noted that it “would have been impossible to have submitted to the Attorney General for approval until this Court had set up the mechanics of the election, for until that was done, the Attorney General would not have the data necessary to either approve or disapprove.” Record 90-91.
Nor, of course, does our previous denial of petitioners’ petition for a writ of certiorari preclude us from examining questions decided during the first state appeal. It is “well-settled . . . that denial of certiorari imparts no implication or inference concerning the Court’s view of the merits.” Hughes Tool Co. v. Trans World Airlines, Inc., 409 U. S. 363, 366, n. 1 (1973).
E. g., Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U. S. 499, 512, n. 7 (1978); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254, 264, n. 4 (1964).
In New & Hughes Drilling Co. itself, the Mississippi Supreme Court permitted an exception to the alleged rule barring review of questions raised for the first time on rehearing. A case decided the same year as New & Hughes Drilling Co. is the most recent decision we have found that might have actually applied the procedural rule described by respondents. See Leake County Cooperative v. Dependents of Barrett, 226 So. 2d 608, 614-616 (Miss. 1969). Even that decision, however, may have rested upon a special rule involving waiver of defects in venue.
Neither the Mississippi Code nor the Rules of the Supreme Court of Mississippi embody the alleged prohibition against presentation of new issues in petitions for rehearing. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to know whether the Mississippi Supreme Court still adheres to the rule, applying it silently, or whether the court has abandoned the rule.
See, e. g., Cortez v. Brown, 408 So. 2d 464 (1981) (en banc); Cash v. Illinois Central Gulf R. Co., 388 So. 2d 871 (1980) (en banc); McKee v. McKee, 382 So. 2d 287 (1980) (en banc); City of Jackson v. Capital Reporter Publishing Co., 373 So. 2d 802 (1979) (en banc); Realty Title Guaranty Co. v. Howard, 355 So. 2d 657 (1977) (en banc); Couch v. Martinez, 357 So. 2d 107 (1978) (en banc); Foster v. Foster, 344 So. 2d 460 (1977) (en banc); McCrory v. State, 342 So. 2d 897 (1977) (en banc); Daniels v. State, 341 So. 2d 918 (1977) (en banc); Mississippi State Highway Comm’n v. Gresham, 323 So. 2d 100, 103 (1975) (en banc); Powers v. Malley, 302 So. 2d 262, 264 (1974).
In Mississippi State Highway Comm’n v. Gresham, supra, the court expressly noted that its disposition depended upon a fact mentioned for the first time in the petition for rehearing. In several other decisions, the type of question considered on rehearing suggests that it was raised for the first time by the party petitioning for that relief. E. g., Cortez v. Brown, supra; City of Jackson v. Capital Reporter Publishing Co., supra; Powers v. Malley, supra. These decisions, however, do not expressly acknowledge the novelty of the points raised on rehearing.
Respondents also contend that our decisions establish a general rule against review of questions presented for the first time in a petition for rehearing. We have recognized that, under many circumstances, “[q]ues-tions first presented to the highest State court on a petition for rehearing come too late for consideration here.” Radio Station WOW, Inc. v. Johnson, 326 U. S. 120, 128 (1945). At the same time, however, we have explained that this bar does not apply if “the State court exerted its jurisdiction in such a way that the case could have been brought here had the questions been raised prior to the original disposition.” Ibid. In this case we conclude that the Mississippi Supreme Court’s first judgment on appeal either decided the federal question on the merits, although in a manner that did not appear final, or avoided the federal question by invoking an inconsistently applied procedural rule. If petitioners had made their claim prior to the court’s original disposition, either of these circumstances would have permitted us to review the federal question.
Mississippi plainly is one of the jurisdictions covered by the statute. South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 388 U. S. 301, 318 (1966); 30 Fed. Reg. 9897 (1965). The Louisville School District Board of Trustees, like all political entities within the State, accordingly must comply with § 5’s strictures. See Dougherty County Board of Education v. White, 439 U. S. 32, 46 (1978); United States v. Board of Commissioners of Sheffield, 435 U. S. 110 (1978). It is immaterial that the change sought by respondents derives from a statute that predates the Voting Rights Act, because §5 comes into play whenever a covered jurisdiction departs from an election procedure that was “in fact ‘in force or effect’... on November 1, 1964.” Perkins v. Matthews, 400 U. S. 379, 395 (1971) (emphasis in original).
Finally, the presence of a court decree does not exempt the contested change from § 5. We held only last Term that § 5 applies to any change “reflecting the policy choices of the elected representatives of the people,” even if a judicial decree constrains those choices. McDaniel v. Sanchez, 452 U. S. 130, 153 (1981). Although McDaniel involved a reapportionment plan drafted pursuant to a federal court’s order, its interpretation of § 5 is equally instructive here. When state or local officials comply with a court order to enforce a state statute, there is no doubt that their actions “reflec[t] the policy choices of. . . elected representatives.” Indeed, if § 5 did not encompass this situation, covered jurisdictions easily could evade the statute by declining to implement new state statutes until ordered to do so by state courts. Cf. McDaniel v. Sanchez, supra, at 151 (noting that “if covered jurisdictions could avoid the normal preclearance procedure by awaiting litigation challenging a refusal to redistrict after a census is completed, [§ 5] might have the unintended effect of actually encouraging delay in making obviously needed changes in district boundaries”). In light of McDaniel, we conclude that a state court decree directing compliance with a state election statute contemplates “administ[ration]” of the state statute within the meaning of § 5.
Respondents do not claim that Mississippi law restricts the state courts' power to decide questions related to § 5.
We frequently permit state courts to decide “collaterally” issues that would be reserved for the federal courts if the cause of action arose directly under federal law. For example, the state courts may decide a variety of questions involving the federal patent laws. American Well Works Co. v. Layne & Bowler Co., 241 U. S. 257 (1916); New Marshall Engine Co. v. Marshall Engine Co., 223 U. S. 473 (1912); Pratt v. Paris Gas Light & Coke Co., 168 U. S. 255 (1897). Similarly, although state courts lack jurisdiction to entertain suits brought pursuant to § 4 of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. § 15, they often decide issues concerning the federal antitrust laws in other contexts. See, e. g., California Retail Liquor Dealers Assn. v. Midcal Aluminum, Inc., 445 U. S. 97 (1980); Bement v. National Harrow Co., 186 U. S. 70 (1902), quoted with approval in Kaiser Steel Corp. v. Mullins, 455 U. S. 72, 81-82, n. 7 (1982). See generally Note, Exclusive Jurisdiction of the Federal Courts in Private Civil Actions, 70 Harv. L. Rev. 509, 510-511 (1957).
Section 12(d) authorizes preventive relief against persons “engaged or . . . about to engage in any act or practice prohibited by” designated sections of the Voting Rights Act. 79 Stat. 444, 42 U. S. C. § 1973j(d).
At least one state court has ruled that it lacks jurisdiction over claims arising under the Voting Rights Act. Ortiz v. Thompson, 604 S. W. 2d 443 (Tex. Civ. App. 1980). See also Beatty v. Esposito, 411 F. Supp. 107 (EDNY 1976) (finding that state court lacked jurisdiction to decide § 5 issue, without explaining whether state suit arose under the Voting Rights Act).
Respondents also based their suit on the Fourteenth Amendment. See n. 4, supra.
Neither the parties nor the United States, appearing as amicus curiae, has cited any legislative history bearing upon state court jurisdiction to decide issues arising under the Voting Rights Act.
As respondents point out, state court jurisdiction to decide these collateral issues is not absolutely necessary to effectuate the Act’s scheme, because interested parties have the ability to seek relief from a federal district court. Recognition of a limited state power to address § 5 issues, however, furthers the Act’s ameliorative purposes by permitting additional tribunals to enforce its commands. It also insures that the question of coverage will be addressed at the earliest possible time, without requiring duplicative lawsuits.
We find little force in respondents’ claim that, if the state courts possess jurisdiction to decide § 5 issues arising in disputes between private parties, they will frustrate the Attorney General’s enforcement of the Act by interpreting the preclearance requirement conservatively. The Attorney General is not bound by the resolution of § 5 issues in cases to which he was not a party. City of Richmond v. United States, 422 U. S. 358, 373-374, n. 6 (1975). Common notions of collateral estoppel suggest that the state proceedings similarly would not bind other interested persons who did not participate in them. See Restatement (Second) of Judgments §68 (Tent. Draft No. 4, Apr. 15, 1977). Persons dissatisfied with a state court’s collateral resolution of a §5 issue in proceedings involving other parties, therefore, are likely to be able to litigate the issue anew in federal court.
Our holding does not prevent state courts from attempting to accommodate both state and federal interests. A state court, for example, might adopt the approach followed by the Chancery Court in this case, and order the parties to submit the proposed relief to the Attorney General. If the Attorney General registers an objection, the court might then order the parties to seek a declaratory judgment from the District Court for the District of Columbia.
For example, since the Attorney General objected only to the runoff procedure, the District Court simply might void the results of any runoff elections, permitting the candidates who gathered a plurality of votes in the general election to take those seats. We, of course, intimate no view on the best form of relief, leaving that matter to the District Court’s discretion.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mb. Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion , of the Court.
Appellee Irvis, a Negro (hereafter appellee), was refused service by appellant Moose Lodge, a local branch of the national fraternal organization located in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Appellee then brought this action under 42 U. S. C; § 1983 for injunctive relief in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. He claimed that because the Pennsylvania liquor board had issued appellant Moose Lodge a private club license that authorized the sale of alcoholic beverages on its premises,, the refusal of service to him was “state action” for the purposes of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He named both Moose Lodge and the Pennsylvania Liquor Authority as defendants, seeking injunctive relief that would have required the defendant liquor board to revoke Moose Lodge’s license so long as it continued its discriminatory practices. Ap-pellee sought no damages.
A three-judge district court, convened at appellee’s, request, upheld- his contention on the merits, and entered a-decree dedarmg-invalid the liquor license issued to Moose Lodge “as long as it follows a policy of racial discrimination in its membership or operating policies or practices.” Moose Lodge alone appealed from the decree, and we postponed decision as to jurisdiction until the hearing on the merits, 401 U. S. 992. Appellant urges, in the alternative, that we either vacate the judgment belowvbecause there is not presently a case or controversy between the parties, or that we reverse on the merits.
I
The District Court in its opinion found that “a Caucasian member in good standing brought plaintiff, a Negro, to the Lodge’s dining room and bar as his guest and requested service of food and beverages. The Lodge through its employees refused service to plaintiff solely because he is a Negro.” 318 F. Supp. 1246,- 1247. It' is undisputed that each local. Moose Lodge is bound by the constitution and general bylaws of the Supreme Lodge, the latter of which contain a provision limiting membership in the lodges to white male Caucasians. The District Court in this connection found that “[t]he lodges accordingly maintain a policy and practice of restricting membership to the Caucasian race and permitting members to bring, only Caucasian guests on lodge premises, particularly to the dining room and bar.” Ibid.
The District Court ruled, in favor of appellee oh his Fourteenth Amendment claim, and entered the previously described decree. Following its loss on the merits in the District Court, Moose Lodge moved to modify the final decree by limiting its effect to discriminatory policies with respect to the service of guests. Appellee bpposed the proposed, modification, and the court denied the motion.
The District Court did not find, and it could not- have found on this record, that appellee had sought membership in Moose Lodge, and been denied it. Appellant contends that because of . this fact, appellee had no standing to litigate the constitutional issue respecting Moose Lodge’s membership requirements, and that therefore the, decree of the court below erred insofar as it decided' that issue.
Any injury to appellee from the conduct of Moose Lodge stemmed, not from the lodge’s membership requirements, but from its policies with respect to the serving of guests of members. Appellee has standing to seek redress for injuries done to him, but may not seek redress for injuries done to others. Virginian R. Co. v. System, Federation, 300 U. S. 515, 558 (1937); Erie R. Co. v. Williams, 233 U. S. 685, 697 (1914)., While this Court has held that in exceptional situations a concededly injured party may rely on the constitutional rights of a third party in obtaining relief, Barrows v. Jackson, 346 U. S. 249 (1953), in this case appellee was not injured by Moose Lodge’s membership policy since he never sought to become a member.
Appellee relies on Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83 (1968), and Law Students Research Council v, Wadmond, 401 U. S. 154 (1971), to support the breadth of the District Court’s decree. Flast v. Cohen held that a federal taxpayer had standing qua taxpayer to challenge the expenditure of federal funds authorized by Congress iinder the taxing and spending clause of the Constitution. The Court in Flast pointed out:
“It will not be sufficient to allege an incidental expenditure of tax funds in the administration of an essentially regulatory statute. This requirement is consistent with the limitation imposed upon state-taxpayer standing in federal courts in Doremus v. Board of Education, 342 U. S. 429 (1952).” 392 U. S., at 102.
The taxpayer’s claim in Flast, of course, was that the proposed expenditure violated the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the Constitution, a clause which by its terms prohibits taxing and spending in aid of religion.
The Court in Law Students Research Council v. Wadmond, supra, noted that while appellants admitted that no person involved in that litigation had been refused admission to the New York bar, they claimed that the existence of New York’s system of screening applicants for admission to the bar worked, a chilling effect upon the free exercise of the rights of speech and association of students who must anticipate having to meet its' requirements. The Court then went on to decide the merits of .the students’ contention. While the doctrine of "overbreadth” has been held by this Court in prior decisions to accord standing by reason of the “chilling effect” that a particular law might have upon the exercise of the First Amendment rights, that doctrine has not' been applied- to constitutional litigation in areas other than those relating to the First Amendment.
We believe that Moose Lodge is correct, therefore, in contending that the District Court in its decree went beyond the vindication of any claim that appellee had standing to litigate. Appellee did, however, have standing to ■ litigate the constitutional validity of Moose Lodge’s policies relating to the service of guests of members. The language of the decree, insofar as it referred to Moose Lodge’s “policy of racial discrimination in its membership or operating policies or practices” is suflfi-ciently broad to encompass practices relating to the service of guests of members, as well as policies and practices relating to the acceptance of members. But Moose Lodge .claims that, because of the position appel-lee took on the motion to modify the decree, he in effect disclaimed any interest in obtaining relief based solely on the Lodge’s practice with respect to serving the guests of members.
Appellee in his brief on this point says: .
“[Moose Lodge’s argument as to mootness] is based upon Moose Lodge’s motion to modify the decree ... and somehow to allow it to change its operations and to. permit Irvis to be brought to the Moose Lodge’s premises as a guest. But, as Irvis pointed out in his answer to this motion . . . nothing at all would be changed even if this were done because the vice of racial discrimination arose from the privileges of membership, either those accruing to a person in his own enjoyment of them or those accruing to a person in his ability to bring a guest or guests to Moose Lodge. Nothing in the suggested modification would make repetition impossible because the fact that Irvis was' a guest was purely happenstance. Whether he be barred because no member would invite him or because he has no opportunity to become a member, the situation' remains unchanged.” (Brief for Appellee 41.)
During oral argument of the case here, counsel for appellee was asked to explain why he opposed the motion to modify made in the lower court, and he responded as follows:
“The motion to modify which would have allowed Mr. Irvis or any others tó be admitted as a guest would have done nothing to'remove the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania from the discriminatory actions of the Moose Lodge.
“That is, it still would have been a matter of being dependent upon a white member of the Moose Lodge to invite him there. It would have been a matter of no particular Negro being sure that the Moose Lodge would or would not discriminate. The. Commonweath of Pennsylvania would still be issuing that license to a discriminating private club. And I think it’s worth noting that at the time this motion to modify was being presented, the Moose Lodge was in the process, of aménding its by-laws to forbid Negroes from being guests. So, at the same time they were saying let us modify the decree so that we can -admit Mr. Irvis as a guest, their by-laws were being amended to say no Negroes can come in as guests, let alone members.
“We feel that the idea that he should then be allowed to come in as a guest through a modification of the decree does not go to the heart of the problem. It does not supply the type of redress that we think cuts through the problem of state participation or support for the discrimination of the Moose Lodge, and that is why we oppose it.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 31-32.
We are loath to attach conclusive weight to the relatively spontaneous responses of counsel to equally spontaneous questioning from the Court during oral argument. However, upon examination of this answer it reflects substantially the same position as appellee took in his brief here. While it is possible to infer from these statements that appellee is simply not interested in obtaining any relief as to guest practices of Moose Lodge if he should prevail on the merits, it is equally possible to read them as being tactical arguments designed to avoid having to settle for half a loaf when he' might obtain the whole loaf.
The mere refusal by appellee to consent to the proposed amendment of the judgment by itself could not be construed as a waiver or disclaimer of injunctive relief directed solely to Moose Lodge’s practice with respect to the service of guests. Appellee’s complaint, while directed primarily at membership policies of Moose Lodge, contained a customary prayer for other relief which was broad enough to embrace relief with respect to the practices of the lodge in serving guests of members. . The District Court in its decree used language that was clearly broad enough to include such practices, as well as the membership policies of Moose Lodge. Having thus prayed for. such relief in his complaint, and having obtained it from the District Court, nothing less than an explicit renunciation of any claim or desire for such relief here would justify our concluding that there was no longer a case or controversy with respect to Moose Lodge’s practices in serving guests of members. We do not Believe that a fair reading of appellee’s argument in opposition to the motion to amend the judgment below, or of the statements made in his brief and oral argument here, amount to such an explicit renunciation.
Because appellee had no standing to litigate a constitutional claim arising out of Moose Lodge’s membership practices, the District Court erred in reaching that issue on the merits. But it did not err in reaching the constitutional claim of appellee that Moose Lodge’s guest-service practices under these circumstances violated the Fourteenth Amendment. Nothing in the positions taken by the parties since the entry of the District Court decree has mooted that claim, and we therefore turn to its disposition.
II
Moose Lodge is a private club in the ordinary meaning of that term. It is a local chapter of a national fraternal organization having well-defined requirements for membership. It conducts all of its activities in a building that is owned by it. It is not publicly funded. Only members and guests are permitted in any lodge of the order; one may become a guest only by invitation of a member or upon invitation of the house committee.
Appellee, while conceding the right of private clubs to choose members upon a discriminatory basis, asserts that the licensing of Moose Lodge to serve liquor by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board amounts to such state involvement with the club’s activities as to make its discriminatory practices forbidden by the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The relief sought and obtained by appellee in the District Court was an injunction forbidding the licensing by the liquor authority of Moose Lodge until it ceased its discriminatory practices. We conclude that Moose Lodge’s refusal to serve food and beverages to a guest by reason of the fact that he was a Negro does not, under the circumstances here presented, violate the Fourteenth Amendment.
In J.883, this Court in The Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3, set forth the essential dichotomy between discriminatory action by the State, which is prohibited by the Equal Protection Clause, and private conduct, “however discriminatory or wrongful,” against which that clause-“erects no shield,” Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1, 13 (1948). That dichotomy has been subsequently reaffirmed in Shelley v. Kraemer, supra, and in Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, 365 U. S. 715 (1961).
While the principle is easily stated, the question of whether particular discriminatory conduct is private, on the one hand, or amounts to “state action,” on the other hand, frequently admits of no easy answer. “Only by sifting facts and weighing circumstances can . the non-obvious involvement of the State in private conduct be attributed its true significance.” Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, supra, at 722.
Our cases make clear that the impetus for the forbidden discrimination need not originate with the State if it is state action that enforces privately originated discrimination. Shelley v. Kraemer, supra. The Court held in Burton v. Wilmington Parking Authority, supra, that a private restaurant owner who refused service because of á customer’s race violated the Fourteenth Amendment, where the restaurant was located in a building owned by a state-created parking authority and leased from the authority. The Court, after a comprehensive review of the relationship between the lessee and the parking authority concluded that the latter had “so far insinuated itself into a position of interdependence . with Eagle [the restaurant owner] that it must be recognized as a joint participant in the challenged activity, which, on that account, cannot be considered to have been so 'purely, private’ as to fall without the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment.” 365 U. S., at 725.
The Court has never- held, of course, that discrimination by an otherwise private entity would be violative of. the Equal Protection Clause if the private entity receives any sort of benefit or service at all from'the State, or if it is subject to state regulation in any degree whatever. Since state-furnished services include such necessities of life as electricity, water, and police and fire protection, such a holding would utterly emasculate the distinction between private as distinguished from state conduct set forth in The Civil Rights Cases, supra, and adhered to in subsequent decisions. Our holdings indicate that where the impetus for the discrimination is .private, the State must have “significantly involved it-sélf with invidious discriminations,” Reitman v. Mulkey, 387 U. S. 369, 380 (1967), in order for the discriminatory action to fall within the ambit of the constitutional prohibition.
Our prior decisions dealing with discriminatory refusal of service in public eating places are significantly different factually from the case now before us. Peterson v. City of Greenville, 373 U. S. 244 (1963), dealt with the trespass prosecution of persons who “sat in” at a restaurant to protest its refusal of service to Negroes. There the Court held that although the ostensible initiative for the trespass prosecution came from the proprietor, the- existence of a local ordinance requiring segregation of races in such places was tantamount to the State having “commanded a particular result,” 373 U. S., at 248. With one exception, which is discussed infra, at 178-179, there is no suggestion in this record that the Pennsylvania statutes and regulations governing the salé of liquor are intended either overtly or covertly to encourage discrimination.
In Burton, supra, the Court’s full discussion of the facts in its opinion indicatés the significant differences between that case and this:
“The land and building, were publicly owned. As an entity, the building was dedicated to ‘public uses’ in performance of the Authority’s ‘essential governmental functions.’ {"Citation omitted.] The costs of land acquisition, construction, and maintenance are defrayed entirely from donations by the City of Wilmington, from loans and revenue bonds, and from the proceeds of rentals and parking services out of which the loans and bonds were payable. Assuming that the distinction, would be significant, [citation omitted] the commercially leased areas were .not surplus state property, but constituted a physically and financially integral and, indeed, indispensable part of the State’s plan to operate its project as a self-sustaining unit. Upkeep and maintenance of the building, including necessary repairs, were responsibilities of the Authority and were payable out of public funds. It cannot be doubted that the peculiar relationship of the restaurant to the parking facility in which it is located confers on each an incidental variety of mutual benefits. Guests of the restaurant are afforded a convenient place to park their automobiles, even if they cannot- enter the restaurant directly from the parking area. Similarly,. its convenience for diners may well provide additional demand for the Authority’s parking facilities. Should any improvements effected in the leasehold by Eagle become part of the realty, there is no possibility, of increased taxes being passed onto it since the fee is held by a tax-exempt government agency. Neither can it be ignored, especially in view of Eagle’s affirmative allegation that for it to serve Negroes would injure its business, that profits earned by discrimination not only contribute to, but also are indispensable elements in, the financial success of a governmental agency.” 365 U. S., at 723-724.
Here there is nothing approaching the symbiotic relationship between lessor and lessee that was present in Burton, where the private lessee obtained the benefit of locating in a building owned by the state-created parking authority, and the parking authority was enabled to carry out its primary public purpose of furnishing parking space by advantageously leasing portions of the building constructed for that purpose to commercial lessees such as the owner of the Eagle Restaurant. Unlike Burton, the Moose Lodge building is located on land owned by it, not by any public authority. Far from apparently holding itself out as a place' of public accommodation, Moose Lodge quite ostentatiously proclaims the fact that it is not open to the public at large. Nor is' it located and operated in such surroundings that although private in name, it discharges a. function or performs a service that would otherwise in all likelihood be performed by the State. In short, while Eagle was a public restaurant in a public building, Moose Lodge is a private social club in a private building.
With the exception hereafter noted, the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board plays absolutely no part in establishing or enforcing the membership ór guest policies of the club that it licenses to serve liquor. There is no suggestion in this record that Pennsylvania law, either as written or as applied, discriminates against minority groups either in their right to apply for club licenses themselves or in their right to purchase and be served liquor in places of public accommodation. The only effect that the state licensing of Moose Lodge to serve liquor can be said to have on the right of any other Pennsylvanian to buy or be served liquor on premises other than those of Moose Lodge is that for some purposes club licenses are counted in the maximum number of licenses that may be issued in a given municipality. Basically each municipality has a quota of one retail license for each 1,500 inhabitants. Licenses issued to hotels, municipal golf courses, and airport restaurants are not counted in this quota, nor are club licenses until the maximum number of retail licenses is reached. Beyond that point, neither additional retail licenses nor additional club licenses may be issued so long as the number of issued and outstanding retail licenses remains at or above the statutory maximum.
The District Court was at pains to point out in its opinion what it considered to be the “pervasive” nature of the regulation of private clubs by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board. As that court noted, an applicant for a club license must make such physical alterations iii its premises as the board may require,' must file a list of the .names and addresses of its members and employees,, and must keep, extensive financial records. The board is granted the right to inspect the. licensed premises at any time when patrons, guests, or members are present.
However detailed this type of regulation may be in • some particulars, it cannot be said to in any way foster or encourage racial discrimination. Nor can it be said to make the State in any realistic sense a partner or even a joint venturer in the club’s enterprise. The limited effect of the prohibition against obtaining additional club licenses when the maximum number of retail licenses allotted to a municipality has been issued, when considered together with the availability of liquor from hotel, restaurant, and rétail licensees, falls far short of conferring upon club licensees a monopoly in the dispensing of liquor in any given municipality or in the State as a whole. We therefore hold that, with the exception hereafter noted, the operation of the regulatory scheme enforced by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board does not sufficiently implicate the State in the discriminatory guest policies of Moose Lodge to make the latter “state action” within the .ambit of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The District Court found that the regulations of the Liquor. Control Board adopted pursuant to statute affirmatively require that “[e]very club licensee shall adhere to all of the provisions of its Constitution and By-Laws.” Appellant argues that the purpose of this provision “is purely and simpiy and plainly the prevention of subterfuge,” pointing out that the bona fides of a private club, as opposed to a place of public accommodation masquerading as a private club,' is a matter with which the State Liquor Control Board may legitimately concern itself. Appellee concedes this to be the case, and expresses disagreement with the District Court on this point. There can be no doubt that the label “private club” can be and has been used to evade both regulations of state and local liquor authorities, and statutes requiring ' places of public accommodation to serve all persons without regard to race, color, religion, or national origin. This Court in Daniel v. Paul, 395 U. S. 298 (1969), had occasion to address this issue in connection with the application of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 243, 42 U. S. C. § 2000a et seq.
The effect of this particular regulation on Moose Lodge under the provisions of the constitution placed in the record in the court below would be to place state sanctions behind its discriminatory membership rules, but not behind its guest practices, which were not embodied in the constitution of the lodge. Had there been no change in the relevant circumstances since the making of the record in the District Court, our holding in Part I of this opinion that appellee has standing to challenge only the guest practices of Moose Lodge would have a bearing on our disposition of this issue. Appellee stated upon oral argument, though, and Moose Lodge conceded in its brief that the bylaws of the Supreme Lodge have been altered since the lower court decision to make applicable to guests the same sort of racial restrictions as are presently applicable to members.
Even though the. Liquor Control Board regulation in question is neutral in its terms, the result of its application in a case where the constitution and bylaws of á club required racial discrimination would be to invoke the sanctions of the State to enforce a concededly discriminatory private rule. State action, for purposes of the Equal Protection Clause, may emanate from rulings of administrative and regulatory agencies as well as from legislative or judicial action. Robinson v. Florida, 378 U. S. 153, 156 (1964). Shelley v. Kraemer, 334 U. S. 1 (1948), makes it clear that the application of state sanctions to enforce such a rule would violate the Fourteenth Amendment: Although the record before us is not as clear as one would like, appellant has not persuaded us that the District Court should have denied any and all relief.
Appellee was entitled to a decree enjoining the enforcement of § 113.09 of the regulations promulgated by the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board, insofar as that regulation requires compliance by Moose Lodge with provisions of its constitution and bylaws containing racially discriminatory provisions. He was entitled to no more. The judgment of the District Court is reversed, and the cause remanded with instructions to enter a decree in conformity with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Our recent opinion in Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U. S. 727, referred to a similar relationship between the standing of the plaintiff and the argument of which he might avail himself where judicial review of agency action is sought.' Id., at 737.
The Pennsylvania courts have found that Local 107 is not a . “place of public accommodation" within the terms of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act, Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 43, § 951 et seq. (1964). Pennsylvania Human Relations Comm’n v. The Loyal Order of Moose, Lodge No. 107, Ct. Common Pleas, Dauphin County, aff’d, 220 Pa. Super. 356, 286 A. 2d 374 (1971).
Unlike the situation in Public Utilities Comm’n v. Poliak, 343 U. S. 451 (1952), where the regulatory agency had affirmatively approved- the practice of the regulated entity after full investigation, the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board has neither approved nor endorsed the racially discriminatory practices of Moose Lodge.
Regulations of the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board § 113.09 (June 1970 ed.).
Brief for Appellant 10.
Section 92.1 of the General Laws of the Loyal Order of Moose presently provides in relevant part as follows:
“Sec. 92.1 — To Prevent Admission of Non Members — There shall •never at any.time be admitted to any social club or home maintained or operated by any lodge, any person who is not a member of some lodge in good standing. The House Committee may grant guest privileges to persons who are eligible for membership in the fraternity consistent with governmental laws and regulations. A member shall accompany such guest and shall be responsible for the actions of said guest, and upon the member leaving, the guest must also leave. It is the duty of each member of the Order when so requested to submit for inspection his receipt for dues to any member of any House Committee or its authorized employee.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Petitioners, the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services and its Secretary, seek review of a decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit ordering them to make payments to various nursing homes. These payments represent the amount that Florida was found to have underpaid these nursing homes in the course of its Medicaid reimbursements from July 1, 1976, to October 18, 1977. Because we conclude that the court below misapplied the prevailing standard for finding a waiver of the State’s immunity under the Eleventh Amendment, we grant a writ of certiorari and reverse.
I
In 1972, Congress amended the Medicaid Program to provide that every “skilled nursing facility and intermediate care facility” must be reimbursed by participating States on a “cost related basis.” 86 Stat. 1426, 42 U. S. C. § 1396a (a) (13)(E). This amendment was to take effect on July 1, 1976, ibid., and had the effect of altering some reimbursement arrangements based on “flat rates” established by the States. Regulations implementing this change were not promulgated by the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) until 1976. As a result, the regulations provided that HEW would not enforce the new “cost related” reimbursement requirement until January 1, 1978. 46 CFR §250.30 (a)(3) (iv) (1976).
In March 1977, respondents, an association of Florida nursing homes and various individual nursing homes in southern Florida, brought suit in federal court against the Secretary of HEW and petitioners. They argued that the delay in enforcement created by the implementing regulations was inconsistent with the statutory directive that cost-related reimbursements begin on July 1, 1976. In addition to prospective relief, they sought retroactive relief in the form of payments by the State of the difference between the reimbursement they had received since July 1, 1976, and the amounts they would have received under a cost-related system. The United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida held the regulations invalid, relying on its previous decision in Golden Isles Convalescent Center, Inc. v. Califano, 442 F. Supp. 201 (1977), aff’d, 616 F. 2d 1355 (CA5), cert. denied sub nom. Taylor v. Golden Isles Con valescent Center, Inc., 449 U. S. 872 (1980). These two cases were consolidated for consideration of the availability of retroactive relief, and the District Court held that such relief was barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the ruling that the regulations were invalid, but reversed the District Court’s determination that retroactive relief was barred by the Eleventh Amendment. 616 F. 2d 1355 (1980). The court acknowledged that retroactive monetary relief against a State in federal court is forbidden by the Eleventh Amendment “if not consented to by the state.” Id., at 1362. It found the requisite consent, however, based on two acts of the State. First, Florida law provides that the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services is a “body corporate” with the capacity to “sue and be sued,” Fla. Stat. § 402.34 (1979). 616 F. 2d, at 1363. In addition to this general waiver of sovereign immunity, the court found a specific waiver of the Eleventh Amendment’s immunity from suit in federal court in an agreement under the Medicaid Program in which the Department agreed to “recognize and abide by all State and Federal Laws, Regulations, and Guidelines applicable to participation in and administration of, the Title XIX Medicaid Program.” Ibid. “By contracting with appellants to be bound by all federal laws applicable to the Medicaid program, the state has expressly waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity and consented to suit in federal court regarding any action by providers alleging a breach of these laws.” Ibid.
II
The analysis in this case is controlled by our decision in Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651 (1974). There we applied the Eleventh Amendment to retroactive grants of welfare benefits and discussed the proper standard for a waiver of this immunity by a State. On the latter issue we stated that “we will find waiver only where stated 'by the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the text as [will] leave no room for any other reasonable construction.’ ” Id., at 673, quoting Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co., 213 U. S. 151, 171 (1909). We added that the “mere fact that a State participates in a program through which the Federal Government provides assistance for the operation by the State of a system of public aid is not sufficient to establish consent on the part of the State to be sued in the federal courts.” 415 U. S., at 673.
The holding below, finding a waiver in this case, cannot be reconciled with the principles set out in Edelman. As the Court of Appeals recognized, the State’s general waiver of sovereign immunity for the Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services “does not constitute a waiver by the state of its constitutional immunity under the Eleventh Amendment from suit in federal court.” 616 F. 2d, at 1363. See Smith v. Reeves, 178 U. S. 436, 441 (1900). And the fact that the Department agreed explicitly to obey federal law in administering the program can hardly be deemed an express waiver of Eleventh Amendment immunity. This agreement merely stated a customary condition for any participation in a federal program by the State, and Edelman already established that neither such participation in itself, nor a concomitant agreement to obey federal law, is sufficient to waive the protection of the Eleventh Amendment. 415 U. S., at 673-674.
We therefore reverse the decision below.
It is so ordered.
Justice Marshall dissents and would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals, substantially for the reasons stated in his dissent in Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 688 (1974).
Justice Blackmun also dissents and would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals substantially for the reasons stated in Justice Marshall’s dissent in Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 688 (1974).
In a commentary accompanying the new regulations, the Secretary noted that no States would be able to accumulate needed data in time to meet the statutory deadline of July 1, 1976. For this reason, cost-related reimbursement was not required under the regulations until January 1, 1978, but the States were “encouraged to meet each requirement of the regulations as soon as possible.” 41 Fed. Reg. 27305 (1976).
The Golden Isles case and this case remained consolidated on appeal. The decision below, however, produced two separate petitions for cer-tiorari. The first, Taylor v. Golden Isles Convalescent Center, Inc., cert. denied, 449 U. S. 872 (1980), involved jurisdictional and venue issues. The present petition relates only to the availability of retroactive relief.
Petitioners argue that under Florida law a waiver of immunity can only be accomplished by a state statute. See Fla. Const., Art. 10, § 13. No such waiver is present here.
In addition, it is worth noting that in October 1976 Congress repealed a provision requiring States participating in Medicaid to waive their Eleventh Amendment immunity. Pub. L. 94-552, 90 Stat. 2540. This repeal was made retroactive to January 1, 1976.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
In this case we are called upon to determine the meaning of the word “burglary” as it is used in § 1402 of Subtitle I (the Career Criminals Amendment Act of 1986) of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, 18 U. S. C. § 924(e). This statute provides a sentence enhancement for a defendant who is convicted under 18 U. S. C. § 922(g) (unlawful possession of a firearm) and who has three prior convictions for specified types of offenses, including “burglary.”
H-i
Under 18 U. S. C. § 922(g)(1), it is unlawful for a person who has been convicted previously for a felony to possess a firearm. A defendant convicted for a violation of § 922(g)(1) is subject to the sentence-enhancement provision at issue, § 924(e):
“(1) In the case of a person who violates section 922(g) of this title and has three previous convictions by any court... for a violent felony or a serious drug offense, or both... such person shall be fined not more than $25,000 and imprisoned not less than fifteen years....
“(2) As used in this subsection—
“(B) the term ‘violent felony’ means any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year... that—
“(i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another; or
“(ii) is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.”
In January 1988, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri, petitioner Arthur Lajuane Taylor pleaded guilty to one count of possession of a firearm by a convicted felon, in violation of § 922(g)(1). At the time of his plea, Taylor had four prior convictions. One was for robbery, one was for assault, and the other two were for second-degree burglary under Missouri law.
The Government sought sentence enhancement under § 924(e). Taylor conceded that his robbery and assault convictions properly could be counted as two of the three prior convictions required for enhancement, because they involved the use of physical force against persons, under § 924(e)(2) (B)(i). Taylor contended, however, that his burglary convictions should not count for enhancement, because they did not involve “conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another,” under § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). His guilty plea was conditioned on the right to appeal this issue. The District Court, pursuant to § 924(e)(1), sentenced Taylor to 15 years’ imprisonment without possibility of parole.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, by a divided vote, affirmed Taylor’s sentence. It ruled that, because the word “burglary” in § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) “means ‘burglary’ however a state chooses to define it,” the District Court did not err in using Taylor’s Missouri convictions for second-degree burglary to enhance his sentence. 864 F. 2d 625, 627 (1989). The majority relied on their court’s earlier decision in United States v. Portwood, 857 F. 2d 1221 (1988), cert. denied, 490 U. S. 1069 (1989). We granted certiorari, 493 U. S. 889 (1989), to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals concerning the definition of burglary for purposes of § 924(e).
The word “burglary” has not been given a single accepted meaning by the state courts; the criminal codes of the States define burglary in many different ways. See United States v. Hill, 863 F. 2d 1575, 1582, and n. 5 (CA11 1989) (surveying a number of burglary statutes). On the face of the federal enhancement provision, it is not readily apparent whether Congress intended “burglary” to mean whatever the State of the defendant’s prior conviction defines as burglary, or whether it intended that some uniform definition of burglary be applied to all cases in which the Government seeks a § 924(e) enhancement. And if Congress intended that a uniform definition of burglary be applied, was that definition to be the traditional common-law definition, or one of the broader “generic” definitions articulated in the Model Penal Code and in a predecessor statute to § 924(e), or some other definition specifically tailored to the purposes of the enhancement statute?
p-H HH
Before examining these possibilities, we think it helpful to review the background of § 924(e). Six years ago, Congress enacted the first version of the sentence-enhancement provision. Under the Armed Career Criminal Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-473, ch. 18, 98 Stat. 2185, 18 U. S. C. App. § 1202(a) (1982 ed., Supp. Ill) (repealed in 1986 by Pub. L. 99-308, § 104(b), 100 Stat. 459), any convicted felon found guilty of possession of a firearm, who had three previous convictions “for robbery or burglary,” was to receive a mandatory minimum sentence of imprisonment for 15 years. Burglary was defined in the statute itself as “any felony consisting of entering or remaining surreptitiously within a building that is property of another with intent to engage in conduct constituting a Federal or State offense.” § 1202(c)(9).
The Act was intended to supplement the States’ law enforcement efforts against “career” criminals. The House Report accompanying the Act explained that a “large percentage” of crimes of theft and violence “are committed by a very small percentage of repeat offenders,” and that robbery and burglary are the crimes most frequently committed by these career criminals. H. R. Rep. No. 98-1073, pp. 1, 3 (1984) (H. Rep.); see also S. Rep. No. 98-190, p. 5 (1983) (S. Rep.). The House Report quoted the sponsor of the legislation, Senator Specter, who found burglary one of the “most damaging crimes to society” because it involves “invasion of [victims’] homes or workplaces, violation of their privacy, and loss of their most personal and valued possessions.” H. Rep., at 3. Similarly, the Senate Report stated that burglary was included because it is one of “the most common violent street crimes,” and “[wjhile burglary is sometimes viewed as a non-violent crime, its character can change rapidly, depending on the fortuitous presence of the occupants of the home when the burglar enters, or their arrival while he is still on the premises.” S. Rep., at 4-5.
The only explanation of why Congress chose the specific definition of burglary included in § 1202 appears in the Senate Report:
“Because of the wide variation among states and localities in the ways that offenses are labeled, the absence of definitions raised the possibility that culpable offenders might escape punishment on a technicality. For instance, the common law definition of burglary includes a requirement that the offense be committed during the nighttime and with respect to a dwelling. However, for purposes of this Act, such limitations are not appropriate. Furthermore, in terms of fundamental fairness, the Act should ensure, to the extent that it is consistent with the prerogatives of the States in defining their own offenses, that the same type of conduct is punishable on the Federal level in all cases.” S. Rep., at 20.
In 1986, § 1202 was recodified as 18 U. S. C. § 924(e) by the Firearms Owners’ Protection Act, Pub. L. 99-308, § 104, 100 Stat. 458. The definition of burglary was amended slightly, by replacing the words “any felony” with “any crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year and....”
Only five months later, § 924(e) again was amended, into its present form, by § 1402 of Subtitle I (the Career Criminals Amendment Act of 1986) of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1986, 100 Stat. 3207-39. This amendment effected three changes that, taken together, give rise to the problem presented in this case. It expanded the predicate offenses triggering the sentence enhancement from “robbery or burglary” to “a violent felony or a serious drug offense”; it defined the term “violent felony” to include “burglary”; and it deleted the pre-existing definition of burglary.
The legislative history is silent as to Congress’ reason for deleting the definition of burglary. It does reveal, however, the general purpose and approach of the Career Criminals Amendment Act of 1986. Two bills were proposed; from these the current statutory language emerged as a compromise. The first bill, introduced in the Senate by Senator Specter and in the House by Representative Wyden, provided that any “crime of violence” would count toward the three prior convictions required for a sentence enhancement, and defined “crime of violence” as “an offense that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person or property of another,” or any felony “that, by its nature, involves a substantial risk that physical force against the person or property of another may be used in the course of committing the offense.” S. 2312, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. (1986); H. R. 4639, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. (1986). The second bill, introduced in the House by Representatives Hughes and McCollum, took a narrower approach, restricting the crimes that would count toward enhancement to “any State or Federal felony that has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another.” H. R. 4768, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. (1986).
When Senator Specter introduced S. 2312 in the Senate, he stated that since the enhancement provision had been in effect for a year and a half, and “has been successful with the basic classification of robberies and burglaries as the definition for ‘career criminal,’ the time has come to broaden that definition so that we may have a greater sweep and more' effective use of this important statute.” 132 Cong. Rec. 7697 (1986). Similarly, during the House and Senate hearings on the bills, the witnesses reiterated the concerns that prompted the original enactment of the enhancement provision in 1984: the large proportion of crimes committed by a small number of career offenders, and the inadequacy of state prosecutorial resources to address this problem. See Armed Career Criminal Legislation: Hearing on H. R. 4639 and H. R. 4768 before the Subcommittee on Crime of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. (1986) (House Hearing); Armed Career Criminal Act Amendments: Hearing on S. 2312 before the Subcommittee on Criminal Law of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. (1986) (Senate Hearing). The issue under consideration was uniformly referred to as “expanding” the range of predicate offenses. House Hearing, at 8 (“[A]ll of us want to see the legislation expanded to other violent offenders and career drug dealers”) (statement of Rep. Wyden); id., at 11 (“I think we can all agree that we should expand the predicate offenses”) (statement of Rep. Hughes); id., at 14 (statement of Deputy Assistant Attorney General James Knapp); id., at 32-33 (statement of Bruce Lyons, President-elect of National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers); id., at 44 (statement of Sen. Specter); Senate Hearing, at 1 (“The time seems ripe in many quarters, including the Department of Justice, to expand the armed career criminal bill to include other offenses”) (statement of Sen. Specter); id., at 15 (statement of United States Attorney Edward S. G. Dennis, Jr.); id., at 20 (statement of David Dart Queen of the Department of the Treasury); id., at 49 and 55 (statement of Ronald D. Castille, District Attorney, Philadelphia).
Witnesses criticized the narrower bill, H. R. 4768, for excluding property crimes, pointing out that some such crimes present a serious risk of harm to persons, and that the career offenders at whom the enhancement provision is aimed often specialize in property crimes, especially burglary. See House Hearing, at 9 and 12 (“I would hope... that at least some violent felonies against property could be included”; “people... make a full-time career and commit hundreds of burglaries”) (statements of Rep. Wyden); id., at 49-53 (statement of Mr. Castille). The testimony of Mr. Knapp focused specifically on whether the enhancement provision should include burglary as a predicate offense. He criticized H. R. 4768 for excluding “such serious felonies against property as most burglary offenses” and thus “inadvertently narrow[ing] the scope of the present Armed Career Criminal Act,” and went on to say:
“Now the question has been raised, well, what crimes against property should be included? We think, burglary, of course; arson; extortion; and various explosives offenses....
“The one problem I see in using a specific generic term like burglary or arson — that’s fine for those statutes — but a lot of these newer explosive offenses don’t have a single generic term that covers them, and that is something that the committee may want to be very careful about in coming up with the final statutory language.
“It is these crimes against property — which are inherently dangerous —that we think should be considered as predicate offenses.” House Hearing, at 15.
In response to a question by Representative Hughes as to the justification for retaining burglary as a predicate offense, Mr. Knapp explained that “your typical career criminal is most likely to be a burglar,” and that “even though injury is not an element of the offense, it is a potentially very dangerous offense, because when you take your very typical residential burglary or even your professional commercial burglary, there is a very serious danger to people who might be inadvertently found on the premises.” Id., at 26. He qualified his remarks, however, by saying: “Obviously, we would not consider, as prior convictions, what I would call misdemeanor burglaries, or your technical burglaries, or anything like that.” Ibid.
Representative Hughes put the same question to the next witness, Mr. Lyons. The witness replied:
“When you use burglary, burglary is going back to really what the original legislative history and intent was, to get a hold of the profit motive and to the recidivist armed career criminal. The NACDL really has no problem with burglary as a predicate offense.” Id., at 38.
In his prepared statement for the Subcommittee, the witness had noted that H. R. 4768 “would not appear to encompass... burglary,” and that “[i]f the Subcommittee concludes that it can accept no retreat from current law, we would suggest that the preservation of burglary as a prior offense be accomplished simply by retaining ‘burglary’... rather than by substituting for it the all-inclusive ‘crime of violence’ definition proposed in H. R. 4639.” House Hearing, at 34.
H. R. 4639, on the other hand, was seen as too broad. See id., at 11 (“[I]t is important to prioritize offenses”) (statement of Rep. Hughes); id., at 16 (“[T]he answer probably lies somewhere between the two bills”) (statement of Mr. Knapp). The hearing concluded with a statement by Representative Hughes, a sponsor of the narrower bill, H. R. 4768:
“Frankly, I think on the question of burglaries, I can see the arguments both ways. We have.already included burglaries.
“My leanings would be to leave it alone; it is in the existing law; it was the existing statute. We can still be specific enough. We are talking about burglaries that probably are being carried out by an armed criminal, because the triggering mechanism is that they possess a weapon.... So we are not talking about the average run-of-the-mill burglar necessarily, we are talking about somebody who also illegally possesses or has been transferred a firearm.” House Hearing, at 41.
After the House hearing, the Subcommittee drafted a compromise bill, H. R. 4885. This bill included “violent felony” as a predicate offense, and provided that
“the term ‘violent felony’ means any crime punishable by imprisonment for a term exceeding one year that —
“(i) has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of force against the person of another; or “(ii) involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.”
H. R. 4885 was favorably reported by the House Committee on the Judiciary. H. R. Rep. No. 99-849 (1986). The Report explained:
“The Subcommittee on Crime held a hearing... to consider whether it should expand the predicate offenses (robbery and burglary) in existing law in order to add to its effectiveness. At this hearing a consensus developed in support of an expansion of the predicate offenses to include serious drug trafficking offenses... and violent felonies, generally. This concept was encompassed in H. R. 4885 by deleting the specific predicate offenses for robbery and burglary and adding as predicate offenses [certain drug offenses] and violent felonies....
“The other major question involved in these hearings was as to what violent felonies involving physical force against property should be included in the definition of ‘violent’ felony. The Subcommittee agreed to add the crimes punishable for a term exceeding one year that involve conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to others. This will add State and Federal crimes against property such as burglary, arson, extortion, use of explosives and similar crimes as predicate offenses where the conduct involved presents a serious risk of injury to a person” (emphasis in original). Id., at 3.
The provision as finally enacted, however, added to the above-quoted subsection (ii) the phrase that is critical in this case: “... is burglary, arson, or extortion, involves use of explosives, or otherwise involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” 18 U. S. C. § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii) (emphasis added).
Some useful observations may be drawn. First, throughout the history of the enhancement provision, Congress focused its efforts on career offenders — those who commit a large number of fairly serious crimes as their means of livelihood, and who, because they possess weapons, present at least a potential threat of harm to persons. This concern was not limited to offenders who had actually been convicted of crimes of violence against persons. (Only H. R. 4768, rejected by the House Subcommittee, would have restricted the predicate offenses to crimes actually involving violence against persons.)
The legislative history also indicates that Congress singled out burglary (as opposed to other frequently committed property crimes such as larceny and auto theft) for inclusion as a predicate offense, both in 1984 and in 1986, because of its inherent potential for harm to persons. The fact that an offender enters a building to commit a crime often creates the possibility of a violent confrontation between the offender and an occupant, caretaker, or some other person who comes to investigate. And the offender’s own awareness of this possibility may mean that he is prepared to use violence if necessary to carry out his plans or to escape. Congress apparently thought that all burglaries serious enough to be punishable by imprisonment for more than a year constituted a category of crimes that shared this potential for violence and that were likely to be committed by career criminals. There never was any proposal to limit the predicate offense to some special subclass of burglaries that might be especially dangerous, such as those where the offender is armed, or the building is occupied, or the crime occurs at night.
Second, the enhancement provision always has embodied a categorical approach to the designation of predicate offenses. In the 1984 statute, “robbery” and “burglary” were defined in the statute itself, not left to the vagaries of state law. See 18 U. S. C. App. §§ 1202(c)(8) and (9) (1982 ed., Supp. III). Thus, Congress intended that the enhancement provision be triggered by crimes having certain specified elements, not by crimes that happened to be labeled “robbery” or “burglary” by the laws of the State of conviction. Each of the proposed versions of the 1986 amendment carried forward this categorical approach, extending the range of predicate offenses to all crimes having certain common characteristics — the use or threatened use of force, or the risk that force would be used — regardless of how they were labeled by state law.
Third, the 1984 definition of burglary shows that Congress, at least at that time, had in mind a modern “generic” view of burglary, roughly corresponding to the definitions of burglary in a majority of the States’ criminal codes. See United States v. Hill, 863 F. 2d, at 1582, n. 5. In adopting this definition, Congress both prevented offenders from invoking the arcane technicalities of the common-law definition of burglary to evade the sentence-enhancement provision, and protected offenders from the unfairness of having enhancement depend upon the label employed by the State of conviction. See S. Rep., at 20.
Nothing in the legislative history of the 1986 amendment shows that Congress was dissatisfied with the 1984 definition. All the testimony and reports read as if the meaning of burglary was undisputed. The debate at the 1986 hearings centered upon whether any property crimes should be included as predicate offenses, and if so, which ones. At the House hearing, the Subcommittee reached a consensus that at least some property crimes, including burglary, should be included, but again there was no debate over the proper definition of burglary. The compromise bill, H. R. 4885, apparently was intended to include burglary, among other serious property offenses, by implication, as a crime that “involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” The language added to H. R. 4885 before its enactment seemingly was meant simply to make explicit the provision’s implied coverage of crimes such as burglary.
The legislative history as a whole suggests that the deletion of the 1984 definition of burglary may have been an inadvertent casualty of a complex drafting process. In any event, there is nothing in the history to show that Congress intended in 1986 to replace the 1984 “generic” definition of burglary with something entirely different. Although the omission of a pre-existing definition of a term often indicates Congress’ intent to reject that definition, see INS v. Cardoza-Fonseca, 480 U. S. 421, 432 (1987); Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983), we draw no such inference here.
Nor is there any indication that Congress ever abandoned its general approach, in designating predicate offenses, of using uniform, categorical definitions to capture all offenses of a certain level of seriousness that involve violence or an inherent risk thereof, and that are likely to be committed by career offenders, regardless of technical definitions and labels under state law.
Ill
These observations about the purpose and general approach of the enhancement provision enable us to narrow the range of possible meanings of the term “burglary.”
A
First, we are led to reject the view of the Court of Appeals in this case. It seems to us to be implausible that Congress intended the meaning of “burglary” for purposes of § 924(e) to depend on the definition adopted by the State of conviction. That would mean that a person convicted of unlawful possession of a firearm would, or would not, receive a sentence enhancement based on exactly the same conduct, depending on whether the State of his prior conviction happened to call that conduct “burglary.”
For example, Michigan has no offense formally labeled “burglary.” It classifies burglaries into several grades of “breaking and entering.” See Mich. Comp. Laws §750.110 (1979). In contrast, California defines “burglary” so broadly as to include shoplifting and theft of goods from a “locked” but unoccupied automobile. See Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 459 (West Supp. 1990); United States v. Chatman, 869 F. 2d 525, 528-529, and n. 2 (CA9 1989) (entry through unsecured window of an unoccupied auto, and entry of a store open to the public with intent to commit theft, are “burglary” under California law); see also Tex. Penal Code Ann. §§30.01-30.05 (1989 and Supp. 1990) (defining burglary to include theft from coin-operated vending machine or automobile); United States v. Leonard, 868 F. 2d 1393, 1395, n. 2 (CA5 1989), cert. pending, No. 88-1885.
Thus, a person imprudent enough to shoplift or steal from an automobile in California would be found, under the Ninth Circuit’s view, to have committed a burglary constituting a “violent felony” for enhancement purposes — yet a person who did so in Michigan might not. Without a clear indication that with the 1986 amendment Congress intended to abandon its general approach of using uniform categorical definitions to identify predicate offenses, we do not interpret Congress’ omission of a definition of “burglary” in a way that leads to odd results of this kind. See Dickerson v. New Banner Institute, Inc., 460 U. S. 103, 119-120 (1983) (absent plain indication to the contrary, federal laws are not to be construed so that their application is dependent on state law, “because the application of federal legislation is nationwide and at times the federal program would be impaired if state law were to control”); United States v. Turley, 352 U. S. 407, 411 (1957) (“[I]n the absence of a plain indication of an intent to incorporate diverse state laws into a federal criminal statute, the meaning of the federal statute should not be dependent on state law”).
This Court’s response to the similar problem of interpreting the term “extortion” in the Travel Act, 18 U. S. C. § 1952, is instructive:
“Appellees argue that Congress’ decision not to define extortion combined with its decision to prohibit only extortion in violation of state law compels the conclusion that peculiar versions of state terminology are controlling.... The fallacy of this contention lies in its assumption that, by defining extortion with reference to state law, Congress also incorporated state labels for particular offenses. Congress’ intent was to aid local law enforcement officials, not to eradicate only those extortionate activities which any given State denominated extortion.... Giving controlling effect to state classifications would result in coverage under § 1952 if appellees’ activities were centered in Massachusetts, Michigan, or Oregon, but would deny coverage in Indiana, Kansas, Minnesota, or Wisconsin although each of these States prohibits identical criminal activities.” United States v. Nardello, 393 U. S. 286, 293-294 (1969).
We think that “burglary” in § 924(e) must have some uniform definition independent of the labels employed by the various States’ criminal codes.
B
Some Courts of Appeals, see n. 2, supra, have ruled that § 924(e) incorporates the common-law definition of burglary, relying on the maxim that a statutory term is generally presumed to have its common-law meaning. See Morissette v. United States, 342 U. S. 246, 263 (1952). This view has some appeal, in that common-law burglary is the core, or common denominator, of the contemporary usage of the term. Almost all States include a breaking and entering of a dwelling at night, with intent to commit a felony, among their definitions of burglary. Whatever else the Members of Congress might have been thinking of, they presumably had in mind at least the “classic” common-law definition when they considered the inclusion of burglary as a predicate offense.
The problem with this view is that the contemporary understanding of “burglary” has diverged a long way from its common-law roots. Only a few States retain the common-law definition, or something closely resembling it. Most other States have expanded this definition to include entry without a “breaking,” structures other than dwellings, offenses committed in the daytime, entry with intent to commit a crime other than a felony, etc. See LaFave & Scott, supra, n. 3, §§ 8.13(a) through (f), pp. 464-475. This statutory development, “when viewed in totality, has resulted in a modern crime which has little in common with its common-law ancestor except for the title of burglary^ — Id., at §8.13(g), p. 476.
Also, interpreting “burglary” in § 924(e) to mean common-law burglary would not comport with the purposes of the enhancement statute. The arcane distinctions embedded in the common-law definition have little relevance to modern law enforcement concerns. It seems unlikely that the Members of Congress, immersed in the intensely practical concerns of controlling violent crime, would have decided to abandon their modern, generic 1984 definition of burglary and revert to a definition developed in the ancient English law — a definition mentioned nowhere in the legislative history. Moreover, construing “burglary” to mean common-law burglary would come close to nullifying that term’s effect in the statute, because few of the crimes now generally recognized as burglaries would fall within the common-law definition.
It could be argued, of course, that common-law burglary, by and large, involves a greater “potential risk of physical injury to another.” § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii). But, even assuming that Congress intended to restrict the predicate offense to some especially dangerous subclass of burglaries, restricting it to common-law burglary would not be a rational way of doing so. The common-law definition does not require that the offender be armed or that the dwelling be occupied at the time of the crime. An armed burglary of an occupied commercial building, in the daytime, would seem to pose a far greater risk of harm to persons than an unarmed nocturnal breaking and entering of an unoccupied house. It seems unlikely that Congress would have considered the latter, but not the former, to be a “violent felony” counting towards a sentence enhancement. In the absence of any specific indication that Congress meant to incorporate the common-law meaning of burglary, we shall not read into the statute a definition of “burglary” so obviously ill suited to its purposes.
This Court has declined to follow any rule that a statutory term is to be given its common-law meaning, when that meaning is obsolete or inconsistent with the statute’s purpose. In Perrin v. United States, 444 U. S. 37 (1979), this Court rejected the argument that the Travel Act incorporated the common-law definition of “bribery” because, by 1961 when the Act was passed,
“the common understanding and meaning of ‘bribery’ had extended beyond its early common-law definitions. In 42 States and in federal legislation, ‘bribery’ included the bribery of individuals acting in a private capacity. It was against this background that the Travel Act was passed.
"... The record of the hearings and floor debates discloses that Congress made no attempt to define the statutory term ‘bribery,’ but relied on the accepted contemporary meaning” (footnote omitted). Id., at 45.
For this reason, the Court concluded that “the generic definition of bribery, rather than a narrow common-law definition, was intended by Congress.” Id., at 49. Similarly, in United States v. Nardello, 393 U. S. 286 (1969), this Court held that the Travel Act did not incorporate the common-law definition of “extortion,” because that definition had been expanded in many States by the time the Act was passed, id., at 289, and because such an interpretation would conflict with the Act’s purpose to curb the activities of organized crime. Id., at 293. The Court therefore declined the give the term an “unnaturally narrow reading,” and concluded that the defendants’ acts fell within “the generic term extortion as used in the Travel Act.” Id., at 296. See also Bell v. United States, 462 U. S. 356, 362 (1983) (common-law limitation on meaning of “larceny” not incorporated in Bank Robbery Act because “[t]he congressional goal of protecting bank assets is entirely independent of the traditional distinction on which [the defendant] relies”); United States v. Turley, 352 U. S., at 416-417 (application of National Motor Vehicle Theft Act not limited to “situations which at common law would be considered larceny” because “[professional thieves resort to innumerable forms of theft and Congress presumably sought to meet the need for federal action effectively rather than to leave loopholes for wholesale evasion”).
Petitioner argues that the narrow common-law definition of burglary would comport with the rule of lenity — that criminal statutes, including sentencing provisions, are to be construed in favor of the accused. See Bifulco v. United States, 447 U. S. 381, 387 (1980); Simpson v. United States, 435 U. S. 6, 14-15 (1978). This maxim of statutory construction, however, cannot dictate an implausible interpretation of a statute, nor one at odds with the generally accepted contemporary meaning of a term. See Perrin v. United States, 444 U. S., at 49, n. 13.
C
Petitioner suggests another narrowing construction of the term “burglary,” more suited to the purpose of the enhancement statute:
“Burglary is any crime punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one year and consisting of entering or remaining within a building that is the property of another with intent to engage in conduct constituting a Federal or State offense that has as an element necessary for conviction conduct that presents a serious risk of physical injury to another.” Brief for Petitioner 29.
As examples of burglary statutes that would fit this definition, petitioner points to first-degree or aggravated-burglary statutes having elements such as entering an occupied building; being armed with a deadly weapon; or causing or threatening physical injury to a person. See n. 4, supra. This definition has some appeal, because it avoids the arbitrariness of the state-law approach, by restricting the predicate offense in a manner congruent with the general purpose of the enhancement statute.
We do not accept petitioner’s proposal, however, for two reasons. First, it is not supported by the language of the statute or the legislative history. Petitioner essentially asserts that Congress meant to include as predicate offenses only a subclass of burglaries whose elements include “conduct that presents a serious risk of physical injury to another,” over and above the risk inherent in ordinary burglaries. But if this were Congress’ intent, there would have been no reason to add the word “burglary” to § 924(e) (2) (B) (ii), since that provision already includes any crime that “involves conduct that presents a serious potential risk of physical injury to another.” We must assume that Congress had a purpose in adding the word “burglary” to H. R. 4885 before enacting it into law. The most likely explanation, in view of the legislative history, is that Congress thought that certain general categories of property crimes — namely burglary, arson, extortion,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This case presents the question whether a federal appellate court has jurisdiction over a party who was not specified in the notice of appeal in accordance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c).
I
Petitioner Jose Torres is one of 16 plaintiffs who intervened in an employment discrimination suit against respondent Oakland Scavenger Co. (hereafter respondent) after receiving notice of the action pursuant to a settlement agreement between respondent and the original plaintiffs. In their complaint, the intervenors purported to proceed not only on their own behalf, but also on behalf of all persons similarly situated. On August 31, 1981, the District Court for the Northern District of California dismissed the complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim warranting relief. 4 Record, Doc. No. 87. A class had not been certified at the time of the dismissal.
On September 29, 1981, a notice of appeal was filed in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court’s dismissal and remanded the case for further proceedings. Bonilla v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 697 F. 2d 1297 (1982). Both the notice of appeal and the order of the Court of Appeals omitted petitioner’s name. It is undisputed that the omission in the notice of appeal was due to a clerical error on the part of a secretary employed by petitioner’s attorney.
On remand, respondent moved for partial summary judgment on the ground that the prior judgment of dismissal was final as to petitioner by virtue of his failure to appeal. The District Court granted respondent’s motion. App. to Pet. for Cert. B-l, Civ. Action No. C 75-0060 CAL (ND Cal., Oct. 30, 1985). The Court of Appeals affirmed, judgment order reported at 807 F. 2d 178 (1986), holding that “[u]nless a party is named in the notice of appeal, the appellate court does not have jurisdiction over him.” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-4, citing Farley Transportation Co. v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 778 F. 2d 1365, 1368 (CA9 1985).
We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict in the Circuits over whether a failure to file a notice of appeal in accordance with the specificity requirement of Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) presents a jurisdictional bar. to the appeal. 484 U. S. 894 (1987). We now affirm.
II
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) provides in pertinent part that a notice of appeal “shall specify the party or parties taking the appeal.” The Rule was amended in 1979 to add that an appeal “shall not be dismissed for informality of form or title of the notice of appeal.” This caveat does not aid petitioner in the instant case. The failure to name a party in a notice of appeal is more than excusable “informality”; it constitutes a failure of that party to appeal.
More broadly, Rule 2 gives courts of appeals the power, for “good cause shown,” to “suspend the requirements or provisions of any of these rules in a particular case bn application of a party or on its own motion.” Rule 26(b), however, contains certain exceptions to this grant of broad equitable discretion. The exception pertinent to this case forbids a court to “enlarge” the time limits for filing a notice of appeal, which are prescribed in Rule 4. We believe that the mandatory nature of the time limits contained in Rule 4 would be vitiated if courts of appeals were permitted to exercise jurisdiction over parties not named in the notice of appeal. Permitting courts to exercise jurisdiction over unnamed parties after the time for filing a notice of appeal has passed is equivalent to permitting courts to extend the time for filing a notice of appeal. Because the Rules do not grant courts the latter power, we hold that the Rules likewise withhold the former.
We find support for our view in the Advisory Committee Note following Rule 3:
“Rule 3 and Rule 4 combine to require that a notice of appeal be filed with the clerk of the district court within the time prescribed for taking an- appeal. Because the timely filing of a notice of appeal is ‘mandatory and jurisdictional,’ United States v. Robinson, [361 U. S. 220, 224 (1960)], compliance with the provisions of those rules is of the utmost importance.” 28 U. S. C. App., p. 467.
This admonition by the Advisory Committee makes no distinction among the various requirements of Rule 3 and Rule 4; rather it treats the requirements of the two Rules as a single jurisdictional threshold. The Advisory Committee’s caveat that courts should “dispense with literal compliance in cases in which it cannot fairly be exacted,” ibid., is not to the contrary. The examples cited by the Committee make clear that it was referring generally to the kinds of cases later addressed by the 1979 amendment to Rule 3(c), which excuses “informality of form or title” in a notice of appeal. Permitting imperfect but substantial compliance with a technical requirement is not the same as waiving the requirement altogether as a jurisdictional threshold. Our conclusion that the Advisory Committee viewed the requirements of Rule 3 as jurisdictional in nature, although not determinative, is “of weight” in our construction of the Rule. Mississippi Publishing Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U. S. 438, 444 (1946).
Nor does this Court’s decision in Foman v. Davis, 371 U. S. 178 (1962), compel a contrary construction. In Foman, the Court addressed a separate provision of Rule 3(c) requiring that a notice of appeal “designate the judgment, order or part thereof'appealed from.” Foman was a plaintiff whose complaint was dismissed. She first filed motions in the District Court seeking to vacate the judgment against her and to amend her complaint. While the motions were pending, she filed a notice of appeal from the dismissal. When the District Court denied his motions, Foman filed a second notice of appeal from the denial. The Court of Appeals concluded that the first notice of appeal was premature because of Foman’s pending motions, and that the second notice of appeal failed to designate the underlying dismissal as the judgment appealed from. This Court reversed the appellate court’s refusal to hear Foman’s appeal on the merits of her dismissal, holding that the court should have treated the second notice of appeal as “an effective, although inept, attempt to appeal from the judgment sought to be vacated.” Id., at 181.
Foman did not address whether the requirement of Rule 3(c) at issue in that case was jurisdictional in nature; rather, the Court simply concluded that in light of all the circumstances, the Rule had been complied with. We do not dispute the important principle for which Foman stands — that the requirements of the rules of procedure should be liberally construed and that “mere technicalities” should not stand-in the way of consideration of a case on its merits. Ibid. Thus, if a litigant files papers in a fashion that is technically at variance with the letter of a procedural rule, a court may nonetheless find that the litigant has complied with the rule if the litigant’s action is the functional equivalent of what the rule requires. See, e. g., Houston v. Lack, ante, p. 266 (delivery of notice of appeal by pro se prisoner to prison authorities for mailing constitutes “filing” within the meaning of Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure 3 and 4). But although a court may construe the Rules liberally in determining whether they have been complied with, it may not waive the jurisdictional requirements of Rules 3 and 4, even for “good cause shown” under Rule 2, if it finds that they have not been met.
Applying these principles to the instant case, we find that petitioner failed to comply with the specificity requirement of Rule 3(c), even liberally construed. . Petitioner did not file the functional equivalent of a notice of appeal; he was never named or otherwise designated, however inartfully, in the notice of appeal filed by the 15 other intervenors. Nor did petitioner seek leave to amend the notice of appeal within the time limits set by Rule 4. Thus, the Court of Appeals was correct that it never had jurisdiction over petitioner’s appeal.
Petitioner urges that the use of “et al.” in the notice of appeal was sufficient to indicate his intention to appeal. We cannot agree. The purpose of the specificity requirement of Rule 3(c) is to provide notice both to the opposition and to the court of the identity of the appellant or appellants. The use of the phrase “et al.,” which literally means “and others,” utterly fails to provide such notice to either intended recipient. Permitting such vague designation would leave the appellee and the court unable to determine with certitude whether a losing party not named in the notice of appeal should be bound by an adverse judgment or held liable for costs or sanctions. The specificity requirement of Rule 3(c) is met only by some designation that gives fair notice of the specific individual or entity seeking to appeal.
We recognize that construing Rule 3(c) as a jurisdictional prerequisite leads to a harsh result in this case, but we are convinced that the harshness of our construction is “imposed by the legislature and not by the judicial process.” Schiavone v. Fortune, 477 U. S. 21, 31 (1986) (construing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c) in a similarly implacable fashion).
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Compare Farley Transportation Co. v. Santa Fe Trail Transportation Co., 778 F. 2d 1365, 1368-1370 (CA9 1985) (failure to specify party to appeal is jurisdictional bar); Covington v. Allsbrook, 636 F. 2d 63, 64 (CA4 1980) (same); Life Time Doors, Inc. v. Walled Lake Door Co., 505 F. 2d 1165, 1168 (CA6 1974) (same), with Ayres v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 789 F. 2d 1173, 1177 (CA5 1986) (appeal by party not named in notice of appeal is permitted in limited instances); Harrison v. United States, 715 F. 2d 1311, 1312-1313 (CA8 1983) (same); Williams v. Frey, 551 F. 2d 932, 934, n. 1 (CA3 1977) (same).
For example, the Advisory Committee approvingly cited cases permitting a letter from a prisoner to a judge to suffice as a notice of appeal, see Riffle v. United States, 299 F. 2d 802 (CA5 1962), and permitting the mailing of a notice of appeal to constitute its time of “filing” rather than its receipt by the court, see Halfen v. United States, 324 F. 2d 52 (CA10 1963).
In addition to urging that the requirements of Rule 3(c) are not jurisdictional in nature, petitioner advances two other arguments in support of his position, neither of which has merit. First, petitioner argues that courts of appeals should apply “harmless error” analysis to defects in a notice of appeal. This argument misunderstands the nature of a jurisdictional requirement: a litigant’s failure to clear a jurisdictional hurdle can never be “harmless” or waived by a court. Second, petitioner argues that refusal to permit him to cure the defect in the original notice of appeal will unfairly permit absent class members, now that the suit has been certified as a class action, to obtain relief from which petitioner is barred. The District Court, however, in granting summary judgment against petitioner, explicitly left open “the issue of whether Mr. Torres can or cannot participate in this litigation as a member of a class, should a class be properly certified.” App. to Pet. for Cert. B-4.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case focuses on the interplay between two provisions of the Bankruptcy Code. The question is whether § 1322(b)(2) prohibits a Chapter 13 debtor from relying on § 506(a) to reduce an undersecured homestead mortgage to the fair market value of the mortgaged residence. We conclude that it does and therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
I
In 1984, respondent American Savings Bank loaned petitioners Leonard and Harriet Nobelman $68,250 for the purchase of their principal residence, a condominium in Dallas, Texas. In exchange, petitioners executed an adjustable rate note payable to the bank and secured by a deed of trust on the residence. In 1990, after falling behind in their mortgage payments, petitioners sought relief -under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code. The bank filed a proof of claim with the Bankruptcy Court for $71,335 in principal, interest, and fees owed on the note. Petitioners’ modified Chapter 13 plan valued the residence at a mere $23,500 — an uncontroverted valuation — and proposed to make payments pursuant to the mortgage contract only up to that amount (plus prepetition arrearages). Relying on § 506(a) of the Bankruptcy Code, petitioners proposed to treat the remainder of the bank’s claim as unsecured. Under the plan, unsecured creditors would receive nothing.
The bank and the Chapter 13 trustee, also a respondent here, objected to petitioners’ plan. They argued that the proposed bifurcation of the bank’s claim into a secured claim for $28,500 and an effectively worthless unsecured claim modified the bank’s rights as a homestead mortgagee, in violation of 11 U. S. C. § 1322(b)(2). The Bankruptcy Court agreed with respondents and denied confirmation of the plan. The District Court affirmed, In re Nobelman, 129 B. R. 98 (ND Tex. 1991), as did the Court of Appeals, 968 F. 2d 483 (CA5 1992). We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals. 506 U. S. 1020 (1992).
II
Under Chapter 13 of the Bankruptcy Code, individual debtors may obtain adjustment of their indebtedness through a flexible repayment plan approved by a bankruptcy court. Section 1322 sets forth the elements of a confirmable Chapter 13 plan. The plan must provide, inter alia, for the submission of a portion of the debtor’s future earnings and income to the control of a trustee and for supervised payments to creditors over a period not exceeding five years. See 11 U. S. C. §§ 1322(a)(1) and 1322(c). Section 1322(b)(2), the provision at issue here, allows modification of the rights of both secured and unsecured creditors, subject to special protection for creditors whose claims are secured only by a lien on the debtor’s home. It provides that the plan may
“modify the rights of holders of secured claims, other than a claim secured only by a security interest in real property that is the debtor’s principal residence, or of holders of unsecured claims, or leave unaffected the rights of holders of any class of claims.” 11 U. S. C. § 1322(b)(2) (emphasis added).
The parties agree that the “other than” exception in § 1322(b)(2) proscribes modification of the rights of a homestead mortgagee. Petitioners maintain, however, that their Chapter 13 plan proposes no such modification. They argue that the protection of § 1322(b)(2) applies only to the extent the mortgagee holds a “secured claim” in the debtor’s residence and that we must look first to § 506(a) to determine the value of the mortgagee’s “secured claim.” Section 506(a) provides that an allowed claim secured by a lien on the debtor’s property “is a secured claim to the extent of the value of [the] property”; to the extent the claim exceeds the value of the property, it “is an unsecured claim.” Petitioners contend that the valuation provided for in § 506(a) operates automatically to adjust downward the amount of a lender’s undersecured home mortgage before any disposition proposed in the debtor’s Chapter 13 plan. Under this view, the bank is the holder of a “secured claim” only in the amount of $23,500 — the value of the collateral property. Because the plan proposes to make $23,500 worth of payments pursuant to the monthly payment terms of the mortgage contract, petitioners argue, the plan effects no alteration of the bank’s rights as the holder of that claim. Section 1322(b)(2), they assert, allows unconditional modification of the bank’s leftover “unsecured claim.”
This interpretation fails to take adequate account of § 1322(b)(2)’s focus on “rights.” That provision does not state that a plan may modify “claims” or that the plan may not modify “a claim secured only by” a home mortgage. Rather, it focuses on the modification of the “rights of holders” of such claims. By virtue of its mortgage contract with petitioners, the bank is indisputably the holder of a claim secured by a lien on petitioners’ home. Petitioners were correct in looking to § 506(a) for a judicial valuation of the collateral to determine the status of the bank’s secured claim. It was permissible for petitioners to seek a valuation in proposing their Chapter 13 plan, since § 506(a) states that “[s]ueh value shall be determined ... in conjunction with any hearing ... on a plan affecting such creditor’s interest.” But even if we accept petitioners’ valuation, the bank is still the “holder” of a “secured claim,” because petitioners’ home retains $23,500 of value as collateral. The portion of the bank’s claim that exceeds $23,500 is an “unsecured claim componen[t]” under § 506(a), United States v. Ron Pair Enterprises, Inc., 489 U. S. 235, 239, n. 3 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted); however, that determination does not necessarily mean that the “rights” the bank enjoys as a mortgagee, which are protected by § 1322(b)(2), are limited by the valuation of its secured claim.
The term “rights” is nowhere defined in the Bankruptcy Code. In the absence of a controlling federal rule, we generally assume that Congress has “left the determination of property rights in the assets of a bankrupt’s estate to state law,” since such “[pjroperty interests are created and defined by state law.” Butner v. United States, 440 U. S. 48, 54-55 (1979). See also Barnhill v. Johnson, 503 U. S. 393, 398 (1992). Moreover, we have specifically recognized that “[t]he justifications for application of state law are not limited to ownership interests,” but “apply with equal force to security interests, including the interest of a mortgagee.” Butner, supra, at 55. The bank’s “rights,” therefore, are reflected in the relevant mortgage instruments, which are enforceable under Texas law. They include the right to repayment of the principal in monthly installments over a fixed term at specified adjustable rates of interest, the right to retain the lien until the debt is paid off, the right to accelerate the loan upon default and to proceed against petitioners’ residence by foreclosure and public sale, and the right to bring an action to recover any deficiency remaining after foreclosure. See Record 135-140 (deed of trust); id., at 147-151 (promissory note); Tex. Prop. Code Ann. §§ 51.002-51.005 (Supp. 1993). These are the rights that were “bargained for by the mortgagor and the mortgagee,” Dewsnup v. Timm, 502 U. S. 410, 417 (1992), and are rights protected from modification by § 1322(b)(2).
This is not to say, of course, that the contractual rights of a home mortgage lender are unaffected by the mortgagor’s Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The lender’s power to enforce its rights — and, in particular, its right to foreclose on the property in the event of default — is cheeked by the Bankruptcy Code’s automatic stay provision. 11 U. S. C. § 362. See United Savings Assn. of Texas v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U. S. 365, 369-370 (1988). In addition, § 1322(b)(5) permits the debtor to cure prepetition defaults on a home mortgage by paying off arrearages over the life of the plan “notwithstanding” the exception in § 1322(b)(2). These statutory limitations on the lender’s rights, however, are independent of the debtor’s plan or otherwise outside § 1322(b)(2)’s prohibition.
Petitioners urge us to apply the so-called “rule of the last antecedent,” which has been relied upon by some Courts of Appeals to interpret § 1322(b)(2) the way petitioners favor. E. g., In re Bellamy, 962 F. 2d 176, 180 (CA2 1992); In re Hougland, 886 P. 2d 1182, 1184 (CA9 1989). According to this argument, the operative clause “other than a claim secured only by a security interest in... the debtor’s principal residence” must be read to refer to and modify its immediate antecedent, “secured claims.” Thus, § 1322(b)(2)’s protection would then apply only to that subset of allowed “secured claims,” determined by application of § 506(a), that are secured by a lien on the debtor’s home — including, with respect to the mortgage involved here, the bank’s secured claim for $23,500. We acknowledge that this reading of the clause is quite sensible as a matter of grammar. But it is not compelled. Congress chose to use the phrase “claim secured... by” in § 1322(b)(2)’s exception, rather than repeating the term of art “secured claim.” The unqualified word “claim” is broadly defined under the Code to encompass any “right to payment, whether . . . seeure[dj or unsecured” or any “right to an equitable remedy for breach of performance if such breach gives rise to a right to payment, whether . . . seeure[d] or unsecured.” 11U. S. C. § 101(5) (1988 ed., Supp. III). It is also plausible, therefore, to read “a claim secured only by a [homestead lien]” as referring to the lienholder’s entire claim, including both the secured and the unsecured components of the claim. Indeed, § 506(a) itself uses the phrase “claim ... secured by a lien” to encompass both portions of an undersecured claim.
This latter interpretation is the more reasonable one, since we cannot discern how § 1322(b)(2) could be administered under petitioners’ interpretation. Petitioners propose to reduce the outstanding mortgage principal to the fair market value of the collateral, and, at the same time, they insist that they can do so without modifying the bank’s rights “as to interest rates, payment amounts, and [other] contract terms.” Brief for Petitioners 7. That appears to be impossible. The bank’s contractual rights are contained in a unitary note that applies at once to the bank’s overall claim, including both the secured and unsecured components. Petitioners cannot modify the payment and interest terms for the unsecured component, as they propose to do, without also modifying the terms of the secured component. Thus, to preserve the interest rate and the amount of each monthly payment specified in the note after having reduced the principal to $23,500, the plan would also have to reduce the term of the note dramatically. That would be a significant modification of a contractual right. Furthermore, the bank holds an adjustable rate mortgage, and the principal and interest payments on the loan must be recalculated with each adjustment in the interest rate. There is nothing in the mortgage contract or the Code that suggests any basis for recalculating the amortization schedule — whether by reference to the face value of the remaining principal or by reference to the unamortized value of the collateral. This conundrum alone indicates that § 1322(b)(2) cannot operate in combination with § 506(a) in the manner theorized by petitioners.
In other words, to give effect to §506(a)’s valuation and bifurcation of secured claims through a Chapter 13 plan in the manner petitioners propose would require a modification of the rights of the holder of the security interest. Section 1322(b)(2) prohibits such a modification where, as here, the lender’s claim is secured only by a lien on the debtor’s principal residence.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Affirmed.
Section 506(a) provides, in part, as follows:
“An allowed claim of a creditor secured by a lien on property in which the estate has an interest... is a secured claim to the extent of the value of such creditor’s interest in the estate’s interest in such property,... and is an unsecured claim to the extent that the value of such creditor’s interest... is less than the amount of such allowed claim. Such value shall be determined in light of the purpose of the valuation and of the proposed disposition or use of such property, and in conjunction with any hearing on such disposition or use or on a plan affecting such creditor’s interest.”
11 U. S. C. § 506(a).
Four Circuits have held that § 1322(b)(2) allows bifurcation of undersecured homestead mortgages. In re Bellamy, 962 F. 2d 176 (CA2 1992); In re Hart, 923 F. 2d 1410 (CA10 1991); Wilson v. Commonwealth Mortgage Corp., 895 F. 2d 123 (CA3 1990); In re Hougland, 886 F. 2d 1182 (CA9 1989).
As a general provision under Chapter 5 of the Bankruptcy Code, § 506(a) applies in an individual bankruptcy case under Chapter 13. See 11 U.S.C. § 103(a).
Under § 1322(b)(5), the plan may, “notwithstanding paragraph (2) of this subsection, provide for the curing of any default within a reasonable time and maintenance of payments while the case is pending on any .. . secured claim on which the last payment is due after the date on which the final payment under the plan is due.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 appeal is dismissed for want of a properly presented federal question.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue here is whether a suit against an employer by employees asserting breach of a collective-bargaining contract was properly dismissed where the accompanying complaint against the union for breach of duty of fair representation has withstood the union’s motion for summary judgment and remains to be tried.
I
Petitioners, who were formerly employed as truck drivers by respondent Anchor Motor Freight, Inc. (Anchor), were discharged on June 5, 1967. The applicable collective-bargaining contract forbade discharges without just cause. The company charged dishonesty. The practice at Anchor was to reimburse drivers for money spent for lodging while the drivers were on the road overnight. Anchor’s assertion was that petitioners had sought reimbursement for motel expenses in excess of the actual charges sustained by them. At a meeting between the company and the union, Local 377, International Brotherhood of Teamsters (Union), which was also attended by petitioners, Anchor presented motel receipts previously submitted by petitioners which were in excess of the charges shown on the motel’s registration cards; a notarized statement of the motel clerk asserting the accuracy of the registration cards; and an affidavit of the motel owner affirming that the registration cards were accurate and that inflated receipts had been furnished petitioners. The Union claimed petitioners were innocent and opposed the discharges. It was then agreed that the matter would be presented to the joint arbitration committee for the area, to which the collective-bargaining contract permitted either party to submit an unresolved grievance. Pending this hearing, petitioners were reinstated. Their suggestion that the motel be investigated was answered by the Union representatives’ assurances that "there was nothing to worry about” and that they need not hire their own attorney.
A hearing before the joint area committee was held on July 26, 1967. Anchor presented its case. Both the Union and petitioners were afforded an opportunity to present their case and to be heard. Petitioners denied their dishonesty, but neither they nor the Union presented any other evidence contradicting the documents presented by the company. The committee sustained the discharges. Petitioners then retained an attorney and sought rehearing based on a statement by the motel owner that he had no personal knowledge of the events, but that the discrepancy between the receipts and the registration cards could have been attributable to the motel clerk’s recording on the cards less than was actually paid and retaining for himself the difference between the amount receipted and the amount recorded. The committee, after hearing, unanimously denied rehearing “because there was no new evidence presented which would justify a reopening of this case.” App. 212.
There were later indications that the motel clerk was in fact the culprit; and the present suit was filed in June 1969, against Anchor, the Union, and its International. The complaint alleged that the charges of dishonesty made against petitioners by Anchor were false, that there was no just cause for discharge, and that the discharges had been in breach of contract. It was also asserted that the falsity of the charges could have been discovered with a minimum of investigation, that the Union had made no effort to ascertain the truth of the charges, and that the Union had violated its duty of fair representation by arbitrarily and in bad faith depriving petitioners of their employment and permitting their discharge without sufficient proof.
The Union denied the charges and relied on the decision of the joint area committee. Anchor asserted that petitioners had been properly discharged for just cause. It also defended on the ground that petitioners, diligently and in good faith represented by the Union, had unsuccessfully resorted to the grievance and arbitration machinery provided by the contract and that the adverse decision of the joint arbitration committee was binding upon the Union and petitioners under the contractual provision declaring that “[a] decision by a majority of a Panel of any of the Committees shall be final and binding on all parties, including the employee and/or employees affected.” Discovery followed, including a deposition of the motel clerk revealing that he had falsified the records and that it was he who had pocketed the difference between the sums shown on.the receipts and the registration cards. Motions for summary judgment filed by Anchor and the Unions were granted by the District Court on the ground that the decision of the arbitration committee was final and binding on the employees and “for failure to show facts comprising bad faith, arbitrariness or perfunctoriness on the part of the Unions.” 72 CCH Lab. Cas. ¶ 13,987, p. 28,131 (ND Ohio 1973). Although indicating that the acts of the Union “may not meet professional standards of competency, and while it might have been advisable for the Union to further investigate the charges . . . ,” the District Court concluded that the facts demonstrated at most bad judgment on the part of the Union, which was insufficient to prove a breach of duty or make out a prima facie case against it. Id., at 28,132.
After reviewing the allegations and the record before it, the Court of Appeals concluded that there were sufficient facts from which bad faith or arbitrary conduct on the part of the local Union could be inferred by the trier of fact and that petitioners should have been afforded an opportunity to prove their charges. To this extent the judgment of the District Court was reversed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in favor of Anchor and the International. Saying that petitioners wanted to relitigate their discharges because of the recantation of the motel clerk, the Court of Appeals, quoting from its prior opinion in Balowski v. International Union, 372 F. 2d 829 (CA6 1967), concluded that the finality provision of collective-bargaining contracts must be observed because there was “[n]o evidence of any misconduct on the part of the employer . . .” and wholly insufficient evidence of any conspiracy between the Union and Anchor. 506 F. 2d, at 1157, 1158.
It is this judgment of the Court of Appeals with respect to Anchor that is now before us on our limited grant of the employees’ petition for writ of certiorari. 421 U. S. 928 (1975). We reverse that judgment.
II
Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. § 185, provides for suits in the district courts for violation of collective-bargaining contracts between labor organizations and employers without regard to the amount in controversy. This provision reflects the interest of Congress in promoting “a higher degree of responsibility upon the parties to such agreements . . ..” S. Rep. No. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., .17 (1947). The strong policy favoring judicial enforcement of collective-bargaining contracts was sufficiently powerful to sustain the jurisdiction of the district courts over enforcement suits even though the conduct involved was arguably or would amount to an unfair labor practice within the jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. Smith v. Evening News Assn., 371 U. S. 195 (1962); Atkinson v. Sinclair Rfg. Co., 370 U. S. 238 (1962); Teamsters v. Lucas Flour Co., 369 U. S. 95 (1962); Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U. S. 502 (1962). Section 301 contemplates suits by and against individual employees as well as between unions and employers; and contrary to earlier indications § 301 suits encompass those seeking to vindicate “uniquely personal” rights of employees such as wages, hours, overtime pay, and wrongful discharge. Smith v. Evening News Assn., supra, at 198-200. Petitioners' present suit against the employer was for wrongful discharge and is the kind of case Congress provided for in § 301.
Collective-bargaining contracts, however, generally contain procedures for the settlement of disputes through mutual discussion and arbitration. These provisions are among those which are to be enforced under § 301. Furthermore, Congress has specified in § 203 (d), 61 Stat. 154, 29 U. S. C. § 173 (d), that “[f]inal adjustment by a method agreed upon by the parties is declared to be the desirable method for settlement of grievance disputes . . . .” This congressional policy “can be effectuated only if the means chosen by the parties for settlement of their differences under a collective bargaining agreement is given full play.” Steelworkers v. American Mfg. Co., 363 U. S. 564, 566 (1960). Courts are not to usurp those functions which collective-bargaining contracts have properly “entrusted to the arbitration tribunal.” Id., at 569. They should not undertake to review the merits of arbitration awards but should defer to the tribunal chosen by the parties finally to settle their disputes. Otherwise “plenary review by a court of the merits would make-meaningless the provisions that the arbitrator’s decision is final, for in reality it would almost never be final.” Steelworkers v. Enterprise Corp., 363 U. S. 593, 599 (1960).
Pursuant to this policy, we later held that an employee could not sidestep the grievance machinery provided in the contract and that unless he attempted to utilize the contractual procedures for settling his dispute with his employer, his independent suit against the employer in the District Court would be dismissed. Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U. S. 650 (1965). Maddox nevertheless distinguished the situation where “the union refuses to press or only perfunctorily presses the individual’s claim .... See Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U. S. 335; Labor Board v. Miranda Fuel Co., 326 F. 2d 172.” Id., at 652 (footnote omitted).
The reservation in Maddox was well advised. The federal labor laws, in seeking to strengthen the bargaining position of the average worker in an industrial economy, provided for the selection of collective-bargaining agents with wide authority to negotiate and conclude collective-bargaining agreements on behalf of all employees in appropriate units, as well as to be the employee’s agent in the enforcement and administration of the contract. Wages, hours, working conditions, seniority, and job security therefore became the business of certified or recognized bargaining agents, as did the contractual procedures for the processing and settling of grievances, including those with respect to discharge.
Necessarily “[a] wide range of reasonableness must be allowed a statutory bargaining representative in serving the unit it represents . . . Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, 345 U. S. 330, 338 (1953). The union’s broad authority in negotiating and administering effective agreements is “undoubted,” Humphrey v. Moore, 375 U. S. 335, 342 (1964), but it is not without limits. Because “[t]he collective bargaining system as encouraged by Congress and administered by the NLRB of necessity subordinates the interests of an individual employee to the collective interests of all. employees in a bargaining unit,” Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171, 182 (1967), the controlling statutes have long beén interpreted as imposing upon the bargaining agent a responsibility equal in scope to its authority, “the responsibility and duty of fair representation.” Humphrey v. Moore, supra, at 342. The union as the statutory representative of the employees is “subject always to complete good faith and honesty of purpose in the exercise of its discretion.” Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, supra, at 338. Since Steele v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 323 U. S. 192 (1944), with respect to the railroad industry, and Ford Motor Co. v. Huffman, supra, and Syres v. Oil Workers, 350 U. S. 892 (1955), with respect to those industries reached by the National Labor Relations Act, the duty of fair representation has served as a “bulwark to prevent arbitrary union conduct against individuals stripped of traditional forms of redress by the provisions of federal labor law.” Vaca v. Sipes, supra, at 182.
Claims of union breach of duty may arise during the life of a contract when individual employees claim wrongful discharge or other improper treatment at the hands of the employer. Contractual remedies, at least in their final stages controlled by union and employer, are normally provided; yet the union may refuse to utilize them or, if it does, assertedly may do so discriminatorily or in bad faith. “The problem then is to determine under what circumstances the individual employee may obtain judicial review of his breach-of-contract claim despite his failure to secure relief through the contractual remedial procedures.” Vaca v. Sipes, supra, at 185.
Humphrey v. Moore, supra, involved a seniority dispute between the employees of two transportation companies whose operating authorities had been combined. The employees accorded lesser seniority were being laid off. Their grievances were presented to the company and taken by the union to the joint arbitration committee pursuant to contractual provisions very similar to those now before us. The decision was adverse. The employees then brought suit in the state court against the company, the union, and the favored employees, asserting breach of contract by the company and breach of its duty of fair representation by the union. They sought damages and an injunction to prevent implementation of the decision of the joint arbitration committee. The union was charged with dishonest and bad-faith representation of the employees before the joint committee. The unions and the defendant employees asserted the finality of the joint committee’s decision, if not as a final resolution of a dispute in the administration of a contract, as a bargained-for accommodation between the two parties. The state courts issued the injunction. Respondents argued here that “the decision of the Committee was obtained by dishonest union conduct in breach of its duty of fair representation and that a decision so obtained cannot be relied upon as a valid excuse for [their] discharge under the contract.” 375 U. S., at 342. We reversed the judgment of the state court but only after independently determining that the union’s conduct was not a breach of its statutory duties and that the joint committee’s decision was not infirm for that reason. Our conclusion was that the disfavored employees had not proved their case: “Neither the parties nor the Joint Committee exceeded their power under the contract and there was no fraud or breach of duty by the exclusive bargaining agent. The decision of the committee, reached after proceedings adequate under the agreement, is final and binding upon the parties, just as the contract says it is.” Id., at 351.
In Vaca v. Sipes, supra, the discharged employee sued the union alleging breach of its duty of fair representation in that it had refused in bad faith to take the employee’s grievance to arbitration as it could have under the contract. In the course of rejecting the claim that the alleged conduct was arguably an unfair practice within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labor Board, we ruled that “the wrongfully discharged employee may bring an action against his employer in the face of a defense based upon the failure to exhaust contractual remedies, provided the employee can prove that the union as bargaining agent breached its duty of fair representation in its handling of the employee’s grievance.” 386 U. S., at 186 (footnote omitted). This was true even though “the employer in such a situation may have done nothing to prevent exhaustion of the exclusive contractual remedies . . . ,” for “the employer has committed a wrongful discharge in breach of that agreement, a breach which could be remedied through the grievance process ... were it not for the union’s breach of its statutory duty of fair representation . . . .” Id., at 185. We could not “believe that Congress, in conferring upon employers and unions the power to establish exclusive grievance procedures, intended to confer upon unions such unlimited discretion to deprive injured employees of all remedies for breach of contract.” Id., at 186. Nor did we “think that Congress intended to shield employers from the natural consequences of their breaches of bargaining agreements by wrongful union conduct in the enforcement of such agreements.” Ibid. At the same time “we conclude [d] that a union does not breach its duty of fair representation . . . merely because it settled the grievance short of arbitration.” Id., at 192. “If the individual employee could compel arbitration of his grievance regardless of its merit,” that is, compel both employers and unions to make full use of the contractual provisions for settling disputes by arbitration, “the settlement machinery provided by the contract would be substantially undermined,” for curtailing the “power to settle the majority of grievances short of the costlier and more time-consuming steps” might deter the parties to collective-bargaining agreements from making “provision] for detailed grievance and arbitration procedures of the kind encouraged by L. M. R. A. § 203 (d).” Id., at 191-192. We also expressly indicated that suit against the employer and suit against the union could be joined in one action. Id., at 187.
Ill
Even though under Vaca the employer may not insist on exhaustion of grievance procedures when the union has breached its representation duty, it is urged that when the procedures have been followed and a decision favorable to the employer announced, the employer must be protected from relitigation by the express contractual provision declaring a decision to be final and binding. We disagree. The union’s breach of duty relieves the employee of an express or implied requirement that disputes be settled through contractual grievance procedures; if it seriously undermines the integrity of the arbitral process the union’s breach also removes the bar of the finality provisions of the contract.
It is true that Vaca dealt with a refusal by the union to process a grievance. It. is also true that where the union actually utilizes the grievance and arbitration procedures on behalf of the employee, the focus is no longer on the reasons for the union’s failure to act but on whether, contrary to the arbitrator’s decision, the employer breached the contract and whether there is substantial reason to believe that a union breach of duty contributed to the erroneous outcome of the contractual proceedings. But the judicial remedy in Humphrey v. Moore was sought after the adverse decision of the joint arbitration committee. Our conclusion in that case was not that the committee’s decision was unreviewable. On the contrary, we proceeded on the basis that it was reviewable and vulnerable if tainted by breach of duty on the part of the union, even though the employer had not conspired with the union. The joint committee’s decision was held binding on the complaining employees only after we determined that the union had not been guilty of malfeasance and that its conduct was within the range of acceptable performance by a collective-bargaining agent, a wholly unnecessary determination if the union’s conduct was irrelevant to the finality of the arbitral process.
In Vaca “we accept [ed] the proposition that a union may not arbitrarily ignore a meritorious grievance or process it in a perfunctory fashion,” 386 U. S., at 191, and our ruling that the union had not breached its duty of fair representation in not pressing the employee’s case to the last step of the grievance process stemmed from our evaluation of the manner in which the union had handled the grievance in its earlier stages. Although “the Union might well have breached its duty had it ignored [the employee’s] complaint or had it processed the grievance in a perfunctory manner,” “the Union conclude [d] both that arbitration would be fruitless and that the grievance should be dismissed” only after it had “processed the grievance into the fourth step, attempted to gather sufficient evidence to prove [the employee’s] case, attempted to secure for [him] less vigorous work at the plant, and joined in the employer’s efforts to have [him] rehabilitated.” Id., at 194.
Anchor would have it that petitioners are foreclosed from judicial relief unless some blameworthy conduct on its part disentitles it to rely on the finality rule. But it was Anchor that originated the discharges for dishonesty. If those charges were in error, Anchor has surely played its part in precipitating this dispute. Of course, both courts below held there were no facts suggesting that Anchor either knowingly or negligently relied on false evidence. As far as the record reveals it also prevailed before the joint committee after presenting its case in accordance with what were ostensibly wholly fair procedures. Nevertheless there remains the question whether the contractual protection against re-litigating an arbitral decision binds employees who assert that the process has fundamentally malfunctioned by reason of the bad-faith performance of the union, their statutorily imposed collective-bargaining agent.
Under the rule announced by the Court of Appeals, unless the employer is implicated in the Union’s malfeasance or has otherwise caused the arbitral process to err, petitioners would have no remedy against Anchor even though they are successful in proving the Union’s bad faith, the falsity of the charges against them, and the breach of contract by Anchor by discharging without cause. This rule would apparently govern even in circumstances where it is shown that a union has manufactured the evidence and knows from the start that it is false; or even if, unbeknownst to the employer, the union has corrupted the arbitrator to the detriment of disfavored union members. As is the case where there has been a failure to exhaust, however, we cannot believe that Congress intended to foreclose the employee from his § 301 remedy otherwise available against the employer if the contractual processes have been seriously flawed by the union’s breach of its duty to represent employees honestly and in good faith and without invidious discrimination or arbitrary conduct.
It is urged that the reversal of the Court of Appeals will undermine not only the finality rule but the entire collective-bargaining process. Employers, it is said, will be far less willing to give up their untrammeled right to discharge without cause and to agree to private settlement procedures. But the burden on employees will remain a substantial one, far too heavy in the opinion of some. 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. As the District Court indicated, this involves more than demonstrating mere errors in judgment.
Petitioners are not entitled to relitigate their discharge merely because they offer newly discovered evidence that the charges against them were false and that in fact they were fired without cause. The grievance processes cannot be expected to be error-free. The finality provision has sufficient force to surmount occasional instances of mistake. But it is quite another matter to suggest that erroneous arbitration decisions must stand even though the employee’s representation by the union has been dishonest, in bad faith, or discriminatory; for in that event error and injustice of the grossest sort would multiply. The contractual system would then cease to qualify as an adequate mechanism to secure individual redress for damaging failure of the employer to abide by the contract. Congress has put its blessing on private dispute settlement arrangements provided in collective agreements, but it was anticipated, we are sure, that the contractual machinery would operate within some minimum levels of integrity. In our view, enforcement of the finality provision where the arbitrator has erred is conditioned upon the union’s having satisfied its statutory duty fairly to represent the employee in connection with the arbitration proceedings. Wrongfully discharged employees would be left without jobs and without a fair opportunity to secure an adequate remedy.
Except for this case the Courts of Appeals have arrived at similar conclusions. As the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit put it in Margetta v. Pam Pam Corp., 501 F. 2d 179, 180 (1974): “To us, it makes little difference whether the union subverts the arbitration process by refusing to proceed as in Vaca or follows the arbitration trail to the end, but in so doing subverts the arbitration process by failing to fairly represent the employee. In neither case, does the employee receive fair representation.”
Petitioners, if they prove an erroneous discharge and the Union’s breach of duty tainting the decision of the joint committee, are entitled to an appropriate remedy against the employer as well as the Union. It was error to affirm the District Court’s final dismissal of petitioners’ action against Anchor. To this extent the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
So ordered.
Mb. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Two of the original petitioners, Burtice A. Hines and Arthur D. Cartwright, are deceased. Charles A. Hines and Chyra J. Cartwright have been substituted as party petitioners. 423 U. S. 816, 982 (1975).
The contractual grievance procedure is set out in Art. 7 of the Central Conference Area Supplement to the National Master Automobile Transporters Agreement. App. 226-233. Grievances were to be taken up by the employee involved and if no settlement was reached, were then to be considered by the business agent of the local union and the employer representative. If the dispute remained unresolved, either party had the right to present the case for decision to the appropriate joint area arbitration committee. These committees are organized on a geographical area basis and hear grievances in panels made up of an equal number of representatives of the parties to the collective-bargaining agreement. Cases that deadlocked before the joint area committee could be taken to a panel of the national joint arbitration committee, composed like the area committee panels of an equal number of representatives of the parties to the agreement. If unresolved there, they would be resolved by a panel including an impartial arbitrator. The joint arbitration committee for the Detroit area is involved in this case.
The provision is contained in § 5 of Art. 7. App. 231. In addition, § 7 (e) of the same article provides that all decisions of the national and area committees with respect to the interpretation of the contract “shall be final and conclusive and binding upon the •Employer and the Union, and the employees involved.” App. 232.
As summarized by the Court of Appeals, the allegations relied on were:
“They consist of the motel clerk’s admission, made a year after the discharge was upheld in arbitration, that he, not plaintiffs, pocketed the money; the claim of the union’s failure to investigate the motel clerk’s original story implicating plaintiffs despite their requests; the account of the union officials’ assurances to plaintiffs that ‘they had nothing to worry about’ and ‘that there was no need for them to investigate’; the contention that no exculpatory evidence was presented at the hearing; and the assertion that there existed political antagonism between local union officials and plaintiffs because of a wildcat strike led by some of the plaintiffs and a dispute over the appointment of a steward, resulting in denunciation of plaintiffs as ‘hillbillies’ by Angelo, the union president.” 506 F. 2d 1153, 1156 (CA6 1974).
The quoted segment of the opinion in Balowski v. International Union, 372 F. 2d, at 833, was:
“ 'It is apparent that what plaintiff is attempting to do is to relitigate his grievance in this proceeding. This he cannot do when the collective bargaining agreement provides for final and binding arbitration of all disputes, absent a showing of fraud, misrepresentation, bad faith, dishonesty of purpose, or such gross mistake or inaction as to imply bad faith on the part of the Union or the employer.'” 506 F. 2d, at 1157 (citation omitted).
The rule in the Sixth Circuit, under Balowski, would appear to have been that an employee could litigate his discharge in court if he proved bad faith or gross mistake on the part of either the union or the employer.
One judge, otherwise concurring, dissented as to affirming summary judgment against Anchor because “issues of fact . . . presented by the pleadings concerning plaintiffs’ charges against the employer . . . should not have been dealt with on summary judgment.” 506 F. 2d, at 1158.
Our order of April 21, 1975, was as follows:
“Certiorari granted limited to Question 1 presented by the petition which reads as follows:
“ ‘1. Whether petitioners’ claim under LMRA § 301 for wrongful discharge is barred by the decision of a joint grievance committee upholding their discharge, notwithstanding that their union breached its duty of fair representation in processing their grievance so as to deprive them and the grievance committee of overwhelming evidence of their innocence of the alleged dishonesty for which they were discharged?”’
The affirmance of summary judgment in favor of the International is therefore not before us. Nor is the judgment of the Court of Appeals reversing the summary judgment in favor of Local 377, since the Union has not sought review of this ruling.
§301 (a), 29 U. S. C. §185 (a):
“Suits for violation of contracts between an employer and a labor organization representing employees in an industry affecting commerce as defined in this chapter, or between any such labor organizations, may be brought in any district court of the United States having jurisdiction of the parties, without respect to the amount in controversy or without regard to the citizenship of the parties.”
Czosek v. O’Mara, 397 U. S. 25 (1970), which arose under the Railway Labor Act, 44 Stat. 577, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 151 et seq., involved a claim that a railroad had wrongfully deprived plaintiff of his seniority and that the union had failed in its duty to protest. The suit against the union was sustained by the Court of Appeals, but dismissal of the claim against the railroad was affirmed absent allegation that the company had participated in the union’s breach. In affirming the judgment we upheld the Court of Appeals’ ruling against the union, but did not reach the question whether the railroad was properly dismissed over the employee’s objections, since the latter did not challenge the judgment in this respect.
Mr. Justice Black, for one, was of the view that where the union refused to process a grievance, the employee should be allowed his suit in court without proof of the union’s breach of duty. Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U. S. 171, 203 (1967) (dissenting opinion).
Steinman v. Spector Freight System, Inc., 441 F. 2d 599 (CA2 1971); Butler v. Local Union 823, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, 514 F. 2d 442 (CA8), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 924 (1975); Margetta v. Pam Pam Corp., 501 F. 2d 179 (CA9 1974); Local 13, International Longshoremen’s & Warehousemen’s Union v. Pacific Maritime Assn., 441 F. 2d 1061 (CA9 1971), cert. denied, 404 U. S. 1016 (1972). See also Bieski v. Eastern Automobile Forwarding Co., 396 F. 2d 32, 38 (CA3 1968); Rothlein v. Armour & Co., 391 F. 2d 574, 579-580 (CA3 1968); Harris v. Chemical Leaman Tank Lines, Inc., 437 F. 2d 167, 171 (CA5 1971); Andrus v. Convoy Co., 480 F. 2d 604, 606 (CA9), cert. denied, 414 U. S. 989 (1973).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Respondent Edward Schad was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. After an extensive series of state- and federal-court proceedings concluded with this Court's denial of respondent's petitions for certiorari and for rehearing, the Ninth Circuit declined to issue its mandate as normally required by Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(d)(2)(D). The Ninth Circuit instead, sua sponte, construed respondent's motion to stay the mandate pending the Ninth Circuit's decision in a separate en banc case as a motion to reconsider a motion that it had denied six months earlier. Based on its review of that previously rejected motion, the court issued a stay a few days before respondent's scheduled execution. Even assuming, as we did in Bell v. Thompson, 545 U.S. 794, 125 S.Ct. 2825, 162 L.Ed.2d 693 (2005), that Rule 41(d)(2)(D) admits of any exceptions, the Ninth Circuit did not demonstrate that exceptional circumstances justified withholding its mandate. As a result, we conclude that the Ninth Circuit's failure to issue its mandate constituted an abuse of discretion.
I
In 1985, an Arizona jury found respondent guilty of first-degree murder for the 1978 strangling of 74-year-old Lorimer Grove. The court sentenced respondent to death. After respondent's conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct review, see State v. Schad, 163 Ariz. 411, 788 P.2d 1162 (1989), and Schad v. Arizona, 501 U.S. 624, 111 S.Ct. 2491, 115 L.Ed.2d 555 (1991), respondent again sought state habeas relief, alleging that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance at sentencing by failing to discover and present sufficient mitigating evidence. The state courts denied relief.
In August 1998, respondent sought federal habeas relief. He again raised a claim of ineffective assistance at sentencing for failure to present sufficient mitigating evidence. The District Court denied respondent's request for an evidentiary hearing to present new mitigating evidence, concluding that respondent was not diligent in developing the evidence during his state habeas proceedings. Schad v. Schriro, 454 F.Supp.2d 897 (D.Ariz.2006). The District Court alternatively held that the proffered new evidence did not demonstrate that trial counsel's performance was deficient. Id., at 940-947. The Ninth Circuit affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the District Court for a hearing to determine whether respondent's state habeas counsel was diligent in developing the state evidentiary record. Schad v. Ryan, 606 F.3d 1022 (2010). Arizona petitioned for certiorari. This Court granted the petition, vacated the Ninth Circuit's opinion, and remanded for further proceedings in light of Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U.S. ----, 131 S.Ct. 1388, 179 L.Ed.2d 557 (2011). See Ryan v. Schad, 563 U.S. ----, 131 S.Ct. 2092, 179 L.Ed.2d 886 (2011). On remand, the Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court's denial of habeas relief. Schad v. Ryan, 671 F.3d 708, 726 (2011). The Ninth Circuit subsequently denied a motion for rehearing and rehearing en banc on February 28, 2012.
On July 10, 2012, respondent filed in the Ninth Circuit the first motion directly at issue in this case. This motion asked the court to vacate its judgment and remand to the District Court for additional proceedings in light of this Court's decision in Martinez v. Ryan, 566 U.S. 1, 132 S.Ct. 1309, 182 L.Ed.2d 272 (2012). The Ninth Circuit denied respondent's motion on July 27, 2012. Respondent then filed a petition for certiorari. This Court denied the petition on October 9, 2012, 568 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 432, 184 L.Ed.2d 264, and denied a petition for rehearing on January 7, 2013. 568 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 922, 184 L.Ed.2d 713.
Respondent returned to the Ninth Circuit that day and filed a motion requesting a stay of the mandate in light of a pending Ninth Circuit en banc case addressing the interaction between Pinholster and Martinez . The Ninth Circuit denied the motion on February 1, 2013, "declin[ing] to issue an indefinite stay of the mandate that would unduly interfere with Arizona's execution process." Order in No. 07-99005, Doc. 102, p. 1. But instead of issuing the mandate, the court decided sua sponte to construe respondent's motion "as a motion to reconsider our prior denial of his Motion to Vacate Judgment and Remand in light of Martinez, " which the court had denied on July 27, 2012. Id., at 2. The court ordered briefing and, in a divided opinion, remanded the case to the District Court to determine whether respondent could establish that he received ineffective assistance of postconviction counsel under Martinez, whether he could demonstrate prejudice as a result, and whether his underlying claim of ineffective assistance of trial counsel had merit. No. 07-99005 (Feb. 26, 2013), App. to Pet. for Cert. A-13 to A-15, 2013 WL 791610, *6. Judge Graber dissented based on her conclusion that respondent could not show prejudice. Id., at A-16 to A-17, 2013 WL 791610, *7. Arizona set an execution date of March 6, 2013, which prompted respondent to file a motion for stay of execution on February 26, 2013. The Ninth Circuit panel granted the motion on March 1, 2013, with Judge Graber again noting her dissent.
On March 4, 2013, Arizona filed a petition for rehearing and rehearing en banc with the Ninth Circuit. The court denied the petition the same day, with eight judges dissenting in two separate opinions. 709 F.3d 855 (2013).
On March 4, Arizona filed an application to vacate the stay of execution in this Court, along with a petition for certiorari. This Court denied the application, with Justices SCALIA and ALITO noting that they would grant it. 568 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 2548, 186 L.Ed.2d 644, 2013 WL 3155269 (2013). We now consider the petition.
II
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 41(d)(2)(D) sets forth the default rule that "[t]he court of appeals must issue the mandate immediately when a copy of a Supreme Court order denying the petition for writ of certiorari is filed." (Emphasis added.) The reason for this Rule is straightforward: "[T]he stay of mandate is entered solely to allow this Court time to consider a petition for certiorari." Bell, 545 U.S., at 806, 125 S.Ct. 2825. Hence, once this Court has denied a petition, there is generally no need for further action from the lower courts. See ibid. (" [A] decision by this Court denying discretionary review usually signals the end of litigation"). In Bell, Tennessee argued that Rule 41(d)(2)(D)" admits of no exceptions, so the mandate should have issued on the date" the Court of Appeals received notice of the Supreme Court's denial of certiorari. Id., at 803, 125 S.Ct. 2825. There was no need to resolve this issue in Bell because we concluded that the Sixth Circuit had abused its discretion even if Rule 41(d)(2)(D) authorized a stay of the mandate after denial of certiorari. Id., at 803-804, 125 S.Ct. 2825. As in Bell, we need not resolve this issue to determine that the Ninth Circuit abused its discretion here.
Bell recognized that when state-court judgments are reviewed in federal habeas proceedings, "finality and comity concerns," based in principles of federalism, demand that federal courts "accord the appropriate level of respect to" state judgments by allowing them to be enforced when federal proceedings conclude. Id., at 812-813, 125 S.Ct. 2825. As we noted, States have an " ' "interest in the finality of convictions that have survived direct review within the state court system." ' " Id., at 813, 125 S.Ct. 2825 (quoting Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538, 555, 118 S.Ct. 1489, 140 L.Ed.2d 728 (1998), in turn quoting Brecht v. Abrahamson, 507 U.S. 619, 635, 113 S.Ct. 1710, 123 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993) ). Elsewhere, we explained that " 'the profound interests in repose' attaching to the mandate of a court of appeals" dictate that "the power [to withdraw the mandate] can be exercised only in extraordinary circumstances." Calderon, supra, at 550, 118 S.Ct. 1489 (quoting 16 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3938, p. 712 (2d ed.1996) ). Deviation from normal mandate procedures is a power "of last resort, to be held in reserve against grave, unforeseen contingencies." Calderon, supra, at 550, 118 S.Ct. 1489. Even assuming a court of appeals has authority to do so, it abuses its discretion when it refuses to issue the mandate once the Supreme Court has acted on the petition, unless extraordinary circumstances justify that action.
Applying this standard in Bell, we found no extraordinary circumstances that could constitute a miscarriage of justice.
There, a capital defendant unsuccessfully alleged in state postconviction proceedings that his trial counsel had been ineffective by failing to introduce sufficient mitigating evidence in the penalty phase of trial. 545 U.S., at 797, 125 S.Ct. 2825. On federal habeas review, he made the same argument. Id., at 798, 125 S.Ct. 2825. After the Sixth Circuit affirmed, the defendant filed a petition for rehearing that "placed substantial emphasis" on his argument that the Sixth Circuit had overlooked new psychiatrist evidence. Id., at 800, 125 S.Ct. 2825. While the Sixth Circuit denied the petition, it stayed the issuance of its mandate while the defendant sought certiorari and, later, rehearing from the denial of the writ. Ibid.
When this Court denied the petition for rehearing, the Sixth Circuit did not issue its mandate. Instead, the Sixth Circuit waited five months (and until two days before the scheduled execution) to issue an amended opinion that vacated the District Court's denial of habeas and remanded for an evidentiary hearing on the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claim. Id., at 800-801, 125 S.Ct. 2825. This Court reversed that decision, holding that the Sixth Circuit had abused its discretion due to its delay in issuing the mandate without notifying the parties, its reliance on a previously rejected argument, and its disregard of comity and federalism principles.
In this case, the Ninth Circuit similarly abused its discretion when it did not issue the mandate. As in Bell, the Ninth Circuit here declined to issue the mandate based on an argument it had considered and rejected months earlier. And, by the time of the Ninth Circuit's February 1, 2013, decision not to issue its mandate, it had been over 10 months since we decided Martinez and nearly 7 months since respondent unsuccessfully asked the Ninth Circuit to reconsider its decision in light of Martinez . Further, there is no doubt that the arguments presented in the rejected July 10, 2012, motion were identical to those accepted by the Ninth Circuit the following February. Respondent styled his July 10 motion a "Motion to Vacate Judgment and Remand to the District Court for Additional Proceedings in Light of Martinez v. Ryan ." No. 07-99005(CA9), Doc. 88, p. 1. As its title suggests, the only claim presented in that motion was that respondent's postconviction counsel should have developed more evidence to support his ineffective-assistance-of-trial-counsel claim. Here, as in Bell, respondent's July 10 motion "pressed the same arguments that eventually were adopted by the Court of Appeals." 545 U.S., at 806, 125 S.Ct. 2825. These arguments were pressed so strongly in the July 10 motion that "[i]t is difficult to see how ... counsel could have been clearer." Id., at 808, 125 S.Ct. 2825. The Ninth Circuit had a full "opportunity to consider these arguments" but declined to do so, id., at 806, 125 S.Ct. 2825, which "support[s] our determination that the decision to withhold the mandate was in error." Id., at 806-807, 125 S.Ct. 2825. We presume that the Ninth Circuit carefully considers each motion a capital defendant presents on habeas review. See id., at 808, 125 S.Ct. 2825 (rejecting the notion that "judges cannot be relied upon to read past the first page of a petition for rehearing"). As a result, there is no indication that there were any extraordinary circumstances here that called for the court to revisit an argument sua sponte that it already explicitly rejected.
Finally, this case presents an additional issue not present in Bell . In refusing to issue the mandate, the Ninth Circuit panel relied heavily upon Beardslee v. Brown, 393 F.3d 899, 901 (C.A.9 2004) (per curiam ), Beardslee, which precedes our Bell decision by more than six months, asserts the Ninth Circuit's inherent authority to withhold a mandate. See App. to Pet. for Cert. A-3 to A-4, 2013 WL 791610, *1. But Beardslee was based on the Sixth Circuit's decision in Bell, which we reversed. See Beardslee, supra, at 901 (citing Thompson v. Bell, 373 F.3d 688, 691-692 (C.A.6 2004) ). That opinion, thus, provides no support for the Ninth Circuit's decision.
In light of the foregoing, we hold that the Ninth Circuit abused its discretion when it neglected to issue its mandate. The petition for a writ of certiorari and respondent's motion to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The Ninth Circuit's judgment is reversed, the stay of execution is vacated, and the case is remanded with instructions to issue the mandate immediately and without any further proceedings.
It is so ordered .
A state habeas court vacated an earlier guilty verdict and death sentence due to an error in jury instructions. See State v. Schad, 142 Ariz. 619, 691 P.2d 710 (1984).
Martinez, 566 U.S. 1, 132 S.Ct. 1309, 182 L.Ed.2d 272, was decided on March 20, 2012. We are unaware of any explanation for respondent's delay in bringing his Martinez -based argument to the Ninth Circuit's attention.
Respondent did not even present the motion that the Ninth Circuit ultimately reinstated until more than 4 months after the Ninth Circuit denied respondent's request for panel rehearing and rehearing en banc and more than 3 ½ months after Martinez was decided.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 convicted of murder, armed robbery, and aggravated assault by a jury in Taylor County, Georgia, and sentenced to death. At trial, over petitioner’s objection, the court excused for cause five jurors who expressed reservations about the death penalty. The Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed, citing Wainwright v. Witt, 469 U. S. 412 (1985), as “controlling authority” for a rule that appellate courts must defer to trial courts’ findings concerning juror bias. 266 Ga. 439, 440-442, 469 S. E. 2d 129, 134-135 (1996).
Wainwright v. Witt, supra, delineated the standard under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments for determining when a juror may be excused for cause because of his views on the death penalty: whether these views would “ ‘prevent or substantially impair the performance of his duties as a juror in accordance with his instructions and his oath.’ ” Id., at 424. Addressing petitioner’s federal constitutional chai-lenge to the juror disqualifications in this case, the Supreme Court of Georgia correctly recognized that Witt is “the controlling authority as to the death-penalty qualification of prospective jurors . . . .” 266 Ga., at 440, 469 S. E. 2d, at 134.
spective . . . Witt also held that, under 28 U. S. C. § 34. courts must accord a presumption of correctness to state courts’ findings of juror bias. 469 U. S., at 426-430. The Supreme Court of Georgia said that Witt was also “controlling authority” on this point, and it therefore ruled that “[t]he conclusion that a prospective juror is disqualified for bias is one that is based upon findings of demeanor and credibility which are peculiarly within the trial court’s province and such findings are to be given deference by appellate courts. Wainwright v. Witt, [469 U. S.,] at 428.” 266 Ga., at 441, 469 S. E. 2d, at 134-135.
at 441, Witt is not “controlling authority” as to -135. review to be applied by state appellate courts reviewing trial courts’ rulings on jury selection. Witt was a case arising on federal habeas, where deference to state-court findings is mandated by 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d). But this statute does not govern the standard of review of trial court findings by the Supreme Court of Georgia. There is no indication in that court’s opinion that it viewed Witt as merely persuasive authority, or that the court intended to borrow or adopt the Witt standard of review for its own purposes. It believed itself bound by Witt’s standard of review of trial court findings on jury-selection questions, and in so doing it mistaken.
In a similar case involving a state court’s that the First Amendment required it to reach a particular result, we said: “We conclude that although the State of Ohio may as a matter of its own law privilege the press in the circumstances of this case, the First and Fourteenth Amendments do not require it to do so.” Zacchini v. Scripps- Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U. S. 562, 578-579 (1977). Here, too, the Supreme Court of Georgia is free to adopt the rule laid down in Witt for review of trial court findings in jury-selection cases, but it need not do so. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are therefore granted, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Georgia is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
We express no opinion as to the correctness of the Supreme Court of Georgia’s application of the Witt standard in this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases require us to decide whether the First Amendment permits courts to intervene in employment disputes involving teachers at religious schools who are entrusted with the responsibility of instructing their students in the faith. The First Amendment protects the right of religious institutions "to decide for themselves, free from state interference, matters of church government as well as those of faith and doctrine." Kedroff v. Saint Nicholas Cathedral of Russian Orthodox Church in North America, 344 U.S. 94, 116, 73 S.Ct. 143, 97 L.Ed. 120 (1952). Applying this principle, we held in Hosanna-Tabor Evangelical Lutheran Church and School v. EEOC, 565 U.S. 171, 132 S.Ct. 694, 181 L.Ed.2d 650 (2012), that the First Amendment barred a court from entertaining an employment discrimination claim brought by an elementary school teacher, Cheryl Perich, against the religious school where she taught. Our decision built on a line of lower court cases adopting what was dubbed the "ministerial exception" to laws governing the employment relationship between a religious institution and certain key employees. We did not announce "a rigid formula" for determining whether an employee falls within this exception, but we identified circumstances that we found relevant in that case, including Perich's title as a "Minister of Religion, Commissioned," her educational training, and her responsibility to teach religion and participate with students in religious activities. Id., at 190-191, 132 S.Ct. 694.
In the cases now before us, we consider employment discrimination claims brought by two elementary school teachers at Catholic schools whose teaching responsibilities are similar to Perich's. Although these teachers were not given the title of "minister" and have less religious training than Perich, we hold that their cases fall within the same rule that dictated our decision in Hosanna-Tabor. The religious education and formation of students is the very reason for the existence of most private religious schools, and therefore the selection and supervision of the teachers upon whom the schools rely to do this work lie at the core of their mission. Judicial review of the way in which religious schools discharge those responsibilities would undermine the independence of religious institutions in a way that the First Amendment does not tolerate.
I
A
1
The first of the two cases we now decide involves Agnes Morrissey-Berru, who was employed at Our Lady of Guadalupe School (OLG), a Roman Catholic primary school in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles. Excerpts of Record (ER) 58 in No. 17-56624 (CA9) (OLG). For many years, Morrissey-Berru was employed at OLG as a lay fifth or sixth grade teacher. Like most elementary school teachers, she taught all subjects, and since OLG is a Catholic school, the curriculum included religion. App. 23, 75. As a result, she was her students' religion teacher.
Morrissey-Berru earned a B. A. in English Language Arts, with a minor in secondary education, and she holds a California teaching credential. Id., at 21-22. While on the faculty at OLG, she took religious education courses at the school's request, ER 41-ER 42, ER 44-ER 45, ER 276, and was expected to attend faculty prayer services, App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 19-267, p. 87a.
Each year, Morrissey-Berru and OLG entered into an employment agreement, App. 21, that set out the school's "mission" and Morrissey-Berru's duties. See, e.g., id., at 154-164. The agreement stated that the school's mission was "to develop and promote a Catholic School Faith Community," id., at 154, and it informed Morrissey-Berru that "[a]ll [her] duties and responsibilities as a Teache[r were to] be performed within this overriding commitment." Ibid. The agreement explained that the school's hiring and retention decisions would be guided by its Catholic mission, and the agreement made clear that teachers were expected to "model and promote" Catholic "faith and morals." Id., at 155. Under the agreement, Morrissey-Berru was required to participate in "[s]chool liturgical activities, as requested," ibid., and the agreement specified that she could be terminated "for 'cause' " for failing to carry out these duties or for "conduct that brings discredit upon the School or the Roman Catholic Church." Id., at 155-157. The agreement required compliance with the faculty handbook, which sets out similar expectations. Id., at 156; App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 19-267, at 52a-55a. The pastor of the parish, a Catholic priest, had to approve Morrissey-Berru's hiring each year. Id., at 14a; see also App. 164.
Like all teachers in the Archdiocese of Los Angeles, Morrissey-Berru was "considered a catechist," i.e., "a teacher of religio[n]." App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 19-267, at 56a, 60a. Catechists are "responsible for the faith formation of the students in their charge each day." Id., at 56a. Morrissey-Berru provided religious instruction every day using a textbook designed for use in teaching religion to young Catholic students. Id., at 45a-51a, 90a-92a; see App. 79-80. Under the prescribed curriculum, she was expected to teach students, among other things, "to learn and express belief that Jesus is the son of God and the Word made flesh"; to "identify the ways" the church "carries on the mission of Jesus"; to "locate, read and understand stories from the Bible"; to "know the names, meanings, signs and symbols of each of the seven sacraments"; and to be able to "explain the communion of saints." App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 19-267, at 91a-92a. She tested her students on that curriculum in a yearly exam. Id., at 87a. She also directed and produced an annual passion play. Id., at 26a.
Morrissey-Berru prepared her students for participation in the Mass and for communion and confession. Id., at 68a, 81a, 88a-89a. She also occasionally selected and prepared students to read at Mass. Id., at 83a, 89a. And she was expected to take her students to Mass once a week and on certain feast days (such as the Feast Day of St. Juan Diego, All Saints Day, and the Feast of Our Lady), and to take them to confession and to pray the Stations of the Cross. Id., at 68a-69a, 83a, 88a. Each year, she brought them to the Catholic Cathedral in Los Angeles, where they participated as altar servers. Id., at 95a-96a. This visit, she explained, was "an important experience" because "[i]t is a big honor" for children to "serve the altar" at the cathedral. Id., at 96a.
Morrissey-Berru also prayed with her students. Her class began or ended every day with a Hail Mary. Id., at 87a. She led the students in prayer at other times, such as when a family member was ill. Id., at 21a, 81a, 86a-87a. And she taught them to recite the Apostle's Creed and the Nicene Creed, as well as prayers for specific purposes, such as in connection with the sacrament of confession. Id., at 20a-21a, 92a.
The school reviewed Morrissey-Berru's performance under religious standards. The " 'Classroom Observation Report' " evaluated whether Catholic values were "infused through all subject areas" and whether there were religious signs and displays in the classroom. Id., at 94a, 95a; App. 59. Morrissey-Berru testified that she tried to instruct her students "in a manner consistent with the teachings of the Church," App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 19-267, at 96a, and she said that she was "committed to teaching children Catholic values" and providing a "faith-based education." Id., at 82a. And the school principal confirmed that Morrissey-Berru was expected to do these things.
2
In 2014, OLG asked Morrissey-Berru to move from a full-time to a part-time position, and the next year, the school declined to renew her contract. She filed a claim with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), received a right-to-sue letter, App. 169, and then filed suit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967, 81 Stat. 602, as amended, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq., claiming that the school had demoted her and had failed to renew her contract so that it could replace her with a younger teacher. App. 168-169. The school maintains that it based its decisions on classroom performance-specifically, Morrissey-Berru's difficulty in administering a new reading and writing program, which had been introduced by the school's new principal as part of an effort to maintain accreditation and improve the school's academic program. App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 19-267, at 66a-67a, 70a, 73a.
Invoking the "ministerial exception" that we recognized in Hosanna-Tabor, OLG successfully moved for summary judgment, but the Ninth Circuit reversed in a brief opinion. 769 Fed.Appx. 460, 461 (2019). The court acknowledged that Morrissey-Berru had "significant religious responsibilities" but reasoned that "an employee's duties alone are not dispositive under Hosanna-Tabor's framework." Ibid. Unlike Perich, the court noted, Morrissey-Berru did not have the formal title of "minister," had limited formal religious training, and "did not hold herself out to the public as a religious leader or minister." Ibid. In the court's view, these "factors" outweighed the fact that she was invested with significant religious responsibilities. Ibid. The court therefore held that Morrissey-Berru did not fall within the "ministerial exception." OLG filed a petition for certiorari, and we granted review.
B
1
The second case concerns the late Kristen Biel, who worked for about a year and a half as a lay teacher at St. James School, another Catholic primary school in Los Angeles. For part of one academic year, Biel served as a long-term substitute teacher for a first grade class, and for one full year she was a full-time fifth grade teacher. App. 336-337. Like Morrissey-Berru, she taught all subjects, including religion. Id., at 288; ER 588 in No. 17-55180 (CA9) (St. James).
Biel had a B. A. in liberal studies and a teaching credential. App. 244. During her time at St. James, she attended a religious conference that imparted "[d]ifferent techniques on teaching and incorporating God" into the classroom. Id., at 260-262. Biel was Catholic.
Biel's employment agreement was in pertinent part nearly identical to Morrissey-Berru's. Compare id., at 154-164, with id., at 320-329. The agreement set out the same religious mission; required teachers to serve that mission; imposed commitments regarding religious instruction, worship, and personal modeling of the faith; and explained that teachers' performance would be reviewed on those bases.
Biel's agreement also required compliance with the St. James faculty handbook, which resembles the OLG handbook. Id., at 322. Compare ER 641-ER 651 (OLG) with ER 565-ER 597 (St. James). The St. James handbook defines "religious development"
as the school's first goal and provides that teachers must "mode[l] the faith life," "exemplif[y] the teachings of Jesus Christ," "integrat[e] Catholic thought and principles into secular subjects," and "prepar[e] students to receive the sacraments." Id., at ER 570-ER 572. The school principal confirmed these expectations.
Like Morrissey-Berru, Biel instructed her students in the tenets of Catholicism. She was required to teach religion for 200 minutes each week, App. 257-258, and administered a test on religion every week, id., at 256-257. She used a religion textbook selected by the school's principal, a Catholic nun. Id., at 255; ER 37 (St. James). The religious curriculum covered "the norms and doctrines of the Catholic Faith, including... the sacraments of the Catholic Church, social teachings according to the Catholic Church, morality, the history of Catholic saints, [and] Catholic prayers." App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 19-348, p. 83a.
Biel worshipped with her students. At St. James, teachers are responsible for "prepar[ing] their students to be active participants at Mass, with particular emphasis on Mass responses," ER 587, and Biel taught her students about "Catholic practices like the Eucharist and confession," id., at ER 226-ER 227. At monthly Masses, she prayed with her students. App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 19-348, at 82a, 94a-96a. Her students participated in the liturgy on some occasions by presenting the gifts (bringing bread and wine to the priest). Ibid.
Teachers at St. James were "required to pray with their students every day," id., at 80a-81a, 110a, and Biel observed this requirement by opening and closing each school day with prayer, including the Lord's Prayer or a Hail Mary, id., at 81a-82a, 93a, 110a.
As at OLG, teachers at St. James are evaluated on their fulfillment of the school's religious mission. Id., at 83a-84a. St. James used the same classroom observation standards as OLG and thus examined whether teachers "infus[ed]" Catholic values in all their teaching and included religious displays in their classrooms. Id., at 83a-84a, 92a. The school's principal, a Catholic nun, evaluated Biel on these measures. Id., at 106a.
2
St. James declined to renew Biel's contract after one full year at the school. She filed charges with the EEOC, and after receiving a right-to-sue letter, brought this suit, alleging that she was discharged because she had requested a leave of absence to obtain treatment for breast cancer. App. 337-338. The school maintains that the decision was based on poor performance-namely, a failure to observe the planned curriculum and keep an orderly classroom. See id., at 303; App. to Pet. for Cert. in No. 19-348, at 85a-89a, 114a-115a, 120a-121a.
Like OLG, St. James obtained summary judgment under the ministerial exception, id., at 74a, but a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit reversed, reasoning that Biel lacked Perich's "credentials, training, [and] ministerial background," 911 F.3d 603, 608 (2018).
Judge D. Michael Fisher, sitting by designation, dissented. Considering the totality of the circumstances, he would have held that the ministerial exception applied "because of the substance reflected in [Biel's] title and the important religious functions she performed" as a "stewar[d]
of the Catholic faith to the children in her class." Id., at 621, 622.
An unsuccessful petition for rehearing en banc ensued. Judge Ryan D. Nelson, joined by eight other judges, dissented. 926 F.3d 1238, 1239 (C.A.9 2019). Judge Nelson faulted the panel majority for "embrac[ing] the narrowest construction" of the ministerial exception, departing from "the consensus of our sister circuits that the employee's ministerial function should be the key focus," and demanding nothing less than a "carbon copy" of the specific facts in Hosanna-Tabor. Ibid. We granted review and consolidated the case with OLG's. 589 U. S. ----, 140 S.Ct. 679, 205 L.Ed.2d 448 (2019).
II
A
The First Amendment provides that "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Among other things, the Religion Clauses protect the right of churches and other religious institutions to decide matters " 'of faith and doctrine' " without government intrusion. Hosanna-Tabor, 565 U.S. at 186, 132 S.Ct. 694 (quoting Kedroff, 344 U.S. at 116, 73 S.Ct. 143 ). State interference in that sphere would obviously violate the free exercise of religion, and any attempt by government to dictate or even to influence such matters would constitute one of the central attributes of an establishment of religion. The First Amendment outlaws such intrusion.
The independence of religious institutions in matters of "faith and doctrine" is closely linked to independence in what we have termed "'matters of church government.' " 565 U.S. at 186, 132 S.Ct. 694. This does not mean that religious institutions enjoy a general immunity from secular laws, but it does protect their autonomy with respect to internal management decisions that are essential to the institution's central mission. And a component of this autonomy is the selection of the individuals who play certain key roles.
The "ministerial exception" was based on this insight. Under this rule, courts are bound to stay out of employment disputes involving those holding certain important positions with churches and other religious institutions. The rule appears to have acquired the label "ministerial exception" because the individuals involved in pioneering cases were described as "ministers." See McClure v. Salvation Army, 460 F.2d 553, 558-559 (C.A.5 1972) ; Rayburn v. General Conference of Seventh-day Adventists, 772 F.2d 1164, 1168 (C.A.4 1985). Not all pre- Hosanna-Tabor decisions applying the exception involved "ministers" or even members of the clergy. See, e.g., EEOC v. Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, 651 F.2d 277, 283-284 (C.A.5 1981) ; EEOC v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Raleigh, N. C., 213 F.3d 795, 800-801 (C.A.4 2000). But it is instructive to consider why a church's independence on matters "of faith and doctrine" requires the authority to select, supervise, and if necessary, remove a minister without interference by secular authorities. Without that power, a wayward minister's preaching, teaching, and counseling could contradict the church's tenets and lead the congregation away from the faith. The ministerial exception was recognized to preserve a church's independent authority in such matters.
B
When the so-called ministerial exception finally reached this Court in Hosanna-Tabor, we unanimously recognized that the Religion Clauses foreclose certain employment discrimination claims brought against religious organizations. 565 U.S. at 188, 132 S.Ct. 694. The constitutional foundation for our holding was the general principle of church autonomy to which we have already referred: independence in matters of faith and doctrine and in closely linked matters of internal government. The three prior decisions on which we primarily relied drew on this broad principle, and none was exclusively concerned with the selection or supervision of clergy. Watson v. Jones, 13 Wall. 679, L.Ed. 666 (1872), involved a dispute about the control of church property, and both Kedroff, 344 U.S. 94, 73 S.Ct. 143, 97 L.Ed. 120 and Serbian Eastern Ort hodox Diocese for United States and Canada v. Milivojevich, 426 U.S. 696, 96 S.Ct. 2372, 49 L.Ed.2d 151 (1976), also concerned the control of property, as well as the appointment and authority of bishops.
In addition to these precedents, we looked to the "background" against which "the First Amendment was adopted." Hosanna-Tabor, 565 U.S. at 183, 132 S.Ct. 694. We noted that 16th-century British statutes had given the Crown the power to fill high "religious offices" and to control the exercise of religion in other ways, and we explained that the founding generation sought to prevent a repetition of these practices in our country. Ibid. Because Cheryl Perich, the teacher in Hosanna-Tabor, had a title that included the word "minister," we naturally concentrated on historical events involving clerical offices, but the abuses we identified were not limited to the control of appointments.
We pointed to the various Acts of Uniformity, id., at 182, 132 S.Ct. 694, which dictated what ministers could preach and imposed penalties for non-compliance. Under the 1549 Act, a minister who "preach[ed,] declare[d,] or [spoke] any thing" in derogation of any part of the Book of Common Prayer could be sentenced to six months in jail for a first offense and life imprisonment for a third violation. Act of Uniformity, 2 & 3 Edw. 6, ch. 1. In addition, all other English subjects were forbidden to say anything against the Book of Common Prayer in "[i]nterludes[,] play[s,] song[s,] r[h]ymes, or by other open [w]ord[s]." Ibid. A 1559 law contained similar prohibitions. See Act of Uniformity, 1 Eliz., ch. 2.
After the Restoration, Parliament enacted a new law with a similar aim. Ministers and "Lecturer[s]" were required to pledge "unfeigned assent and consent" to the Book of Common Prayer, and all schoolmasters, private tutors, and university professors were required to "conforme to the Liturgy of the Church of England" and not "to endeavour any change or alteration" of the church. Act of Uniformity, 1662, 14 Car. 2, ch. 4.
British law continued to impose religious restrictions on education in the 18th century and past the time of the adoption of the First Amendment. The Schism or Established Church Act of 1714, 13 Ann., ch. 7, required that schoolmasters and tutors be licensed by a bishop. Non-conforming Protestants, as well as Catholics and Jews, could not teach at or attend the two universities, and as Blackstone wrote, "[p]ersons professing the popish religion [could] not keep or teach any school under pain of perpetual imprisonment." 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 55 (8th ed. 1778). The law also imposed penalties on "any person [who] sen[t] another abroad to be educated in the popish religion... or [who] contribute[d] to their maintenance when there." Id., at 55-56.
British colonies in North America similarly controlled both the appointment of clergy, see Hosanna-Tabor, 565 U.S. at 183, 132 S.Ct. 694, and the teaching of students. A Maryland law "prohibited any Catholic priest or lay person from keeping school, or taking upon himself the education of youth." 2 T. Hughes, History of the Society of Jesus in North America: Colonial and Federal 443-444 (1917). In 1771, the Governor of New York was instructed to require that all schoolmasters arriving from England obtain a license from the Bishop of London. 3 C. Lincoln, The Constitutional History of New York 485, 745 (1906). New York law also required an oath and license for any " 'vagrant Preacher, Moravian, or disguised Papist' " to " 'Preach or Teach, Either in Public or Private.' " S. Cobb, The Rise of Religious Liberty in America 358 (1902).
C
In Hosanna-Tabor, Cheryl Perich, a kindergarten and fourth grade teacher at an Evangelical Lutheran school, filed suit in federal court, claiming that she had been discharged because of a disability, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). The school responded that the real reason for her dismissal was her violation of the Lutheran doctrine that disputes should be resolved internally and not by going to outside authorities. We held that her suit was barred by the "ministerial exception" and noted that it "concern[ed] government interference with an internal church decision that affects the faith and mission of the church." 565 U.S. at 190, 132 S.Ct. 694. We declined "to adopt a rigid formula for deciding when an employee qualifies as a minister," and we added that it was "enough for us to conclude, in this our first case involving the ministerial exception, that the exception covers Perich, given all the circumstances of her employment." Id., at 190-191, 132 S.Ct. 694. We identified four relevant circumstances but did not highlight any as essential.
First, we noted that her church had given Perich the title of "minister, with a role distinct from that of most of its members." Id., at 191, 132 S.Ct. 694. Although she was not a minister in the usual sense of the term-she was not a pastor or deacon, did not lead a congregation, and did not regularly conduct religious services-she was classified as a "called" teacher, as opposed to a lay teacher, and after completing certain academic requirements, was given the formal title " 'Minister of Religion, Commissioned.' " Id., at 177-178, 191, 132 S.Ct. 694.
Second, Perich's position "reflected a significant degree of religious training followed by a formal process of commissioning." Id., at 191, 132 S.Ct. 694.
Third, "Perich held herself out as a minister of the Church by accepting the formal call to religious service, according to its terms," and by claiming certain tax benefits. Id., at 191-192, 132 S.Ct. 694.
Fourth, "Perich's job duties reflected a role in conveying the Church's message and carrying out its mission." Id., at 192, 132 S.Ct. 694. The church charged her with " 'lead[ing] others toward Christian maturity' " and " 'teach[ing] faithfully the Word of God, the Sacred Scriptures, in its truth and purity and as set forth in all the symbolical books of the Evangelical Lutheran Church.' " Ibid. Although Perich also provided instruction in secular subjects, she taught religion four days a week, led her students in prayer three times a day, took her students to a chapel service once a week, and participated in the liturgy twice a year. "As a source of religious instruction," we explained, "Perich performed an important role in transmitting the Lutheran faith to the next generation." Ibid.
The case featured two concurrences. In the first, Justice THOMAS stressed that courts should "defer to a religious organization's good-faith understanding of who qualifies as its minister." Id., at 196, 132 S.Ct. 694. That is so, Justice THOMAS explained, because "[a] religious organization's right to choose its ministers would be hollow... if secular courts could second-guess" the group's sincere application of its religious tenets. Id., at 197, 132 S.Ct. 694.
The second concurrence argued that application of the "ministerial exception" should "focus on the function performed by persons who work for religious bodies" rather than labels or designations that may vary across faiths. Id., at 198, 132 S.Ct. 694 (opinion of ALITO, J., joined by KAGAN, J.). This opinion viewed the title of "minister" as "relevant" but "neither necessary nor sufficient." Id., at 202, 132 S.Ct. 694. It noted that "most faiths do not employ the term'minister' " and that some "consider the ministry to consist of all or a very large percentage of their members." Ibid. The opinion concluded that the "'ministerial' exception" "should apply to any 'employee' who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith." Id., at 199, 132 S.Ct. 694.
D
1
In determining whether a particular position falls within the Hosanna-Tabor exception, a variety of factors may be important. The circumstances that informed our decision in Hosanna-Tabor were relevant because of their relationship to Perich's "role in conveying the Church's message and carrying out its mission," id., at 192, 132 S.Ct. 694, but the other noted circumstances also shed light on that connection. In a denomination that uses the term "minister," conferring that title naturally suggests that the recipient has been given an important position of trust. In Perich's case, the title that she was awarded and used demanded satisfaction of significant academic requirements and was conferred only after a formal approval process, id., at 191, 132 S.Ct. 694, and those circumstances also evidenced the importance attached to her role, ibid. But our recognition of the significance of those factors in Perich's case did not mean that they must be met-or even that they are necessarily important-in all other cases.
Take the question of the title "minister." Simply giving an employee the title of "minister" is not enough to justify the exception. And by the same token, since many religious traditions do not use the title "minister," it cannot be a necessary requirement. Requiring the use of the title would constitute impermissible discrimination, and this problem cannot be solved simply by including positions that are thought to be the counterparts of a "minister," such as priests, nuns, rabbis, and imams. See Brief for Respondents 21. Nuns are not the same as Protestant ministers. A brief submitted by Jewish organizations makes the point that "Judaism has many'ministers,' " that is, "the term'minister' encompasses an extensive breadth of religious functionaries in Judaism." For Muslims, "an inquiry into whether imams or other leaders bear a title equivalent to'minister' can present a troubling choice between denying a central pillar of Islam-i.e., the equality of all believers-and risking loss of ministerial exception protections."
If titles were all-important, courts would have to decide which titles count and which do not, and it is hard to see how that could be done without looking behind the titles to what the positions actually entail. Moreover, attaching too much significance to titles would risk privileging religious traditions with formal organizational structures over those that are less formal.
For related reasons, the academic requirements of a position may show that the church in question regards the position as having an important responsibility in elucidating or teaching the tenets of the faith. Presumably the purpose of such requirements is to make sure that the person holding the position understands the faith and can explain it accurately and effectively. But insisting in every case on rigid academic requirements could have a distorting effect. This is certainly true with respect to teachers. Teaching children in an elementary school does not demand the same formal religious education as teaching theology to divinity students. Elementary school teachers often teach secular subjects in which they have little if any special training. In addition, religious traditions may differ in the degree of formal religious training thought to be needed in order to teach. See, e.g., Brief for Ethics and Religious Liberty Commission of the Southern Baptist Convention et al. as Amici Curiae 12 ("many Protestant groups have historically rejected any requirement of formal theological training"). In short, these circumstances, while instructive in Hosanna-Tabor, are not inflexible requirements and may have far less significance in some cases.
What matters, at bottom, is what an employee does. And implicit in our decision in Hosanna-Tabor was a recognition that educating young people in their faith, inculcating its teachings, and training them to live their faith are responsibilities that lie at the very core of the mission of a private religious school. As we put it, Perich had been entrusted with the responsibility of "transmitting the Lutheran faith to the next generation." 565 U.S. at 192, 132 S.Ct. 694. One of the concurrences made the same point, concluding that the exception should include "any 'employee' who leads a religious organization, conducts worship services or important religious ceremonies or rituals, or serves as a messenger or teacher of its faith." Id., at 199, 132 S.Ct. 694 (opinion of ALITO, J.) (emphasis added).
Religious education is vital to many faiths practiced in the United States. This point is stressed by briefs filed in support of OLG and St. James by groups affiliated with a wide array of faith traditions. In the Catholic tradition, religious education is " 'intimately bound up with the whole of the Church's life.' " Catechism of the Catholic Church 8 (2d ed. 2016). Under canon law, local bishops must satisfy themselves that "those who are designated teachers of religious instruction in schools... are outstanding in correct doctrine, the witness of a Christian life, and teaching skill." Code of Canon Law, Canon 804, § 2 (Eng. transl. 1998).
Similarly, Protestant churches, from the earliest settlements in this country, viewed education as a religious obligation. A core belief of the Puritans was that education was essential to thwart the "chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from the knowledge of the Scriptures." Thus, in 1647, the Massachusetts General Court passed what has been called the Old Deluder Satan Act requiring every sizable town to establish a school. Most of the oldest educational institutions in this country were originally established by or affiliated with churches, and in recent years, non-denominational Christian schools have proliferated with the aim of inculcating Biblical values in their students. Many such schools expressly set themselves apart from public schools that they believe do not reflect their values.
Religious education is a matter of central importance in Judaism. As explained in briefs submitted by Jewish organizations, the Torah is understood to require Jewish parents to ensure that their children are instructed in the faith. One brief quotes Maimonides's statement that religious instruction "is an obligation of the highest order, entrusted only to a schoolteacher possessing 'fear of Heaven.' " "The contemporary American Jewish community continues to place the education of children in its faith and rites at the center of its communal efforts."
Religious education is also important in Islam. "[T]he acquisition of at least rudimentary knowledge of religion and its duties [is] mandatory for the Muslim individual." This precept is traced to the Prophet Muhammad, who proclaimed that " '[t]he pursuit of knowledge is incumbent on every Muslim.' " "[T
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), 35 Stat. 65, as amended, provides that employees of common-carrier railroads may recover for work-related injuries caused in whole or in part by their railroad-employer’s negligence. See 45 U. S. C. §§ 51-60. In this case respondent Thurston Hensley sued petitioner CSX Transportation, Inc., in Tennessee state court. Hensley, who was employed by CSX as an electrician, alleged that the railroad negligently caused him to contract asbestosis — a noneaneerous scarring of lung tissue caused by long-term exposure to asbestos.
Hensley sought pain-and-suffering damages from CSX based on, among other things, his fear of developing lung cancer in the future. The Court addressed this subject in Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Ayers, 538 U. S. 135 (2003), and held that those types of damages are available in certain FELA cases. The Court stated:
“Norfolk presented the question whether a plaintiff who has asbestosis but not cancer can recover damages for fear of cancer under the FELA without proof of physical manifestations of the claimed emotional distress. Our answer is yes, with an important reservation. We affirm only the qualification of an asbestosis sufferer to seek compensation for fear of cancer as an element of his asbestosis-related pain and suffering damages. It is incumbent upon such a complainant, however, to prove that his alleged fear is genuine and serious.” Id., at 157 (internal quotation marks, citation, and alteration omitted).
At the close of a 3-week trial, Hensley and CSX submitted proposed jury instructions to the trial court. CSX proposed two instructions — requests 30 and 33 — related to Hensley’s claim for fear-of-cancer damages. Request 30 stated the basic requirements to obtain those damages under Ayers. Supp. Tech. Record, Exh. A, p. 4 (“Plaintiff is also alleging that he suffers from a compensable fear of cancer. In order to recover, Plaintiff must demonstrate . .. that the . . . fear is genuine and serious”). Request 33 stated certain factors the jury could consider in applying the Ayers standard. Supp. Tech. Record, Exh. A, at 5-6. The trial court denied both requests over CSX’s objections, and the jury was not instructed as to the legal standard for fear-of-cancer damages. 17 Tr. 2410-2415; 20 id., at 2903-2904. After two hours of deliberations, the jury found for Hensley and awarded him $5 million in damages.
The Tennessee Court of Appeals affirmed. 278 S. W. 3d 282 (2008). It described our opinion in Ayers as “specifically limit[ed]” to the “narrow issue” of whether a FELA plaintiff with asbestosis can recover for fear of cancer. 278 S. W. 3d, at 300. According to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, Ayers “did not discuss or authorize jury instructions on this issue, but merely ruled on substantive law.” 278 S. W. 3d, at 300 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Tennessee Court of Appeals also reasoned that “little if any purpose would be served by instructing the jury that the plaintiff’s fear must be ‘genuine and serious.’” Ibid. That is because “the mere suggestion of the possibility of cancer has the potential to evoke raw emotions,” and “[a]ny juror who might be predisposed to grant a large award based on shaky evidence of a fear of cancer is unlikely to be swayed by the language of Ayers.” Ibid. Instead, the Tennessee Court of Appeals stated, “it is for the courts to serve as gatekeepers” by ensuring that fear-of-cancer claims “do not go to the jury unless there is credible evidence of a ‘genuine and serious’ fear.” Ibid.
CSX petitioned for certiorari, arguing that the Tennessee Court of Appeals misread and misapplied this Court’s decision in Ayers. CSX’s contention is correct. The ruling of the Tennessee Court of Appeals, and the refusal of the trial court to give an instruction, were clear error. Contrary to the assertion of the Tennessee Court of Appeals, the Ayers Court expressly recognized that several “verdict control devices [are] available to the trial court” when a FELA plaintiff seeks fear-of-cancer damages. 588 U. S., at 159, n. 19. Those “include, on a defendant’s request, a charge that each plaintiff must prove any alleged fear to be genuine and serious.” Ibid. CSX requested an instruction on the substance of the genuine-and-serious standard, and the trial court erred by not giving one.
The reasons given by the Tennessee Court of Appeals for upholding the denial of an instruction on the standard do not withstand scrutiny. The court stated that instructing the jury on the legal standard for fear-of-cancer damages would have been futile because cancer touches many lives and therefore “evoke[s] [jurors’] raw emotions.” 278 S. W. 3d, at 300. This is a serious misunderstanding of the nature and function of the jury. The jury system is premised on the idea that rationality and careful regard for the court’s instructions will confine and exclude jurors’ raw emotions. Jurors routinely serve as impartial factfinders in cases that involve sensitive, even life-and-death matters. In those cases, as in all cases, juries are presumed to follow the court’s instructions. See Greer v. Miller, 483 U. S. 756, 766, n. 8 (1987). And the trial court in this case correctly instructed the jury as to its legal duty to “follow all of the instructions.” 20 Tr. 2882.
Instructing the jury on the standard for fear-of-cancer damages would not have been futile. To the contrary, the faet that cancer claims could “evoke raw emotions” is a powerful reason to instruct the jury on the proper legal standard. Giving the instruction on this point is particularly important in the FELA context. That is because of the volume of pending asbestos claims and also because the nature of those claims enhances the danger that a jury, without proper instructions, could award emotional-distress damages based on slight evidence of a plaintiff’s fear of contracting cancer. But as this Court said in Ayers, more is required. Although plaintiffs can seek fear-of-cancer damages in some FELA cases, they must satisfy a high standard in order to obtain them. 538 U. S., at 157-158, and n. 17. Refusing defendants’ requests to instruct the jury as to that high standard would render it all but meaningless.
It is no answer that, as the Tennessee Court of Appeals stated, courts can apply the Ayers standard when ruling on sufficiency-of-the-evidenee challenges. To be sure, Ayers recognized that a “review of the evidence on damages for sufficiency” is another of the “verdict control devices” available to courts when plaintiffs seek fear-of-cancer damages. Id., at 159, n. 19. But a determination that there is sufficient evidence to send a claim to a jury is not the same as a determination that a plaintiff has met the burden of proof and should succeed on a claim outright. Put another way, a properly instructed jury could find that a plaintiff’s fear is not “genuine and serious” even when there is legally sufficient evidence for the jury to rule for the plaintiff on the issue. That is why Ayers recognized that sufficiency reviews and jury instructions are important and separate protections against imposing unbounded liability on asbestos defendants in fear-of-cancer claims.
When this Court in Ayers held that certain FELA plaintiffs can recover based on their fear of developing cancer, it struck a delicate balance between plaintiffs and defendants— and it did so against the backdrop of systemic difficulties posed by the “elephantine mass of asbestos cases.” Id., at 166 (internal quotation marks omitted). Jury instructions stating the proper standard for fear-of-cancer damages were part of that balance, id., at 159, n. 19, and courts must give such instructions upon a defendant’s request. The ruling of the Tennessee Court of Appeals conflicts with Ayers. The trial court should have given the substance of the requested instructions. See also Hedgecorth v. Union Pacific R. Co., 210 S. W. 3d 220, 227-229 (Mo. App. 2006).
The petition for certiorari is granted. The motions for leave to file briefs amici curiae of American Tort Reform Association et al.; Association of American Railroads; and Washington Legal Foundation are granted. The judgment of the Tennessee Court of Appeals 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: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit for an injunction, brought in a state court" in Oklahoma by appellee, Oklahoma Retail Grocers Association, against appellant, Safeway Stores, for selling several specified items of retail grocery merchandise below “cost” in violation of the Oklahoma Unfair Sales Act. Okla. Stat. tit. 15, §§ 598.1-598.11 (1951). Section 598.3 of the Act provides:
“It is hereby declared that any advertising, offer to sell, or sale of any merchandise, either by retailers or wholesalers, at less than cost as defined'in this Adt with the intent and purpose of inducing the purchase of other merchandise or of unfairly diverting trade from a competitor or otherwise injuring a competitor, impair and prevent fair competition, injure public welfare, are unfair competition and contrary to public policy and the policy of this Act, where the result of such advertising, offer or sale is to tend to deceive any purchaser or prospective purchaser, or to substantially lessen competition, or to unreasonably restrain trade, or to tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce.”
The elements of “cost” are enumerated in other sections of the statute. Safeway defended on the ground, inter alia, that its. reductions were permitted by § 598.7 of the Unfair Sales Act which allows “any retailer or wholesaler” to
“. . . advertise, offer to sell, or sell merchandise at a price made in good faith to meet the price of a competitor who is selling the same article or products of comparable quality at cost to him as a wholesaler or retailer.”
Safeway by cross-petition sought to enjoin several named members of appellee Association, including Speed, alleging that they were selling below cost in violation of the Act. The trial court, with some qualification, granted the injunction against Safeway and denied relief against appellees. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Oklahoma affirmed, 322 P. 2d 179, and since the constitutionality of the state statute was challenged under the Fourteenth Amendment, we noted probable jurisdiction, 358 U. S. 807, and brought the case here under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2).
Safeway makes two main claims.
1. Safeway justified cutting prices below cost in some cities by claiming it was to meet the prices of some of its competitors who were also selling below cost. The statute allows a reduction below cost only when it is a good faith meeting of the competition of a seller who is selling at his own cost. The trial court found that Safeway’s reductions violated the Act, and that Safeway could not avail itself of the statutory defense of meeting competition since its reductions were not in good faith but were made to meet prices Safeway “either knew or had reason to know were illegal . . . .” The court enjoined Safeway from
“. . . selling, at retail, any items of merchandise ... at prices which are less than cost to the retailer as defined in the Oklahoma ‘Unfair' Sales Act’ and in violation of the provisions of said ‘Unfair Sales Act’, except to meet, in good faith the prices of competitors who are selling the same articles or products of comparable quality at cost to them as retailers as defined in the. Oklahoma ‘Unfair Sales Act’, and except in instances of other exempted sales as provided in Section 598.6 of said Oklahoma ‘Unfair Sales Act.’ ” •
The injunction, phrased substantially in the terms- of the statute, allows Safeway to meet thq prices of competitors who are selling, “at cost to them” if the other requisites of the good faith defense are met. Appellant elf'ms that this injunction deprives it of a constitutional rigfli to compete since it forbids meeting the prices of competitors who are selling below- cost. There is no constitutional right to employ retaliation against action outlawed by a State. Safeway, the Oklahoma court held, had ample means, under the state statute, to enjoin the illegal methods of its competitors. It had no constitutional right to embark on the very kind of destructive price war the Act was designed to prevent.
Appellant also claims that there are situations in which a competitor might reduce his prices, below cost without violating the Act, and hence, under the Injunction, Safeway would have no remedy whatsoever since it could not retaliate in kind and judicial relief would not be available. The conclusive answer to this claim is that it is not before us for adjudication. The court below found that Safeway was meeting prices it “knew or had reason to know” were illegal. It then phrased its injunction in the terms of a statute which has yet to be construed in the abstráct circumstances presented by appellant. The Oklahoma Supreme Court carefully noted that it was interpreting the Unfair Sales Act as applied to the particular facts of this case, pointing out that “until a proper factual case is presented which requires a clear determination and offers a practical situation in which all the conflicting problems and considerations of the area involved are apparent, this court will refrain from theorizing.” 322 P. 2d, at 181. If this is a rule of wise restraint for the courts of Oklahoma in this situation, it clearly bars constitutional adjudication here.
2. Appellant’s second contention involves its competitors’ use of trading stamps. Trading stamps, it hardly needs to be stated, are, generally speaking, coupons given by dealers to retail purchasers on the basis of the dollar value of the items purchased, e. g., one stamp for each ten cents’ worth of goods, and are collected by the purr-chaser until he has enough to redeem for various items of merchandise. Trading stamps have had a checkered career in the United States, but since World War II their popularity has grown until' now it is a reasonable estimate that, thesé multi-colored scraps of paper may be found in almost half of America’s homes.
When this suit was brought Safeway did not use trading stamps. In the Oklahoma City-Midwest City area several of its competitors did. These stamps were deemed to be worth approximately 2.5 percent of the price of the goods with which they were given. Safeway contended in the Oklahoma courts that giving a trading stamp with goods sold at or near the statutory minimum resulted in an unlawful reduction below “cost” to the extent of the value of the trading stamp. To be specific, if an item sold for $1, and that price was statutory cost, the trading, stamps given with it would be worth approximately 2.5 cents and the net price was therefore $.975, or 2.5 cents below cost. Safeway sought to restrain its competitors from selling below cost in this manner and also claimed that it was justified, in order to meet competition, in reducing its prices to the net of its competitors’ prices, taking into account the value of trading stamps. The Oklahoma court found that the giving of trading stamps with items sold at or near statutory cost was not a violation of'the statute and denied Safeway’s request for an injunction. The court also decided that Safeway could not reduce its prices to meet the trading stamp competition. It did, however, provide that Safeway could do what appellees did, it might issue “trading stamps, cash register, receipts, or other evidence of credit issued as a discount for prompt payment of cash . . . ,” as long as the value of the discount did not exceed three percent.
Safeway contends that such a construction of the Unfair Sales Act violates the Fourteenth Amendment. Appellant claims that even though the State may prohibit sales below “cost,” it is barred from allowing a merchant to give trading stamps with goods sold at or near “cost,” unless it allows competing merchants to make an equivalent price reduction. For the State to differentiate between the use of trading stamps and price-cutting is, so the argument runs, a constitutionally inadmissible discrimination.
“It would be an idle parade of familiar learning to review the multitudinous cases in which the constitutional assurance of the equal protection of the
laws has been applied. The generalities on this subject are not in dispute; their application turns péculiarly on. the particular circumstances of a case.” Goesaert v. Cleary, 335 U. S. 464, 467.
The Oklahoma court decided that, although price cuts below cost were prohibited by the statute, the use of trading stamps was not a price reduction, but constituted a cash discount, i. e., a reduction given to customers for prompt payment of cash. Opposing expert accountants sustained and rejected the validity of such a difference. In matters of this sort we might content ourselves in resting on the clash of expert opinion to show that the Oklahoma decision was not wanting in a foundation that may not unjustifiably have commended itself as a state policy. However, we may note some readily apparent differences between the practices which support the State’s differentiation and thereby the power asserted by the State.
Trading stamps are given to cash customers “across the board;” namely, the number of stamps varies directly with the total cost of goods purchased. Safeway’s price-cutting, however, was selective. This difference is vital in the context of this Act. One of the chief aims of state laws prohibiting sales below cost was to put an end -to “loss-leader” selling. The selling of selected goods , at a loss in order to lure customers into the store is deemed not only a destructive means of competition; it also plays on the gullibility of customers by leading them to expect what generally is not true, namely, that a-store which offers such an amazing bargain is full of other such bargains. Clearly there is a reasonable basis for a conclusion that selective price cuts tend to perpetuate this abuse whereas the use of trading stamps does not.
This difference alone, would be enough to require affirmance. It is reinforced by other tenable grounds for distinction; There was a basis in evidence for the view that the use of trading stamps has an entirely different impact on the consuming market than do price cuts. When prices are the same customers tend to go to the store offering trading stamps. But when prices are cut to the extent of -the value of the trading stamp the stamps lose their lure and lower prices prove a more potent attraction. On the basis of this not unreasonable belief as to the economics of the highly competitive, -low-profit-margin retail-grocery business, Oklahoma could well have concluded that its choice was to provide that all use a cash discount system or none could do so. Such a view of the economic aspects of the problem affords an ample basis for the legislative judgment enforced by the court below.
Certainly this Court will not interpose its own economic views or guesses when the State has made its choice.
“The Fourteenth Amendment enjoins the ‘equal protection of the laws,’ and laws are not abstract propositions. They do not relate to abstract units A, B, and C, but are expressions of policy arising out of specific difficulties, addressed to the attainment of specific ends by the use of specific remedies. The Constitution does not require things which are different in fact or opinion to be treated ir. law as though they were the same.” Tigner v. Texas, 310 U. S. 141, 147.
We are not concerned with the soundness of the distinctions drawn. It is enough that it is open to Oklahoma to believe them to be valid as the basis of. a policy for its people.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The Oklahoma Supreme Court said:
“In this connection our attention has' been called to the recent case (10-4-57) of State by Clark v. Wolkoff, Minn., 85 N. W. 2d 401, 403, wherein it was held that ‘(I)f a merchant in good faith sets the price of an article-on the basis of a competitor’s price, which price he in good faith believes to be a legal price, there is no violation,’ which clearly is not the case herein. In the instant case, Safeway obviously and admittedly did not, in good faith, set the price of its articles which were subject to the Unfair Sales Act on the basis of its competitors’ prices, which it in good faith believed to be legal prices under the Unfair Sales Act, but on the contrary it set illegal prices for the sole purpose of meeting prices of its competitors, which it thought to be illegal.” 322 P. 2d, at 181.
The latest chapter in trading stamp history was recounted in The [London] Economist for May 30, 1959, at p. 850:
“In Colorado a proposal to tax the stamps brought .battalions of housewives to the state capital. One of its original sponsors changed his mind when his own mother threatened to campaign against his re-election if he did not alter his stand. The newest, twist to the trading stamp story is that they can now be exchanged, in the East, for a theatre seat, even, after July 12th; for one for 'My Fair Lady.’ This will take, however, the stamps accumulated on nearly $700 worth of purchases — about what it costs to feed a family for five month's.”
Safeway, in fact, did offer its own cash discount coupons during the course of this litigation.
This Court in other contexts has upheld, against a challenge based on the Fourteenth Amendment, state tax laws which discriminated against the use of trading stamps. Rast v. Van Deman & Lewis Co., 240 U. S. 342; Tanner v. Little, 240 U. S. 369; Pitney v. Washington, 240 U. S. 387.
See the article by Mr. Brandéis, as he then was, in the November 15, 1913, issue of Harper’s Weekly, at p. 10.
This would come about if the dealer using trading stamps were allowed to meet the lowered price, or if, by being required, to drop trading stamps, the other dealer were forced to raise prices. It is conceivable that. a mathematical formula might be developed to equalize the use of trading stamps and price cuts. But certainly the Constitution does not place such a complex and, at best, uncertain and speculative burden on the States.
Appellant also claiTná that the Oklahoma law is pre-empted by fedéral antitrust laws. However, this claim was not made below.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Taft-Hartley Act, enacted in 1947, increased the size of the National Labor Relations Board (Board) from three members to five. See 29 U. S. C. § 153(a). Concurrent with that change, the Taft-Hartley Act amended § 3(b) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) to increase the quorum requirement for the Board from two members to three, and to allow the Board to delegate its authority to groups of at least three members. See § 153(b). The question in this case is whether, following a delegation of the Board’s powers to a three-member group, two members may continue to exercise that delegated authority once the group’s (and the. Board’s) membership falls to two. We hold that two remaining Board members cannot exercise such authority.
I
As 2007 came to a close, the Board found itself with four members and one vacancy. It anticipated two more vacancies at the end of the year, when the recess appointments of Members Kirsanow and Walsh were set to expire, which would leave the Board with only two members — too few to meet the Board’s quorum requirement, § 153(b). The four sitting members decided to take action in an effort to preserve the Board’s authority to function. On December 20, 2007, the Board made two delegations of its authority, effective as of midnight December 28,2007. First, the Board delegated to the general counsel continuing authority to initiate and conduct litigation that would normally require case-by-case approval of the Board. See Minute of Board Action (Dec. 20, 2007), App. to Brief for Petitioner 4a-5a (hereinafter Board Minutes). Second, the Board delegated “to Members Liebman, Schaumber and Kirsanow, as a three-member group, all of the Board’s powers, in anticipation of the adjournment of the 1st Session of the 110th Congress.” Id., at 5a. The Board expressed the opinion that its action would permit the remaining two members to exercise the powers of the Board “after [the] departure of Members Kir-sanow and Walsh, because the remaining Members will constitute a quorum of the three-member group.” Ibid.
The Board’s minutes explain that it relied on “the statutory language” of § 3(b), as well as an opinion issued by the Office of Legal Counsel (OLC), for the proposition that the Board may use this delegation procedure to “issue decisions during periods when three or more of the five seats on the Board are vacant.” Id., at 5a, 6a. The OLC had concluded in 2003 that “if the Board delegated all of its powers to a group of three members, that group could continue to issue decisions and orders as long as a quorum of two members remained.” Dept, of Justice, OLC, Quorum Requirements, App. to Brief for Respondent 3a. In seeking the OLC’s advice, the Board agreed to accept the OLC’s answer regarding its ability to operate with only two members, id., at la, n. 1, and the Board in its minutes therefore “acknowledged that it is bound” by the OLC opinion, Board Minutes 6a. The Board noted, however, that it was not bound to make this delegation; rather, it had “decided to exercise its discretion” to do so. Ibid.
On December 28, 2007, the Board’s delegation to the three-member group of Members Liebman, Schaumber, and Kirsanow became effective. On December 31,2007, Member Kirsanow’s recess appointment expired. Thus, starting on January 1, 2008, Members Liebman and Schaumber became the only members of the Board. They proceeded to issue decisions for the Board as a two-member quorum of a three-, member group. The delegation automatically terminated on March 27, 2010, when the President made two recess appointments to the Board, because the terms of the delegation specified that it would be revoked when the Board’s membership returned to at least three members, id., at 7a.
During the 27-month period in which the Board had only two members, it decided almost 600 cases. See Letter from Elena Kagan, Solicitor General, to William K. Suter, Clerk of Court (Apr. 26, 2010). One of those cases involved petitioner New Process Steel. In September 2008, the two-member Board issued decisions sustaining two unfair labor practice complaints against petitioner. See New Process Steel, LP, 353 N. L. R. B. No. 25; New Process Steel, LP, 353 N. L. R. B. No. 13. Petitioner sought review of both orders in the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, and challenged the authority of the two-member Board to issue the orders. •
The court ruled in favor of the Government. After a review of the text and legislative history of § 3(b) and the sequence of events surrounding the delegation of authority in December 2007, the court concluded that the then-sitting two members constituted a valid quorum of a three-member group to which the Board had legitimately delegated all its powers. 564 F. 3d 840, 845-847 (CA7 2009). On the same day that the Seventh Circuit issued its decision in this case, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit announced a decision coming to the opposite conclusion. Laurel Baye Healthcare of Lake Lanier, Inc. v. NLRB, 564 F. 3d 469 (2009). We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict. 558 U. S. 989 (2009).
II
The Board’s quorum requirements and delegation procedure are set forth in § 3(b) of the NLRA, 49 Stat. 451, as amended by 61 Stat. 139, which provides:
“The Board is authorized to delegate to any group of three or more members any or all of the powers which it may itself exercise.... A vacancy in the Board shall not impair the right of the remaining members to exercise all of the powers of the Board, and three members of the Board shall, at all times, constitute a quorum of the Board, except that two members shall constitute a quorum of any group designated pursuant to the first sentence hereof.” 29 U. S. C. § 153(b).
It is undisputed that the first sentence of this provision authorized the Board to delegate its powers to the three-member group effective on December 28, 2007, and the last sentence authorized two members of that group to act as a quorum of the group during the next three days if, for example, the third member had to recuse himself from a particular matter. The question we face is whether those two members could continue to act for the Board as a quorum of the delegee group after December 31, 2007, when the Board’s membership fell to two and the designated three-member group of “Members Liebman, Sehaumber, and Kirsanow” ceased to exist due to the expiration of Member Kirsanow’s term. Construing §3(b) as a whole and in light of the Board’s longstanding practice, we are persuaded that they could not.
The first sentence of § 3(b), which we will call the delegation clause, provides that the Board may delegate its powers only to a “group of three or more members.” 61 Stat. 139. There are two different ways to interpret that language. One interpretation, put forward by the Government, would read the clause to require only that a delegee group contain three members at the precise time the Board delegates its powers, and to have no continuing relevance after the moment of the initial delegation. Under that reading, two members alone may exercise the Ml power of the Board so long as they were part of a delegee group that, at the time of its creation, included three members. The other interpretation, by contrast, would read the clause as requiring that the delegee group maintain a membership of three in order for the delegation to remain valid. Three main reasons support the latter reading.
First, and most fundamentally, reading the delegation clause to require that the Board’s delegated power be vested continuously in a group of three members is the only way to harmonize and give meaningful effect to all of the provisions in § 3(b). See Duncan v. Walker, 533 U. S. 167, 174 (2001) (declining to adopt a “construction of the statute, [that] would render [a term] insignificant”); Market Co. v. Hoffman, 101 U. S. 112, 115-116 (1879) (“[A] statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause, sentence, or word shall be ... insignificant” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Those provisions are: (1) the delegation clause; (2) the vacancy clause, which provides that “[a] vacancy in the Board shall not impair the right of the remaining members to exercise all of the powers of the Board”; (3) the Board quorum requirement, which mandates that “three members of the Board shall, at all times, constitute a quorum of the Board”; and (4) the group quorum provision, which provides that “two members shall constitute a quorum” of any delegee group. See § 153(b).
Interpreting the statute to require the Board’s powers to be vested at all times in a group of at least three members is consonant with the Board quorum requirement, which requires three participating members “at all times” for the Board to act. The interpretation likewise gives material ef-feet to the three-member requirement in the delegation clause. The vacancy clause still operates to provide that vacancies do not impair the ability of the Board to take action, so long as the quorum is satisfied. And the interpretation does not render inoperative the group quorum provision, which still operates to authorize a three-member delegee group to issue a decision with only two members participating, so long as the delegee group was properly constituted. Reading §3(b) in this manner, the statute’s various pieces hang together — a critical clue that this reading is a sound one.
The contrary reading, on the other hand, allows two members to act as the Board ad infinitum, which dramatically undercuts the significance of the Board quorum requirement by allowing its permanent circumvention. That reading also makes the three-member requirement in the delegation clause of vanishing significance, because it allows a de facto delegation to a two-member group, as happened in this case. Under the Government’s approach, it would satisfy the statute for the Board to include a third member in the group for only one minute before her term expires; the approach gives no meaningful effect to the command implicit in both the delegation clause and the Board quorum requirement that the Board’s full power be vested in no fewer than three members. Hence, while the Government’s reading of the delegation clause is textually permissible in a narrow sense, it is structurally implausible, as it would render two of §3(b)’s provisions functionally void.
Second, and relatedly, if Congress had intended to authorize two members alone to act for the Board on an ongoing basis, it could have said so in straightforward language. Congress instead imposed the requirement that the Board delegate authority to no fewer than three members, and that it have three participating members to constitute a quorum. Those provisions are at best an unlikely way of conveying congressional approval of a two-member Board. Indeed, had Congress wanted to provide for two members alone to act as the Board, it could have maintained the NLRA’s original two-member Board quorum provision, see 29 U. S. C. § 153(b) (1946 ed.), or provided for a delegation of the Board’s authority to groups of two. The Rube Goldberg-style delegation mechanism employed by the Board in 2007 — delegating to a group of three, allowing a term to expire, and then continuing with a two-member quorum of a phantom delegee group — is surely a bizarre way for the Board to achieve the authority to decide cases with only two members. To conclude that Congress intended to authorize such a procedure to contravene the three-member Board quorum, we would need some evidence of that intent.
The Government has not adduced any convincing evidence on this front, and to the contrary, our interpretation is consistent with the longstanding practice of the Board. This is the third factor driving our decision. Although the Board has throughout its history allowed two members of a three-member group to issue decisions when one member of a group was disqualified from a case, see Brief for Respondent 20; Board Minutes 6a, the Board has not (until recently) allowed two members to act as a quorum of a defunct three-member group. Instead, the Board concedes that its practice was to reconstitute a delegee group when one group member’s term expired. Brief for Respondent 39, n. 27. That our interpretation of the delegation provision is consistent with the Board’s longstanding practice is persuasive evidence that it is the correct one, notwithstanding the Board’s more recent view. See Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. Hospital, 488 U. S. 204, 214 (1988).
In sum, a straightforward understanding of the text, which requires that no fewer than three members be vested with the Board’s full authority, coupled with the Board’s longstanding practice, points us toward an interpretation of the delegation clause that requires a delegee group to maintain a membership of three.
Ill
Against these points, the Government makes several arguments that we find unconvincing. It first argues that § 3(b) authorizes the Board’s action by its plain terms, notwithstanding the somewhat fictional nature of the delegation to a three-member group with the expectation that within days it would become a two-member group. In particular, the Government contends the group quorum requirement and the vacancy clause together make clear that when the Board has delegated its power to a three-member group, “any two members of that group constitute a quorum that may continue to exercise the delegated powers, regardless whether the third group member . . . continues to sit on the Board” and regardless “whether a quorum remains in the full Board.” Brief for Respondent 17; see also id., at 20-23.
Although the group quorum provision clearly authorizes two members to act as a quorum of a “group designated pursuant to the first sentence” — i. e., a group of at least three members — it does not, by its plain terms, authorize two members to constitute a valid delegee group. A quorum is the number of members of a larger body that must partiei-pate for the valid transaction of business. See Black’s Law Dictionary 1370 (9th ed. 2009) (defining “quorum” as the “minimum number of members . . . who must be present for a deliberative assembly to legally transact business”); 13 Oxford English Dictionary 51 (2d ed. 1989) (“A fixed number of members of any body ... whose presence is necessary for the proper or valid transaction of business”); Webster’s New International Dictionary 2046 (2d ed. 1954) (“Such a number of the officers or members of any body as is, when duly assembled, legally competent to transact business”). But the fact that there are sufficient members participating to constitute a quorum does not necessarily establish that the larger body is properly constituted or can validly exercise authority. In other words, that only two members must participate to transact business in the name of the group does not establish that the group itself can exercise the Board’s authority when the group’s membership falls below three.
The Government nonetheless contends that quorum rules “ordinarily” define the number of members that is both necessary and sufficient for an entity to take an action. Brief for Respondent 20. Therefore, because of the quorum provision, if “at least two members of a delegee group actually participate in a decision . . . that should be the end of the matter,” regardless of vacancies in the group or on the Board. Ibid. But even if quorum provisions ordinarily provide the rule for dealing with vacancies — i. e., even if they ordinarily make irrelevant any vacancies in the remainder of the larger body — the quorum provisions in §3(b) do no such thing. Rather, there is a separate clause addressing vacancies. The vacancy clause, recall, provides that “[a] vacancy in the Board shall not impair the right of the remaining members to exercise all of the powers of the Board.” § 153(b) (2006 ed.). We thus understand the quorum provisions merely to define the number of members who must participate in a decision, and look to the vacancy clause to determine whether vacancies in excess of that number have any effect on an entity’s authority to act.
The Government argues that the vacancy clause establishes that a vacancy in the group has no effect. But the clause speaks to the effect of a vacancy in the Board on the authority to exercise the powers of the Board; it does not provide a delegee group authority to act when there is a vacancy in the group. It is true that any vacancy in the group is necessarily also a vacancy in the Board (although the converse is not true), and that a group exercises the (delegated) “powers of the Board.” But §3(b) explicitly distinguishes between a group and the Board throughout, and in light of that distinction we do not think “Board” should be read to include “group” when doing so would negate for all practical purposes the command that a delegation must be made to a group of at least three members.
Some courts have nonetheless interpreted the quorum and vacancy provisions of §3(b) by analogizing to an appellate panel, which may decide a case even though only two of the three initially assigned judges remain on the panel. See Photo-Sonics, Inc. v. NLRB, 678 F. 2d 121, 122-123 (CA9 1982). The governing statute provides that a case may be decided “by separate panels, each consisting of three judges,” 28 U. S. C. § 46(b), but that a “majority of the number of judges authorized to constitute a court or panel thereof . . . shall constitute a quorum,” § 46(d). We have interpreted that statute to “requir[e] the inclusion of at least three judges in the first instance,” but to allow a two-judge “quorum to proceed to judgment when one member of the panel dies or is disqualified.” Nguyen v. United States, 539 U. S. 69, 82 (2003). But §46, which addresses the assignment of particular cases to panels, is a world apart from this statute, which authorizes the standing delegation of all the Board’s powers to a small group. Given the difference between a panel constituted to decide particular cases and the creation of a standing panel plenipotentiary, which will decide many cases arising long after the third member departs, there is no basis for reading the statutes similarly. Moreover, our reading of the court of appeals quorum provision was informed by the longstanding practice of allowing two judges from the initial panel to proceed to judgment in the case of a vacancy, see ibid., and as we have already explained, the Board’s practice has been precisely the opposite.
Finally, we are not persuaded by the Government’s argument that we should read the statute to authorize the Board to act with only two members in order to advance the congressional objective of Board efficiency. Brief for Respondent 26. In the Government’s view, Congress’ establishment of the two-member quorum for a delegee group reflected its comfort with pre-Taft-Hartley practice, when the then-three-member Board regularly issued decisions with only two members. Id., at 24. But it is unsurprising that two members regularly issued Board decisions prior to Taft-Hartley, because the statute then provided for a Board quorum of two. See 29 U. S. C. § 153(b) (1946 ed.). Congress changed that requirement to a three-member quorum for the Board. As we noted above, if Congress had wanted to allow the Board to continue to operate with only two members, it could have kept the Board quorum requirement at two.
Furthermore, if Congress had intended to allow for a two-member Board, it is hard to imagine why it would have limited the Board’s power to delegate its authority by requiring a delegee group of at least three members. Nor do we have any reason to surmise that Congress’ overriding objective in amending § 3(b) was to keep the Board operating at all costs; the inclusion of the three-member quorum and delegation provisions indicate otherwise. Cf. Robert’s Rules of Order § 3, p. 20 (10th ed. 2001) (“The requirement of a quorum is a protection against totally unrepresentative action in the name of the body by an unduly small number of persons”).
IV
In sum, we find that the Board quorum requirement and the three-member delegation clause should not be read as easily surmounted technical obstacles of little to no import. Our reading of the statute gives effect to those provisions without rendering any other provision of the statute superfluous: The delegation clause still operates to allow the Board to act in panels of three, and the group quorum provision still operates to allow any panel to issue a decision by only two members if one member is disqualified. Our construction is also consistent with the Board’s longstanding practice with respect to delegee groups. We thus hold that the delegation clause requires that a delegee group maintain a membership of three in order to exercise the delegated authority of the Board.
We are not insensitive to the Board’s understandable desire to keep its doors open despite vacancies. Nor are we unaware of the costs that delay imposes on the litigants. If Congress wishes to allow the Board to decide cases with only two members, it can easily do so. But until it does, Congress’ decision to require that the Board’s full power be delegated to no fewer than three members, and to provide for a Board quorum of three, must be given practical effect rather than swept aside in the face of admittedly difficult circumstances. Section 3(b), as it currently exists, does not authorize the Board to create a tail that would not only wag the dog, but would continue to wag after the dog died.
The judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Several other Courts of Appeals reached the same conclusion as the Seventh Circuit, although not always following the same reasoning. See Northeastern Land Servs., Ltd. v. NLRB, 560 F. 3d 36, 41 (CA1 2009); Snell Island SNF LLC v. NLRB, 568 F. 3d 410, 424 (CA2 2009); Narricot Industries, L. R. v. NLRB, 587 F. 8d 654, 660 (CA4 2009); Teamsters Local Union No. 523 v. NLRB, 590 F. 3d 849, 852 (CA10 2009).
When one member of a group is disqualified, only two members actually participate in the decision. That circumstance thus also presents the problem of the possible inferiority of two-member decisionmaking. That the Board found it necessary to reconstitute groups only when there was a vacancy, and not when there was a disqualification, suggests that its practice was driven by more than its belief in the “superiority of three-member groups,” post, at 697 (Kennedy, J., dissenting).
It also has not been the Board’s practice to issue decisions when the Board’s membership has fallen to two. For about a 2-month period in 1993-1994, and a 1-month period in 2001-2002, the Board had only two members and did not issue decisions. Brief for Respondent 5, n. 4. In 2005, the Board did delegate its authority to a three-member group, of which two members issued a few orders as a quorum during a 3-day period in which the Board’s (and the group’s) membership fell below three. Ibid. But the two-member Board at issue in this case, extending over two years, is unprecedented in the history of the post-Taft-Hartley Board.
Nor does failure to meet a quorum requirement necessarily establish that an entity’s power is suspended so that it can be exercised by no delegee. The requisite membership of an organization, and the number of members who must participate for it to take an action, are two separate (albeit related) characteristics. Thus, although we reach the same result, we do not adopt the District of Columbia Circuit’s equation of a quorum requirement with a membership requirement that must be satisfied or else the power of any entity to which the Board has delegated authority is suspended. See Laurel Baye Healthcare of Lake Lanier, Inc. v. NLRB, 564 F. 3d 469, 475 (2009) C‘[T]he Board quorum provision establishes that the power of the Board to act exists [only] when the Board consists of three members. The delegee group’s delegated power to act. . . ceases when the Board’s membership dips below the Board quorum of three members” (citation omitted)). The Board may not, of course, itself take any action absent sufficient membership to muster a quorum (three), and in that sense a quorum requirement establishes a minimum membership level. Our conclusion that the delegee group ceases to exist once there are no longer three Board members to constitute the group does not cast doubt on the prior delegations of authority to nongroup members, such as the regional directors or the general counsel. The latter implicates a separate question that our decision does not address.
In any event, if the analogy to the appellate courts were correct, then one might have to examine each Board decision individually. Petitioner’s case was not initially assigned to a three-member panel and thereafter decided by two members after one member had retired. Instead, by the time petitioner’s case came before the Board, Member Kirsanow had long departed. In practical terms, petitioner’s case was both assigned to and decided by a two-member delegee group.
We have no doubt that Congress intended “to preserve the ability of two members of the Board to exercise the Board’s full powers, in limited circumstances,” post, at 699, as when a two-member quorum of a properly constituted delegee group issues a decision for the Board in a particular case. But we doubt “Congress intended to preserve” the pre-TaftHartley practice of two members acting for the Board when the third seat was vacant, ibid., because it declined to preserve the pre-Taft-Hartley two-member Board quorum.
Former Board members have identified turnover and vacancies as a significant impediment to the operations of the Board. See Truesdale, Battling Case Backlogs at the NLRB, 16 Lab. Law. 1,5 (2000) (“[I]t is clear that turnover and vacancies have a major impact on Board productivity”); Higgins, Labor Czars — Commissars—Keeping Women in the Kitchen— the Purpose and Effects of the Administrative Changes Made by TaftHartley, 47 Cath. U. L. Rev. 941, 953 (1998) (“Taft-HarÜey's Achilles heel is the appointment process____In the past twenty years... Board member turnover and delays in appointments and in the confirmation process have kept the Board from reaching its true potential”).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We must decide whether punitive damages may be awarded in a private cause of action brought under § 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 104 Stat. 337,42 U. S. C. § 12132 (1994 ed.), and §504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 87 Stat. 394, 29 U. S. C. § 794(a).
I
Respondent Jeffrey Gorman, a paraplegic, is confined to a wheelchair and lacks voluntary control over his lower torso, including his bladder, forcing him to wear a catheter attached to a urine bag around his waist. In May 1992, he was arrested for trespass after fighting with a bouncer at a Kansas City, Missouri, nightclub. While waiting for a police van to transport him to the station, he was denied permission to use a restroom to empty his urine bag. When the van arrived, it was not equipped to receive respondent’s wheelchair. Over respondent’s objection, the officers removed him from his wheelchair and used a seatbelt and his own belt to strap him to a narrow bench in the rear of the van. During the ride to the police station, respondent released his seatbelt, fearing it placed excessive pressure on his urine bag. Eventually, the other belt came loose and respondent fell to the floor, rupturing his urine bag and injuring his shoulder and back. The driver, the only officer in the van, finding it impossible to lift respondent, fastened him to a support for the remainder of the trip. Upon arriving at the station, respondent was booked, processed, and released; later he was convicted of misdemeanor trespass. After these events, respondent suffered serious medical problems — including a bladder infection, serious lower back pain, and uncontrollable spasms in his paralyzed areas — that left him unable to work full time.
Respondent brought suit against petitioners — members of the Kansas City Board of Police Commissioners, the chief of police, and the officer who drove the van — in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri. The suit claimed petitioners had discriminated against respondent on the basis of his disability, in violation of § 202 of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, by failing to maintain appropriate policies for the arrest and transportation of persons with spinal cord injuries.
A jury found petitioners liable and awarded over $1 million in compensatory damages and $1.2 million in punitive damages. The District Court vacated the punitive damages award, holding that punitive damages are unavailable in suits under § 202 of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed, relying on this Court’s decision in Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U. S. 60, 70-71 (1992), which stated the “general rule” that “absent clear direction to the contrary by Congress, the federal courts have the power to award any appropriate relief in a cognizable cause of action brought pursuant to a federal statute.” Punitive damages are appropriate relief, the Eighth Circuit held, because they are “an integral part of the common law tradition and the judicial arsenal,” 257 F. 3d 738, 745 (2001), and Congress did nothing to disturb this tradition in enacting or amending the relevant statutes, id., at 747. We granted certiorari. 534 U. S. 1103 (2002).
II
Section 202 of the ADA prohibits discrimination against the disabled by public entities; § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits discrimination against the disabled by recipients of federal funding, including private organizations, 29 U. S. C.
§ 794(b)(3). Both provisions are enforceable through private causes of action. Section 203 of the ADA declares that the “remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in [§ 505(a)(2) of the Rehabilitation Act] shall be the remedies, procedures, and rights this subchapter provides” for violations of § 202. 42 U. S. C. § 12133. Section 505(a)(2) of the Rehabilitation Act, in turn, declares that the “remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 ... shall be available” for violations of § 504, as added, 92 Stat. 2983, 29 U. S. C. § 794a(a)(2). Thus, the remedies for violations of § 202 of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act are coextensive with the remedies available in a private cause of action brought under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000d et seq., which prohibits racial discrimination in federally funded programs and activities.
Although Title VI does not mention a private right of action, our prior decisions have found an implied, right of action, e. g., Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677, 703 (1979), and Congress has acknowledged this right in amendments to the statute, leaving it “beyond dispute that private individuals may sue to enforce” Title VI, Alexander v. Sandoval, 532 U. S. 275, 280 (2001). It is less clear what remedies are available in such a suit. In Franklin, supra, at 73, we recognized “the traditional presumption in favor of any appropriate relief for violation of a federal right,” and held that since this presumption applies to suits under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 20 U. S. C. §§ 1681-1688, monetary damages were available. (Emphasis added.) And the Court has interpreted Title IX consistently with Title VI, see Cannon, supra, at 694-698. Franklin, however, did not describe the scope of “appropriate relief.” We take up this question'today.
Title VI invokes Congress’s power under the Spending Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 1, to place conditions on the grant of federal funds. See Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Ed., 526 U. S. 629, 640 (1999) (Title IX). We have repeatedly characterized this statute and other Spending Clause legislation as “much in the nature of a contract: in return for federal funds, the [recipients] agree to comply with federally imposed conditions.” Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U. S. 1, 17 (1981) (emphasis added); see also Davis, supra, at 640; Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School Dist., 524 U. S. 274, 286 (1998); Guardians Assn. v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of New York City, 463 U. S. 582, 599 (1983) (opinion of White, J.); id., at 632-633 (Marshall, J., dissenting); Lau v. Nichols, 414 U. S. 563, 568-569 (1974). Just as a valid contract requires offer and acceptance of its terms, “[t]he legitimacy of Congress’ power to legislate under the spending power . . . rests on whether the [recipient] voluntarily and knowingly accepts the terms of the ‘contract.’.. . Accordingly, if Congress intends to impose a condition on the grant of federal moneys, it must do so unambiguously.” Pennhurst, supra, at 17; see also Davis, supra, at 640; Gebser, supra, at 287; Franklin, 503 U. S., at 74. Although we have been careful not to imply that all contract-law rules apply to Spending Clause legislation, see, e. g., Bennett v. Kentucky Dept. of Ed., 470 U. S. 656, 669 (1985) (Title I), we have regularly applied the contract-law analogy in cases defining the scope of conduct for which funding recipients may be held liable for money damages. Thus, a recipient may be held liable to third-party beneficiaries for intentional conduct that violates the clear terms of the relevant statute, Davis, supra, at 642, but not for its failure to comply with vague language describing the objectives of the statute, Pennhurst, supra, at 24-25; and, if the statute implies that only violations brought to the attention of an official with power to correct them are actionable, not for conduct unknown to any such official, see Gebser, supra, at 290. We have also applied the contract-law analogy in finding a damages remedy available in private suits under Spending Clause legislation. Franklin, supra, at 74-75.
The same analogy applies, we think, in determining the scope of damages remedies. We said as much in Gebser: “Title IX’s contractual nature has implications for our construction of the scope of available remedies.” 524 U. S., at 287. One of these implications, we believe, is that a remedy is “appropriate relief,” Franklin, 503 U. S., at 73, only if the funding recipient is on notice that, by accepting federal funding, it exposes itself to liability of that nature. A funding recipient is generally on notice that it is subject not only to those remedies explicitly provided in the relevant legislation, but also to those remedies traditionally available in suits for breach of contract. Thus we have held that under Title IX, which contains no express remedies, a recipient of federal funds is nevertheless subject to suit for compensatory damages, id., at 76, and injunction, Cannon, supra, at 711-712, forms of relief traditionally available in suits for breach of contract. See, e. g., Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 357 (1981); 3 S. Williston, Law of Contracts §§ 1445-1450 (1920); J. Pomeroy, A Treatise on the Specific Performance of Contracts 1-5 (1879). Like Title IX, Title VI mentions no remedies — indeed, it fails to mention even a private right of action (hence this Court’s decision finding an implied right of action in Cannon). But punitive damages, unlike compensatory damages and injunction, are generally not available for breach of contract, see 3 E. Farnsworth, Contracts §12.8, pp. 192-201 (2d ed. 1998); Restatement (Second) of Contracts §355; 1 T. Sedgwick, Measure of Damages §370 (8th ed. 1891).
Nor (if such an interpretive technique were available) could an implied, punitive damages provision reasonably be found in Title VI. Some authorities say that reasonably implied contractual terms are those that the parties would have agreed to if they had adverted to the matters in question. See 2 Farnsworth, supra, § 7.16, at 335, and authorities cited. More recent commentary suggests that reasonably implied contractual terms are simply those that “compor[t] with community standards of fairness,” Restatement (Second) of Contracts, supra, § 204, Comment d; see also 2 Farnsworth, supra, §7.16, at 334-336. Neither approach would support the implication here of a remedy that is not normally available for contract actions and that is of indeterminate magnitude. We have acknowledged that compensatory damages alone “might well exceed a recipient’s level of federal funding,” Gebser, supra, at 290; punitive damages on top of that could well be disastrous. Not only is it doubtful that funding recipients would have agreed to exposure to such unorthodox and indeterminate liability; it is doubtful whether they would even have accepted the funding if punitive damages liability was a required condition. “Without doubt, the scope of potential damages liability is one of the most significant factors a school would consider in deciding whether to receive federal funds.” Davis, supra, at 656 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). And for the same reason of unusual and disproportionate exposure, it can hardly be said that community standards of fairness support such an implication. In sum, it must be concluded that Title VI funding recipients have not, merely by accepting funds, implicitly consented to liability for punitive damages.
Our conclusion is consistent with the “well settled” rule that “where legal rights have been invaded, and a federal statute provides for a general right to sue for such invasion, federal courts may use any available remedy to make good the wrong done.” Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678, 684 (1946); see also Franklin, supra, at 66. When a federal-funds recipient violates conditions of Spending Clause legislation, the wrong done is the failure to provide what the contractual obligation requires; and that wrong is “made good” when the recipient compensates the Federal Government or a third-party beneficiary (as in this case) for the loss caused by that failure. See Guardians, 463 U. S., at 633 (Marshall, J., dissenting) (“When a court concludes that a recipient has breached its contract, it should enforce the broken promise by protecting the expectation that the recipient would not discriminate. ... The obvious way to do this is to put private parties in as good a position as they would have been had the contract been performed”). Punitive damages are not compensatory, and are therefore not embraced within the rule described in Bell.
* * *
Because punitive damages may not be awarded in private suits brought under Title VI of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, it follows that they may not be awarded in suits brought under § 202 of the ADA and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. This makes it unnecessary to reach petitioners’ alternative argument — neither raised nor passed on below — invoking the traditional presumption against imposition of punitive damages on government entities. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens, 529 U. S. 765, 784-785 (2000); Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U. S. 247, 262-263 (1981). The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Justice Stevens believes that our reliance on Pennhurst is “inappropriate” because that case addressed legislation imposing affirmative obligations on recipients whereas Title VI “simply prohibit^] certain discriminatory conduct.” Post, at 192 (opinion concurring in judgment). He does not explain why he thinks this distinction — which played no role in the Court’s application of contract-law principles in Pennhurst, 451 U. S., at 24-25 — ought to make a difference. Whatever his reason, we have regularly applied Pennhurst’s contract analogy to legislation that “simply prohibit^] certain discriminatory conduct.” See, e. g., Davis v. Monroe County Bd. of Ed., 526 U. S. 629, 640 (1999) (Title IX); Gebser v. Lago Vista Independent School Dist., 524 U. S. 274, 287 (1998) (same).
We cannot understand Justice Stevens’ Chicken-Little statement that today’s decision “has potentially far-reaching consequences that go well beyond the issues briefed and argued in this case.” Post, at 192-193. Our decision merely applies a principle expressed and applied many times before: that the “contractual nature” of Spending Clause legislation “has implications for our construction of the scope of available remedies.” Gebser, 524 U. S., at 287 (emphasis added). We do not imply, for example, that suits under Spending Clause legislation are suits in contract, or that contract-law principles apply to all issues that they raise. Since Justice Stevens is unable to identify any “far-reaching consequenc[e]” that might reasonably follow from our decision today, and since we are merely occupying ground that the Court has long held, we surely do not deserve his praise that we are “fearless crusaders,” post, at 193, n. 2.
Justice Stevens believes that our analysis of Title VI does not carry over to the ADA because the latter is not Spending Clause legislation, and identifies “tortious conduct.” Post, at 192, 193, n. 2. Perhaps he thinks that it should not carry over, but that is a question for Congress, and Congress has unequivocally said otherwise. The ADA could not be clearer that the “remedies, procedures, and rights . . . this subchapter provides” for violations of §202 are the same as the “remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in” § 505(a)(2) of the Rehabilitation Act, which is Spending Clause legislation. 42 U. S. C. § 12133. Section 505(a)(2), in turn, explains that the “remedies, procedures, and rights set forth in title VI... shall be available” for violations of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act. 29 U. S. C. § 794a(a)(2). These explicit provisions make discussion of the ADA’s status as a “non Spending Clause” tort statute quite irrelevant.
Justice Stevens suggests that our decision likewise rests on a theory neither presented nor passed on below. Post, at 191-192. But the parties raised, and the courts below passed on, the applicability of Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U. S. 60 (1992), to the question presented. That case addressed Spending Clause legislation (Title IX) and cited the contract-analogy discussion in Pennhurst as the basis for its acknowledgment of a notice requirement. See 503 U. S., at 74-75. Respondent did argue (quite correctly) that petitioners had failed to rely on the Newport ground that Justice Stevens uses, Newport v. Fact Concerts, Inc., 453 U. S. 247, 262-263 (1981), see Brief for Respondent 41-43, but not that they had failed to rely on the contract analogy initiated in Pennhurst, Brief for Respondent 35-41.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Respondent South Coast Air Quality Management District (District) is a political subdivision of California responsible for air pollution control in the Los Angeles metropolitan area. and parts of surrounding counties that make up the South Coast Air Basin. It enacted six Fleet Rules that generally prohibit the purchase or lease by various public and private fleet operators of vehicles that do not comply with stringent emission requirements. The question in this case is whether these local Fleet Rules escape pre-emption under § 209(a) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), 81 Stat. 502, as renumbered and amended, 42 U. S. C. § 7543(a), because they address the purchase of vehicles, rather than their manufacture or sale.
I
The District is responsible under state law for developing and implementing a “comprehensive basinwide air quality management plan” to reduce emission levels and thereby achieve and maintain “state and federal ambient air quality standards.” Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 40402(e) (West 1996). Between June and October 2000, the District adopted six Fleet Rules. The Rules govern operators of fleets of street sweepers (Rule 1186.1), of passenger cars, light-duty trucks, and medium-duty vehicles (Rule 1191), of public transit vehicles and urban buses (Rule 1192), of solid waste collection vehicles (Rule 1193), of airport passenger transportation vehicles, including shuttles and taxicabs picking up airline passengers (Rule 1194), and of heavy-duty on-road vehicles (Rule 1196). All six Rules apply to public operators; three apply to private operators as well (Rules 1186.1, 1193, and 1194).
The Fleet Rules contain detailed prescriptions regarding the types of vehicles that fleet operators must purchase or lease when adding or replacing fleet vehicles. Four of the Rules (1186.1, 1192, 1193, and 1196) require the purchase or lease of “alternative-fuel vehicles,” and the other two (1191 and 1194) require the purchase or lease of either “alternative-fueled vehicles” or vehicles that meet certain emission specifications established by the California Air Resources Board (CARB). CARB is a statewide regulatory body that California law designates as “the air pollution control agency for all purposes set forth in federal law.” Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. § 39602 (West 1996). The Rules require operators to keep records of their purchases and leases and provide access to them upon request. See, e. g., Rule 1186.1(g)(1), App. 23. Violations expose fleet operators to fines and other sanctions. See Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§42400-42410, 40447.5 (West 1996 and Supp. 2004).
In August 2000, petitioner Engine Manufacturers Association sued the District and its officials, also respondents, claiming that the Fleet Rules are pre-empted by §209 of the CAA, which prohibits the adoption or attempted enforcement of any state or local “standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines.” 42 U. S. C. § 7543(a). The District Court granted summary judgment to respondents, upholding the Rules in their entirety. It held that the Rules were not “standard[s]” under § 209(a) because they regulate only the purchase of vehicles that are otherwise certified for sale in California. The District Court recognized that the Courts of Appeals for the First and Second Circuits had previously held that CAA § 209(a) pre-empted state laws mandating that a specified percentage of a manufacturer’s in-state sales be of “zero-emission vehicles.” See Association of Int’l Automobile Mfrs., Inc. v. Commissioner, Mass. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 208 F. 3d 1, 6-7 (CA1 2000); American Automobile Mfrs. Assn. v. Cahill, 152 F. 3d 196, 200 (CA2 1998). It did not express disagreement with these rulings, but distinguished them as involving a restriction on vehicle sales rather than vehicle purchases: “Where a state regulation does not compel manufacturers to meet a new emissions limit, but rather affects the purchase of vehicles, as the Fleet Rules do, that regulation is not a standard.” 158 F. Supp. 2d 1107, 1118 (CD Cal. 2001).
The Ninth Circuit affirmed on the reasoning of the District Court. 309 F. 3d 550 (2002). We granted certiorari. 539 U. S. 914 (2003).
II
Section 209(a) of the CAA states:
“No State or any political subdivision thereof shall adopt or attempt to enforce any standard relating to the control of emissions from new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines subject to this part. No State shall require certification, inspection, or any other approval relating to the control of emissions ... as condition precedent to the initial retail sale, titling (if any), or registration of such motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or equipment.” 42 U. S. C. § 7543(a).
The District Court’s determination that this express preemption provision did not invalidate the Fleet Rules hinged on its interpretation of the word “standard” to include only regulations that compel manufacturers to meet specified emission limits. This interpretation of “standard” in turn caused the court to draw a distinction between purchase restrictions (not pre-empted) and sale restrictions (preempted). Neither the manufacturer-specific interpretation of “standard” nor the resulting distinction between purchase and sale restrictions finds support in the text of § 209(a) or the structure of the CAA.
“Statutory construction must begin with the language employed by Congress and the assumption that the ordinary meaning of that language accurately expresses the legislative purpose.” Park ’N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park & Fly, Inc., 469 U. S. 189, 194 (1985). Today, as in 1967 when § 209(a) became law, “standard” is defined as that which “is established by authority, custom, or general consent, as a model or example; criterion; test.” Webster’s Second New International Dictionary 2455 (1945). The criteria referred to in § 209(a) relate to the emission characteristics of a vehicle or engine. To meet them the vehicle or engine must not emit more than a certain amount of a given pollutant, must be equipped with a certain type of pollution-control device, or must have some other design feature related to the control of emissions. This interpretation is consistent with the use of “standard” throughout Title II of the CAA (which governs emissions from moving sources) to denote requirements such as numerical emission levels with which vehicles or engines must comply, e. g., 42 U. S. C. § 7521(a)(3)(B)(ii), or emission-control technology with which they must be equipped, e. g., § 7521(a)(6).
Respondents, like the courts below, engraft onto this meaning of “standard” a limiting component, defining it as only “[a] production mandat[e] that require[s] manufacturers to ensure that the vehicles they produce have particular emissions characteristics, whether individually or in the aggregate.” Brief for Respondent South Coast Air Quality Management District 13 (emphases added). This confuses standards with the means of enforcing standards. Manufacturers (or purchasers) can be made responsible for ensuring that vehicles comply with emission standards, but the standards themselves are separate from those enforcement techniques. While standards target vehicles or engines, standard-enforcement efforts that are proscribed by §209 can be directed to manufacturers or purchasers.
The distinction between “standards,” on the one hand, and methods of standard enforcement, on the other, is borne out in the provisions immediately following § 202. These separate provisions enforce the emission criteria — i. e., the §202 standards. Section 203 prohibits manufacturers from selling any new motor vehicle that is not covered by a “certificate of conformity.” 42 U. S. C. § 7522(a). Section 206 enables manufacturers to obtain such a certificate by demonstrating to the Environmental Protection Agency that their vehicles or engines conform to the §202 standards. §7525. Sections 204 and 205 subject manufacturers, dealers, and others who violate the CAA to fines imposed in civil or administrative enforcement actions. §§7523-7524. By defining “standard” as a “production mandate directed toward manufacturers,” respondents lump together §202 and these other distinct statutory provisions, acknowledging a standard to be such only when it is combined with a mandate that prevents manufacturers from selling noncomplying vehicles.
That a standard is a standard even when not enforced through manufacturer-directed regulation can be seen in Congress’s use of the term in another portion of the CAA. As the District Court recognized, CAA § 246 (in conjunction with its accompanying provisions) requires state-adopted and federally approved “restrictions on the purchase of fleet vehicles to meet clean-air standards” 158 F. Supp. 2d, at 1118 (emphasis added); see also 42 U. S. C. §§7581-7590. (Respondents do not defend the District’s Fleet Rules as authorized by this provision; the Rules do not comply with all of the requirements that it contains.) Clearly, Congress contemplated the enforcement of emission standards through purchase requirements.
Respondents contend that their qualified meaning of “standard” is necessary to prevent § 209(a) from pre-empting “far too much” by “encompass[ing] a broad range of state-level clean-air initiatives” such as voluntary incentive programs. Brief for Respondent South Coast Air Quality Management District 29; id., at 29-30. But it is hard to see why limitation to mandates on manufacturers is necessary for this purpose; limitation to mandates on manufacturers and purchasers, or to mandates on anyone, would have the same salvific effect. We need not resolve application of § 209(a) to voluntary incentive programs in this case, since all the Fleet Rules are mandates.
In addition to having no basis in the text of the statute, treating sales restrictions and purchase restrictions differently for pre-emption purposes would make no sense. The manufacturer’s right to sell federally approved vehicles is meaningless in the absence of a purchaser’s right to buy them. It is true that the Fleet Rules at issue here cover only certain purchasers and certain federally certified vehicles, and thus do not eliminate all demand for covered vehicles. But if one State or political subdivision may enact such rules, then so may any other; and the end result would undo Congress’s carefully calibrated regulatory scheme.
A command, accompanied by sanctions, that certain purchasers may buy only vehicles with particular emission characteristics is as much an “attempt to enforce” a “standard” as a command, accompanied by sanctions, that a certain percentage of a manufacturer’s sales volume must consist of such vehicles. We decline to read into § 209(a) a purchase/ sale distinction that is not to be found in the text of § 209(a) or the structure of the CAA.
Ill
The dissent expresses many areas of disagreement with our interpretation, but this should not obscure its agreement with our answer to the question “whether these local Fleet Rules escape pre-emption ... because they address the purchase of vehicles, rather than their manufacture or sale.” Supra, at 249. The dissent joins us in answering “no.” See post, at 262-263 (opinion of Souter, J.). It reaches a different outcome in the case because (1) it feels free to read into the unconditional words of the statute a requirement for the courts to determine which purchase restrictions in fact coerce manufacture and which do not; and (2) because it believes that Fleet Rules containing a “commercial availability” proviso do not coerce manufacture.
As to the first point: The language of § 209(a) is categorical. It is (as we have discussed) impossible to find in it an exception for standards imposed through purchase restrictions rather than directly upon manufacturers; it is even more inventive to discover an exception for only that sw&category of standards-imposed-through-purchase-restrictions that does hot coerce manufacture. But even if one accepts that invention, one cannot conclude that these “provisos” save the day. For if a vehicle of the mandated type were commercially available, thus eliminating application of the proviso, the need to sell vehicles to persons governed by the Rule would effectively coerce manufacturers into meeting the artificially created demand. To say, as the dissent does, that this would be merely the consequence of “market demand and free competition,” post, at 263, is fanciful. The demand is a demand, not generated by the market but compelled by the Rules, which in turn effectively compels production. To think that the Rules are invalid until such time as one manufacturer makes a compliant vehicle available, whereupon they become binding, seems to us quite bizarre.
The dissent objects to our interpretive method, which neither invokes the “presumption against preemption” to determine the scope of pre-emption nor delves into legislative history. Post, at 260-261. Application of those methods, on which not all Members of this Court agree, demonstrably makes no difference to resolution of the principal question, which the dissent (after applying them) answers the same as we. As for the additional question that the dissent reaches, we think the same is true: The textual obstacles to the strained interpretation that would validate the Rules by reason of the “commercial availability” provisos are insurmountable — principally, the categorical words of § 209(a). The dissent contends that giving these words their natural meaning of barring implementation of standards at the purchase and sale stage renders superfluous the second sentence of § 209(a), which provides: “No State shall require certification, inspection, or any other approval relating to the control of emissions from any new motor vehicle or new motor vehicle engine as condition precedent to the initial retail sale, titling (if any), or registration of such motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine, or equipment.” 42 U. S. C. § 7543(a). We think it not superfluous, since it makes clear that the term “attempt to enforce” in the first sentence is not limited to the actual imposition of penalties for violation, but includes steps preliminary to that action. Ibid. The sentence is, however, fatal to the dissent’s interpretation of the statute. It categorically prohibits “certification, inspection, or any other approval” as conditions precedent to sale. Why in the world would it do that if it had no categorical objection to standards imposed at the sale stage? Why disable the States from assuring compliance with requirements that they are authorized to impose?
The dissent next charges that our interpretation attributes carelessness to Congress because §246 mandates fleet purchasing restrictions, but does so without specifying “notwithstanding” § 209(a). Post, at 264. That addition might have been nice, but hardly seems necessary. It is obvious, after all, that the principal sales restrictions against which § 209(a) is directed are those requiring compliance with state-imposed standards. What §246 mandates are fleet purchase restrictions under federal standards designed precisely for federally required clean-fuel fleet vehicle programs — which programs, in turn, must be federally approved as meeting detailed federal specifications. It is not surprising that a “notwithstanding” § 209(a) did not come to mind. Far from easting doubt upon our interpretation, § 246 is impossible to reconcile with the dissent’s interpretation. The fleet purchase standards it mandates must comply strictly with federal specifications, being neither more lenient nor more demanding. But what is the use of imposing such a limitation if the States are entirely free to impose their own fleet purchase standards with entirely different specifications?
Finally, the dissent says that we should “admit” that our opinion pre-empts voluntary incentive programs. Post, at 265-266. Voluntary programs are not at issue in this case, and are significantly different from eommand-and-control regulation. Suffice it to say that nothing in the present opinion necessarily entails pre-emption of voluntary programs. It is at least arguable that the phrase “adopt or attempt to enforce any standard” refers only to standards that are enforceable — a possibility reinforced by the fact that the prohibition is imposed only on entities (States and political subdivisions) that have power to enforce.
IV
The courts below held all six of the Fleet Rules to be entirely outside the pre-emptive reach of § 209(a) based on reasoning that does not withstand scrutiny. In light of the principles articulated above, it appears likely that at least certain aspects of the Fleet Rules are pre-empted. For example, the District may have attempted to enforce CARB’s ULEV, SULEV, and ZEV standards when, in Rule 1194, it required 50% of new passenger-car and medium-duty-vehicle purchases by private airport-shuttle van operators to “meet ULEV, SULEV, or ZEV emission standards” after July 1, 2001, and 100% to meet those standards after July 1, 2002. See Rules 1194(d)(2)(A)-(B), App. 62.
It does not necessarily follow, however, that the Fleet Rules are pre-empted in toto. -We have not addressed a number of issues that may affect the ultimate disposition of petitioners’ suit, including the scope of petitioners’ challenge, whether some of the Fleet Rules (or some applications of them) can be characterized as internal state purchase decisions (and, if so, whether a different standard for preemption applies), and whether § 209(a) pre-empts the Fleet Rules even as applied beyond the purchase of new vehicles (e. g., to lease arrangements or to the purchase of used vehicles). These questions were neither passed on below nor presented in the petition for certiorari. They are best addressed in the first instance by the lower courts in light of the principles articulated above.
The judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
These Rules define “alternative-fuel vehicles” in varying ways, but all exclude vehicles that run on diesel. See Rule 1186.1(c)(2), App. 17 (a vehicle with an engine that “use[s] compressed or liquefied natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas (propane), methanol, electricity, or fuel cells. Hybrid-electric and dual-fuel technologies that use diesel fuel are not considered alternative-fuel technologies for the purposes of this rule”); Rule 1192(c)(1), id., at 47 (same definition as Rule 1186.1 for the most part, but also adds that the vehicle must “mee[t] the emission requirements of Title 13, Section 1956.1 of the California Code of Regulations”); Rule 1193(c)(1), id., at 52 (a vehicle that “uses compressed or liquefied natural gas, liquefied petroleum gas, methanol, electricity, fuel cells, or other advanced technologies that do not rely on diesel fuel”); Rule 1196(c)(1), id., at 66-67 (same definition as Rule 1193 for the most part, but also adds that the vehicle must be “certified by the California Air Resources Board”).
Rule 1191(c)(1), id., at 24-25, defines “alternative-fueled vehicle” as a vehicle that “is not powered by gasoline or diesel fuel and emits hydrocarbon, carbon monoxide, or nitrogen oxides, on an individual basis at least equivalent to or lower than a ULEV [acronym described in n. 3, infra].” Rule 1194(c)(2), App. 59, defines “alternative-fueled vehicle”, as a vehicle that “is not powered by gasoline or diesel fuel.”
More specifically, Rules 1191(d), (e)(1), id., at 27-28, require that these vehicles comply with CARB’s Low-Emission Vehicle (LEV), Ultra-Low-Emission Vehicle (ULEV), Super-Ultra-Low-Emission Vehicle (SULEV), or Zero-Emission Vehicle (ZEV) standards. Rule 1194(d), id., at 61-63, requires that the vehicles comply with the ULEV, SULEV, or ZEV standards. LEV, ULEV, SULEV, and ZEV are acronyms adopted by CARB as part of a federally approved emission reduction program. This program establishes five tiers of vehicles based on their emission characteristics: Transitional Low-Emission Vehicles (TLEVs); LEVs; ULEVs; SULEVs; and ZEVs. The tiers are subject to varying emission limitations for carbon monoxide, formaldehyde, nonmethane organic gases,' oxides of nitrogen, and particulate matter. See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 13, §§ 1960.1(e)(3), (g), (h)(2), (p), § 1961(a) (2004). No vehicle may be sold in California unless it meets the TLEV, LEV, ULEV, SULEV, or ZEV requirements. See Cal. Health & Safety Code Ann. §§43009, 43016-43017, 43102, 43105, 43150-43156 (West 1996). Additionally, manufacturers are obligated to meet overall “fleet average” emission requirements. The fleet average emission requirements decrease over time, requiring manufacturers to sell progressively cleaner mixes of vehicles. See Cal. Code Regs., tit. 13, §§ 1960.1(g)(2), 1961(b) (2004). Manufacturers retain flexibility to decide how many vehicles in each emission tier to sell in order to meet the fleet average. See 158 F. Supp. 2d 1107,1113-1114 (CD Cal. 2001).
Petitioner Western States Petroleum Association intervened as a plaintiff. Respondents Coalition for Clean Air, Inc., Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Communities for a Better Environment, Inc., Planning and Conservation League, and Sierra Club intervened as defendants.
The ZEV requirements at issue in these cases were virtually identical to those previously promulgated by CARB. See Association of Int’l Automobile Mfrs., Inc. v. Commissioner, Mass. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 208 F. 3d, at 1, 3; American Automobile Mfrs. Assn. v. Cahill, 152 F. 3d, at 199.
The District Court reasoned that “[i]t is not rational to conclude that the CAA would authorize purchasing restrictions on the one hand, and prohibit them, as a prohibited adoption of a ‘standard,’ on the other.” 158 F. Supp. 2d, at 1118. This reasoning is flawed; it is not irrational to view Congress’s prescription of numerous detailed requirements for such programs as inconsistent with unconstrained state authority to enact programs that ignore those requirements.
For a description of the ULEV, SULEV, and ZEV standards, see n. 3, supra.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is also granted, limited to one issue: Should petitioner’s conviction be reversed because the United States District Judge who accepted his guilty plea failed to comply with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure? In our recent decision of McCarthy v. United States, ante, p. 459, we held that when a guilty plea is accepted in violation of Rule 11 the defendant must be afforded an opportunity to plead anew. Petitioner’s plea was entered in 1954. The question we must decide, therefore, is whether McCarthy should be applied to guilty pleas accepted prior to the date of that decision. We hold that it should not.
After an evidentiary hearing on October 17, 1967, petitioner’s motion to set aside his sentence under 28 U. S. C. § 2255 was denied by the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. The United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed per curiam. Although it acknowledged that the District Court had not complied with Rule 11 when it accepted petitioner’s plea, it held that he was not entitled to relief because “ample evidence” supported the District Court’s finding that the Government had met its burden of demonstrating that petitioner entered his plea voluntarily with an understanding of the nature of the charges against him.
In deciding whether to apply newly adopted constitutional rulings retroactively, we have considered three criteria: (1) the purpose of the new rule; (2) the extent of reliance upon the old rule; and (3) the effect retroactive application would have upon the administration of justice. E. g., Desist v. United States, ante, p. 244; Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293 (1967); Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719 (1966). In McCarthy we took care to note that our holding was based solely upon the application of Rule 11 and not upon constitutional grounds. Nevertheless, it is appropriate to analyze the question of that decision’s retroactivity in terms of the same criteria we have employed to determine whether constitutionally grounded decisions that depart from precedent should be applied retroactively. See Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618, 622-629 (1965).
The rule we adopted in McCarthy has two purposes: (1) to insure that every defendant who pleads guilty is afforded Rule ll’s procedural safeguards, which are designed to facilitate the determination of the voluntariness of his plea; (2) to provide a complete record at the time the plea is entered of the factors relevant to this determination, thereby facilitating a more expeditious disposition of a post-conviction attack on the plea. Unquestionably, strict compliance with Rule 11 enhances the reliability of the voluntariness determination, and we have retroactively applied constitutionally grounded rules of criminal procedure designed to correct “serious flaws in the fact-finding process at trial.” Stovall v. Denno, supra, at 298. However, a defendant whose plea has been accepted without full compliance with Rule 11 may still resort to appropriate post-conviction remedies to attack his plea’s voluntariness. Thus, if his plea was accepted prior to our decision in McCarthy, he is not without a remedy to correct constitutional defects in his conviction. Cf. Johnson v. New Jersey, supra, at 730. And as we pointed out in Stovall, the extent to which a “condemned practice infects the integrity of the truth-determining process . . . must ... be weighed against the prior justified reliance upon the old standard and the impact of retroactivity upon the administration of justice.” Stovall v. Denno, supra, at 298. In McCarthy we noted that the practice we were requiring had been previously followed by only one Circuit; that over 85% of all convictions in the federal courts are obtained pursuant to guilty pleas; and that prior to Rule ll’s recent amendment, not all district judges personally questioned defendants before accepting their guilty pleas. Thus, in view of the general application of Rule 11 in a manner inconsistent with our holding in McCarthy, and in view of the large number of constitutionally valid convictions that may have been obtained without full compliance with Rule 11, we decline to apply McCarthy retroactively. We hold that only those defendants whose guilty pleas were accepted after April 2, 1969, are entitled to plead anew if their pleas were accepted without full compliance with Rule 11.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit is
Affirmed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 Marshauu
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Mississippi Chemical Corp. and Coastal Chemical Corp. (hereinafter taxpayers) instituted this action for a tax refund in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi. Both taxpayers are "cooperative associations” within the meaning of § 15 of the Agricultural Marketing Act, 46 Stat. 18, as amended, 12 U. S. C. § 1141 j, and thus qualify for membership in one of the 12 “Banks for Cooperatives” (hereinafter Bank(s)) established by the Farm Credit Act of 1933, 48 Stat. 257, as amended, 12 U. S. C. § 1134 et seq. Since their principal places of business are located in Mississippi, their regional Bank is the one located in New Orleans.
The Farm Credit Act of 1933 provides that members may borrow money from their Banks and, soon after securing membership in the New Orleans Bank, the taxpayers elected to borrow. Thereafter, they were required by the Farm Credit Act of 1955, 69 Stat. 656, 12 U. S. C. § 1134d (a) (3), which partially amended the 1933 Act, to make quarterly purchases of $100 par value Class C stock of the Bank equal to not less than 10% nor more than 25% of the amount of the quarterly interest that they paid to the Bank on their loans. During the period relevant to this lawsuit, the rate set by the Bank was 15%.
On their tax returns for the years in question, the taxpayers claimed a $99 interest expense deduction for every $100 stock purchase required by the statute. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue disallowed the deductions, the taxpayers paid the assessed deficiencies, and this action arose.
The United States has consistently contended that the stock that the taxpayers were required to purchase under the 1955 Act is a capital asset as defined by § 1221 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U. S. C. § 1221, and that its cost is nondeductible. See 26 U. S. C. § 263. The taxpayers have persistently urged that the money expended for this stock is part of “the amount [they] . . . contracted to pay for the use of borrowed money,” Old Colony R. Co. v. Commissioner, 284 U. S. 552, 560 (1932), and is deductible as interest. 26 U. S. C. § 163 (a).
The District Court found for the taxpayers and the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed over the dissent of Judge Godbold. 431 F, 2d 1320 (1970). We granted certiorari on February 22, 1971, to review the decision of the Court of Appeals. 401 U. S. 908. We reverse for the reasons stated below.
h-i
Early in. this century, Congress recognized that farmers had a tremendous need for long-term capital at low interest rates. This led to the enactment of the Federal Farm Loan Act of 1916, 39 Stat. 360, as amended, 12 U. S. C. § 641 et seq. The immediate purpose of the bill was “to afford those who [were] engaged in farming or who desire [d] to engage in that occupation a vastly greater volume of land credit on more favorable terms and at materially lower and more nearly uniform interest rates than [were] presently] available.” H. R. Rep. No. 630, 64th Cong., 1st Sess., 2. The long-range purpose was to stimulate and foster a cooperative spirit among farmers who, it was hoped, would work together to seek agricultural improvements which they would finance themselves. Id., at 2-3; S. Rep. No. 144, 64th Cong., 1st Sess., 5.
The 1916 Act divided the United States into 12 regional districts under the general supervision of a Federal Farm Loan Board. Each district contained a federal land bank designed to loan money to farmers at low interest rates. Persons desiring to borrow were required to organize into groups of 10 or more which were called “national farm loan associations.” Sec. 7, 39 Stat. 365.
In order to borrow from the district bank, an association had to establish that each of its members was an owner or a prospective owner of a farm, that the loan desired by each member- was not less than $100 nor more than $10,000, and that the aggregate of the loans was not less than $20,000. Each association also had to subscribe for capital stock of the bank in the amount of 5%' of the total loan sought by its members. The association, in turn, was required to compel each of its members to purchase stock in the association equal to 5% of the amount of the loan sought by that member. Hence, there were two separate levels of cooperative association.
The legislative history and the language of the Act itself indicate that Congress faced somewhat of a dilemma in structuring the land bank system. On the one hand, there was a strong congressional desire to stimulate a privately controlled, privately owned, and privately financed program based upon the cooperative efforts of dedicated farmers. This desire was effectuated in large measure in the stock-purchase requirements discussed above. On the other hand, Congress realized that without federal help, the existing plight of the farmers would probably render them unable to support the system themselves, and it would thus be doomed to failure:
“The greatest difficulty in the establishment of a rural-credit system, based upon the cooperative principle, is met in connection with the inauguration of the system. Ample capital is absolutely necessary at the start and whatever sums the first borrowers might be able to contribute would in no wise suffice to get the system into successful operation. The system must be endowed, temporarily at least, with capital from sources other than the subscriptions to capital stock among the borrowers.” H. R. Rep. No. 630, 64th Cong., 1st Sess., 9.
Accord, S. Rep. No. 144, 64th Cong., 1st Sess., 4.
To resolve the dilemma, Congress provided for temporary public financing without charge to supplement the stock-purchase requirements of the statute. Congress also provided that each land bank must periodically increase its capital shares in order to achieve the goal of private ownership of the system, and to repay the temporary federal financing.
The land bank system remained virtually untouched until the economic depression of the 1930’s when Congress determined that more action was needed to aid farmers in establishing privately owned institutions designed to provide ready sources of long-term credit. The Farm Credit Act of 1933 was passed to supplement the 1916 legislation. It established, inter alia, regional Banks for Cooperatives in each of the 12 land bank districts and a Central Bank for Cooperatives in Washington, D. C.
These Banks were authorized to make loans to “cooperative associations,” defined as “association[s] in which farmers act together in processing, preparing for market, handling, and/or marketing the farm products of persons so engaged, and also . . . association [s] in which farmers act together in purchasing, testing, grading, processing, distributing, and/or furnishing farm supplies and/or farm business services.” Agricultural Marketing Act § 16, 46 Stat. 18, as amended, 12 U. S. C. § 1141j.
The new Banks paralleled in many ways those already established under the 1916 legislation. The same regional districts were used, many of the same persons were eligible for loans from both institutions, and borrowers from both banks were required to be stockholders. The 1933 Act required cooperative associations to own, at the time a loan was made, an amount of stock in the Bank for Cooperatives equal in fair book value (not to exceed par value) to $100 per $2,000 of the amount of the loan, or 5%-, the same amount of stock required of borrowers from land banks under the 1916 Act.
One notable difference between the 1916 and the 1933 Acts was that the latter did not regulate the membership of the cooperative association to any great degree. For example, members of cooperative associations did not have to own stock in the associations, only in the Banks; they did not have to borrow a minimum amount; and they did not have to be farm owners or prospective farm owners, but could be processors, handlers, testers, or marketers. This is in sharp contrast to the stringent requirements of the 1916 legislation. Another notable difference is that Congress invested substantially more money in the 1933 program ($110,000,000) than it had invested in the land banks ($9,000,000). See S. Rep. No. 1201, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., 5, 7.
As time passed, Congress watched the land bank system develop as planned. The temporary Government capitalization that had solidified the program in its inception was gradually replaced by private capital, and by the end of 1947, the Government’s capital had been completely returned. S. Doc. No. 7, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., 4; S. Rep. No. 1201, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., 7. The land banks became totally private concerns — owned, operated, and financed by farmers without Government assistance.
Congress also watched the development of the Banks for Cooperatives and became concerned about their lack of success in attracting and keeping private investment. By the 1950’s, the Government still retained over 88% of the stock in the Banks. In § 2 of the Farm Credit Act of 1953, 67 Stat. 390, 12 U. S. C. § 636a, Congress stated that “[i]t is declared to be the policy of the Congress to encourage and facilitate increased borrower participation in the management, control, and ultimate ownership of the permanent system of agricultural credit made available through institutions operating under the supervision of the Farm Credit Administration . . . .” A Federal Farm Credit Board was created for the purpose, inter alia, of making recommendations concerning the best way to convert the Banks for Cooperatives from predominantly Government-owned to predominantly privately owned institutions.
The result of the Board’s report and recommendations was the Farm Credit Act of 1955, 69 Stat. 655. It sought to effectuate Congress’ policy by providing for the orderly withdrawal of Government capital from the Banks and the continual influx and retention of substitute private financing. See S. Doc. No. 7, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., 6; S. Rep. No. 1201, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., 1; Hearings on Farm Credit Act of 1955 before the House Committee on Agriculture, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., 30-31.
II
Under the Farm Credit Act of 1933, there was only one class of capital stock in the Banks for Cooperatives. The Farm Credit Act of 1955 provided for three distinct classes of stock — A, B, and C.
Class A stock may only be held by the Governor of the Farm Credit Association on behalf of the United States. Whatever stock the Government held in the Banks prior to the 1955 Act was converted to Class A stock. This stock is nonvoting and receives no dividends. Class A stock must be retired each year in an amount equal to the amount of Class C stock issued during the year. 12 U. S. C. § 1134d (a)(1). Once the United States’ stock is completely redeemed, the Government will invest no more in the Banks, except that it may purchase additional shares of the Class A stock if an emergency makes it necessary in order for the bank to meet the credit needs of eligible borrowers. See 12 U. S. C. §§ 1134d (a)(1), 1134b, 1134L
Class B stock represents a new approach to capitalizing the Banks. It is an investment stock available to the public. It pays noncumulative dividends upon certain conditions. Class B stock may be retired only after all Class A stock. 12 U. S. C. § 1134d (a)(2).
Class C stock may be issued only to farmers’ cooperative associations, except that each regional bank is required to purchase such shares from the Central Bank. This stock may be obtained under four circumstances. One share is required to initially qualify any association as a borrower of a regional Bank. Each borrower must then make the quarterly stock purchases which gave rise to this lawsuit. In addition, 12 U. S. C. § 1134Í (b) provides that after certain expenditures are made each year, patronage refunds may be allocated to borrowers in the form of Class C stock. “All patronage refunds shall be paid in the proportion that the amount of interest earned on the loans of each borrower bears to the total interest earned on the loans of all borrowers during the fiscal year.” Ibid. Borrowers also receive at the end of each fiscal year an “allocated surplus” credit which is payable out of the Bank’s net savings. Like patronage refunds, allocated surplus is credited to each member in accordance with the proportion that the interest on its loans bears to the interest on all loans. When the surplus account reaches 25%- of the total outstanding capital stock of the Bank, the excess may be distributed to members in the form of Class C stock.
Only the tax treatment of the quarterly purchases is disputed here. The taxpayers correctly note that the Class C stock has attributes which would make a normal commercial stock undesirable. For example, the C stock pays no dividends; it is transferable only between cooperatives and only under rare circumstances; additional shares do not provide additional voting power; and the stock cannot be redeemed until all A, all B issued earlier or in the same year, and all earlier issued C shares have been called for redemption. These characteristics render the market for C shares virtually nonexistent.
It must be remembered, however, that the stock was intentionally given these characteristics by a Congress with definite goals in mind. The legislative history of the Farm Credit Act of 1955 indicates that Congress placed much of the blame for the Bank’s inability to repay the capital extended by the Government and to retain private capital on the provision in the 1933 legislation which permitted borrowers to redeem their stock for cash upon paying off their loans. The restrictions on redemption and transferability and the dividend prohibition were designed to obviate this difficulty and to provide both a stable membership and permanent capital, two necessities for the success of any cooperative venture.
Ill
The taxpayers do not seek to deduct the cost of their initial shares in the Bank as interest. They accept the fact that these shares represent one cost of membership and that this cost is a capital expense because membership is a valuable asset in more than one taxable year. But, they argue that once they purchased their initial shares, they obtained full membership rights, and, a fortiori, that Congress must have intended the quarterly expenditures for stock to be a charge for borrowing money since the stock has no value. The fact is, however, that the stock purchased quarterly is indeed valuable. The amounts paid for C shares become part of the permanent capital structure of the Bank, thereby increasing the stability of the Bank and insuring its continued ability to extend credit. Each share also provides an opportunity for more patronage and surplus dividends, an ultimate right of redemption, and an asset that may be used as a set-off in case of a default on the loan. In sum, every share of stock purchased quarterly by the taxpayers is nearly as valuable as the shares purchased initially. It is therefore difficult to understand why these different purchases should receive radically different tax treatment. If Congress had required 1,000 or 100,000 shares of Class C stock to be purchased before an association could borrow from the Banks, under the taxpayers’ theory of the case the cost of those shares would be a nondeductible capital expense. Simply because Congress eased the burden on farmers by spreading the requirement of capital investment over a period of time rather than requiring it as a prerequisite to borrowing, the taxpayers are entitled to no more favorable tax treatment.
It is important not to lose sight of the congressional purposes in enacting the farm credit legislation. The immediate goal was to provide loans to farmers at low interest rates. It would, therefore, be odd for Congress to provide a “hidden” interest charge in the legislation. The long-range goal was to make the Banks “fully cooperative and to place full ownership and responsibility for their operations and success in the hands of those eligible to borrow from them.” Hearings on Farm Credit Act of 1955 before a Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Agriculture and Forestry, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., 60. Congress felt, in light of its experience under the Farm Credit Act of 1933, that the long-range goal could only be achieved if Bank members made long-term investments in the Banks. Hence, Congress created Class C stock, a security with a special value in cooperative ventures. While this security is sui generis, the congressional scheme makes it clear that it has value over the long run.
Since the security is of value in more than one taxable year, it is a capital asset within the meaning of § 1221 of the Internal Revenue Code, and its cost is nondeductible. Cf. Commissioner v. Lincoln Savings & Loan Assn., 403 U. S. 345 (1971); Old Colony R. Co. v. United States, 284 U. S. 552 (1932); 26 CFR § 1.461-1.
We reject the contention that while the Class C stock may be a capital asset, it is worth only $1, and that the additional $99 paid for each share must represent interest. Were we dealing with the traditional corporate structure in this case, the taxpayers' argument would have strength. But, as we have pointed out previously, the essential nature of cooperatives and corporations differs. The value of the Class C stock derives primarily from attributes other than marketability. The stock has value because it is the foundation of the cooperative scheme; it insures stability and continuity. The stock also has value because it enables the farmers to work together toward common goals. It enables them to share in a venture of common concerns and to reap the rewards of knowing that they can finance themselves without the assistance of the Federal Government. It is perhaps debatable whether these attributes should properly be valued at $100 per share, but we are not called upon merely to resolve a question of valuation. Rather, we must decide whether it is artificial to characterize these unique expenditures as payments for a capital asset. We find that it is not.
The taxpayers and the Government each allege that the other is looking at form rather than substance. At some point, however, the form in which a transaction is cast must have considerable impact. Guterman, Substance v. Form in the Taxation of Personal and Business Transactions, N. Y. U. 20th Inst, on Fed. Tax. 951 (1962). Congress chose to make the taxpayers buy stock; Congress determined that the stock was worth $100 a share; and this stock was endowed with a long-term value. While Congress might have been able to achieve the same ends through additional interest payments, it chose the form of stock purchases. This form assures long-term commitment and has bearing on the tax consequences of the purchases.
Accordingly, the decision of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded with direction that judgment be entered for the United States.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Blackmun took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Mississippi Chemical Corp. acquired the share of stock qualifying it as a borrower in 1956; Coastal Chemical Corp. acquired its qualifying share in 1957.
Mississippi Chemical Corp. challenges the Government’s tax treatment of $55,113.19 spent from 1961 to 1963; Coastal Chemical Corp. challenges the treatment of $211,799.68 expended from 1958 to 1963.
One dollar was treated as the cost of acquiring a capital asset.
This decision is unreported but is found in App. 342-346. Other lower courts have split on the issue presented. Compare, e. g., M. F. A. Central Cooperative v. Bookwalter, 427 F. 2d 1341 (CA8 1970), rev’g 286 F. Supp. 956 (ED Mo. 1968), pet. for cert. pending (No. 70-22), with Penn Yan Agway Cooperative, Inc. v. United States, 189 Ct. Cl. 434, 417 F. 2d 1372 (1969).
The statute also provided that “joint stock land banks” could be formed. These were corporations, composed of 10 or more persons, who desired to form banks to loan money to farmers without the aid of congressional financing. They were subject to the same restrictions and conditions imposed on the district land banks.
While Congress did not disturb the land bank system, it added to it at various times. For example, Title II of the Agricultural Credits Act of 1923, 42 Stat. 1461, 12 U. S. C. § 1151 et seq. (1958 ed.), was designed to aid farmers in obtaining short-term credit.
The Act also established a production credit system to improve short-term financing for farmers. That system has no bearing on this case.
There is evidence in the record that the Government capital is being revolved out of the Banks just as Congress anticipated. See Farm Credit Administration, Banks for Cooperatives — A Quarter of a Century of Progress, excerpted in App. 157, 175. See also 431 F. 2d 1320, 1332, and n. 17 (Godbold, J., dissenting); Brief for the United States 7.
The Class B shares are of only nominal importance. In 1963, they amounted to only some 5% of the total outstanding stock of the New Orleans Bank.
The patronage refunds and the allocated surplus, discussed infra, are not a return on the amount of capital that the borrower contributes to the Bank; they are distributions of earnings, not presently convertible to cash, but are eventually convertible just as the quarterly Class C purchases may eventually be redeemed.
The Government contended in the District Court that the taxpayers should have reported the patronage dividends as income. The District Court disagreed and the Government did not appeal this point. It is not, therefore, reviewable here, and the Government does not urge that we consider it.
While no formal dividends are paid on the C stock, it is apparent that the patronage dividend is in many ways equivalent to the traditional corporate dividend. As noted above, the patronage dividend is not immediately convertible to cash, but it is far from worthless. Like the usual corporate dividends, the patronage dividends are paid in proportion to stock ownership. Stock ownership is apportioned according to the amount a Bank member borrows. Thus, those who borrow the most own the most stock and receive the most patronage dividends (and surplus as well). As the Class A stock and the earlier issued Class B and Class C stock are redeemed, the C stock issued as dividends will become convertible to cash and its value will be realized at that time.
In the event of a default by a borrower, the Class C stock is set off against the amount of the loan. Hence, the more patronage dividends the member receives, the more security he has in case of default.
Cooperative associations are entitled to vote in polls designating nominees for appointment to the Federal Farm Credit Board, established by the Farm Credit Act of 1953, 67 Stat. 390, as amended, 12 U. S. C. § 636c, to help effectuate congressional policy; to vote in the nomination polls and elections of members of district farm credit boards established by the Farm Credit Act of 1937, 50 Stat. 703, 12 U. S. C. § 640a; and to vote in the nomination and elections of directors of the Central Bank for Cooperatives. It is normal for every member of a cooperative to have only one vote, irrespective of a disparity between the shares held. See Frost v. Corporation Comm’n, 278 U. S. 515, 536-537 (1929) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); I. Packel, The Law of Cooperatives §§23-24 (a), pp. 136-140 (3d ed. 1956). It is interesting that the Capper-Volstead Act, 42 Stat. 388, 7 U. S. C. §§ 291-292, permits a cooperative marketing association immunity from the Sherman Act under some circumstances, but only if no member is entitled to more than one vote.
Cooperatives and corporations operate on different principles. Whereas the corporate structure separates control and management, the essence of a cooperative requires that these functions be integrated. And, whereas the value of corporate stock depends on ease of transferability (or marketability), the value of cooperative stock lies in the durable, long-term nature of the investment. See Nieman, Revolving Capital in Stock Cooperative Corporations, 13 Law & Contemp. Prob. 393 (1948).
It is by no means clear that the Class C stock is worth only $1 even under a traditional market value analysis. The lower courts failed to include the value of the patronage and surplus dividends in computing the value of the quarterly purchases. The Class C stock may, therefore, be worth considerably more than $1, although the Government concedes that it is not worth $100. Because of the result we reach in this case, we have no occasion to make a final determination as to what value the stock would have under a market-value analysis.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | L | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Fortas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellees were indicted under 18 U. S. C. § 371 for conspiring to violate § 215 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 190, 8 U. S. C. § 1185 (b). The alleged conspiracy consisted of recruiting and arranging the travel to Cuba of 58 American citizens whose passports, although otherwise valid, were not specifically validated for travel to that country.
The District Court granted appellees’ motion to dismiss the indictment. Chief Judge Zavatt filed an exhaustive opinion (253 F. Supp. 433 (D. C. E. D. N. Y.)). Notice of direct appeal to this Court was filed and we noted probable jurisdiction under 18 U. S. C. § 3731 because the dismissal was “based upon the . . . construction of the statute upon which the indictment... is founded.” We affirm. Our decision rests entirely upon our construction of the relevant statutes and regulations.
Two statutes are relevant to this case. The first is the Passport Act of 1926, 44 Stat. 887, 22 U. S. C. § 211a. This is the general statute authorizing the Secretary of State to “grant and issue passports.” It is not a criminal statute. The second statute is § 215 (b) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, supra, under which the present indictments were brought. Section 215 (b) was enacted on June 27, 1952. It is a re-enactment of the Act of May 22, 1918 (40 Stat. 559), and the Act of June 21, 1941 (55 Stat. 252). It provides that:
“When the United States is at war or during the existence of any national emergency proclaimed by the President . . . and [when] the President shall find that the interests of the United States require that restrictions and prohibitions ... be imposed upon the departure of persons from and their entry into the United States, and shall make public proclamation thereof, it shall ... (b) ... be unlawful for any citizen of the United States to depart from or enter, or attempt to depart from or enter, the United States unless he bears a valid passport.” (Italics added.)
Wilful violation is subjected to a fine of not more than $5,000 or imprisonment for five years, or both.
On January 17, 1953, President Truman made the finding and proclamation required by § 215 (b). As a consequence, a valid passport has been required for departure and entry of United States nationals from and into the United States and its territories, except as to areas specifically-exempted by regulations. The proclamation adopted the regulations which the Secretary of State had promulgated under the predecessors of § 215 (b) exempting from the passport requirement departure to or entry from “any country or territory in North, Central, or South America [including Cuba].” 22 CFR § 53.3 (b) (1958 rev.). On January 3, 1961, the United States broke diplomatic relations with Cuba. On January 16, 1961, the Deputy Under Secretary of State for Administration issued the “Excluding Cuba” amendment (22 CFR § 53.3 (1965 rev.), 26 Fed. Reg. 482). That amendment added the two words “excluding Cuba” to the phrase quoted above. Cuba was thereby included in the general requirement of a passport for departure from and entry into the United States.
On the same day, the Department of State also issued Public Notice 179, which stated that “Hereafter United States passports shall not be valid for travel to or in Cuba unless specifically endorsed for such travel under the authority of the Secretary of State_” 26 Fed. Reg. 492. It simultaneously issued a press release announcing that:
“. . . in view of the U. S. Government’s inability, following the break in diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba, to extend normal -protective services to Americans visiting Cuba, U. S. citizens desiring to go to Cuba must until further notice obtain passports specifically endorsed by the Department of State for such travel. All outstanding passports . . . are being declared invalid for travel to Cuba unless specifically endorsed for such travel. . . . These actions have been taken in conformity with the Department’s normal practice of limiting travel to those countries with which the United States does not maintain diplomatic relations.” (Italics added.)
In Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U. S. 1 (1965), the petitioner sought a declaratory judgment that the Secretary of State does not have statutory authorization to impose area restrictions on travel; that if the statute were construed to authorize the Secretary to do,, so, it would be an impermissible delegation of power; and that, in any event, the exercise of the power to restrict travel denied to petitioner his rights under the First and Fifth Amendments. This Court rejected petitioner’s claims and sustained the Secretary’s statutory power to refuse to validate passports for travel to Cuba. It found authority for area restrictions in the general passport authority vested in the Secretary of State by the 1926 Act, relying upon the successive “imposition of area restrictions during both times of war and periods of peace” before and after the enactment of the Act of 1926. 381 U. S., at 8-9. The Court specifically declined the Solicitor General’s invitation to rule also that “travel in violation of an area restriction imposed on an otherwise valid passport is unlawful under the 1952 Act.” Id., at 12.
We now confront that question. Section 215 (b) is a criminal statute. It must therefore be narrowly construed. United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, 95-96, 105 (1820) (Marshall, C. J.). Appellees urge that § 215 (b) must be read as a “border control” statute, requiring only that a citizen may not “depart from or enter” the United States without “a valid passport.” On this basis, they argue, appellees did not conspire to violate the statute since all of those who went to Cuba departed and re-entered the United States bearing valid passports. Only if, as the Government urges, § 215 (b) can be given a broader meaning so as to encompass specific destination control — only if it is read as requiring the traveler to bear “a passport endorsed as valid' for travel to the country for which he departs or from which he returns” — would appellees be guilty of any violation.
We begin with the fact, conceded by the Government, that “Section 215 (b) does not, in so many words, prohibit violations of area restrictions; it speaks, as the district court noted in the Laub case ... in the language of ‘border control statutes regulating departure from and entry into the United States.’ ” Brief for the United States, p. 11. Nevertheless, the Government requests us to sustain this criminal prosecution and reverse the District Court on the ground that somehow, “the text is broad enough to encompass departures for geographically restricted areas ....” Ibid. We conclude, however, that in this criminal proceeding the statute cannot be applied in this fashion. Even if ingenuity were able to find concealed in the text a basis for this criminal prosecution, factors which we must take into account, drawn from the history of the statute, would preclude such a reading.
Preliminarily, it is essential to recall the nature and function of the passport. A passport is a document identifying a citizen, in effect requesting foreign powers to allow the bearer to enter and to pass freely and safely, recognizing the right of the bearer to the protection and good offices of American diplomatic and consular officers. See Urtetiqui v. D’Arcy, 9 Pet. 692, 699 (1836); Kent v. Dulles, 357 U. S. 116, 120-121 (1958); 3 Hackworth, Digest of International Law 435 (1942). 8 U. S. C. § 1101 (a) (30).
As this Court has observed, “The right to travel is a part of the 'liberty’ of which the citizen cannot be deprived without due process of law. . . .” Kent v. Dulles, supra, 357 U. S., at 125. See Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U. S. 500, 517 (1964); Zemel v. Rusk, 381 U. S. 1 (1965).
Under § 215 (b) and its predecessor statutes, Congress authorized the requirement that a citizen possess a passport for departure from and entry into the United States, and there is no doubt that with the adoption and promulgation of the “Excluding Cuba” regulation, a passport was required for departure from this country for Cuba and for entry into this country from Cuba. Departure for Cuba or entry from Cuba without a passport would be a violation of § 215 (b), exposing the traveler to the criminal penalties provided in that section. But it does not follow that travel to Cuba with a passport which is not specifically validated for that country is a criminal offense. Violation of the “area restriction” — “invalidating” passports for travel in or to Cuba and requiring specific validation of passports if they are to be valid for travel to or in Cuba — is quite a different matter from violation of the requirement of § 215 (b) and the regulations thereunder that a citizen bear a “valid passport” for departure from or entry into the United States.
The area restriction, applicable to Cuba was promulgated by a “Public Notice” and a press release, su-pra, pp. 478-479, neither of which referred to § 215 (b) or to criminal sanctions. On the contrary, the only reference to the statutory base of the announcement appears in the “Public Notice,” and this is a reference to the nonpenal 1926 Act and the Executive Order adopted thereunder in 1938. These merely authorize the Secretary of State to impose area restrictions incidental to his general powers with respect to passports. Zemel v. Rusk, supra. They do not purport to make travel to the designated area unlawful.
The press release issued by the Department of State at the time expressly explained the action as being “in view of the U. S. Government’s inability ... to extend normal protective services to Americans visiting Cuba.” It explained that the action was taken in conformity with the Department’s “normal practice” of limiting travel to countries with which we do not have diplomatic relations. That “normal practice,” as will be discussed, has not included criminal sanctions. In short, the relevant State Department promulgations are not only devoid of a suggestion that travel to Cuba without a specially validated passport is prohibited, or that such travel would be criminal conduct, but they also contain positive suggestions that the purpose and effect of the restriction were merely to make clear that the passport was not to be regarded by the traveler in Cuba as a voucher on the protective services normally afforded by the State Department.
This was in keeping with the unbroken tenor of State Department pronouncements on area restrictions. Prior to enactment of § 215 (b) on June 27, 1952, area travel restrictions were proclaimed on five occasions while the 1918 and 1941 Acts were in effect (1918-1921 and 1941-1953). These were the predecessors of § 215 (b), and they similarly specified criminal sanctions. But in each of the five instances, the area restrictions were devoid of any suggestion that they were related to the 1918 or 1941 Acts or were intended to invoke criminal penalties if they were disregarded. They wfere cast exclusively in civil terms, relating to the State Department’s “safe passage” functions. In two of these instances, the Department of State specifically emphasized the civil, nonprohibitory nature of the restrictions. For example, in 1952 the State Department issued area restrictions with respect to Eastern European countries, China, and the Soviet Union. The Department’s press release emphasized that the “invalidation” of passports for travel to those areas “in no way forbids American travel to those areas.”
Since enactment of § 215 (b), the State Department has announced area travel restrictions upon three occasions in addition to Cuba. Again, although § 215 (b) was fully operative, none of these declarations purported to be issued under that section or referred to criminal sanctions. Each of them, like the Cuba regulation, sounded in terms of withdrawal of the safe-passage services of the State Department.
In 1957, the Senate Foreign Relations Committee asked the Department: “What does it mean when a passport is stamped 'not valid to go to country X’?” After three months, the Department sent its official reply. It stated that this stamping of a passport “means that if the bearer enters country X he cannot be assured of the protection of the United States. . . . [but it] does not necessarily mean that if the bearer travels to country X he will be violating the criminal law.” (Italics added.) Similarly, in hearings before another Senate Committee, a Department official explained that when a passport is marked “invalid” for travel to stated countries, this means that “this Government is not sponsoring the entry of the individual into those countries and does not give him permission to go in there under the protection of this Government.”
Although Department records show that approximately 600 persons have violated area travel restrictions since the enactment of § 215 (b), the present prosecutions are the only attempts to convict persons for alleged area transgressions.
Until these indictments, in fact, the State Department had consistently taken the position that there was no statute which imposed or authorized such prohibition. In the 1957 hearings, referred to above, the Acting Director of the Bureau of Security and Consular Affairs, Department of State, testified that he knew of no statute providing a penalty for going to a country covered by an area restriction without a passport (as distinguished from departing or entering the United States) , The Government, as well as others, has repeatedly called to the attention of the Congress the need for consideration of legislation specifically making it a criminal offense for any citizen to travel to a country as to which an area restriction is in effect, but no such legislation was enacted.
In view of this overwhelming evidence that § 215 (b) does not authorize area restrictions, we agree with the District Court that the indictment herein does not allege a crime. If there is a gap in the law, the right and the duty, if any, to fill it do not devolve upon the courts. The area travel restriction, requiring special validation of passports for travel to Cuba, was a valid civil regulation under the 1926 Act. Zemel v. Rusk, supra. But it was not and was not intended or represented to be an exercise of authority under § 215 (b), which provides the basis of the criminal charge in this case.
Crimes are not to be created by inference. They may not be constructed nunc pro tunc. Ordinarily, citizens may not be punished for actions undertaken in good faith reliance upon authoritative assurance that punishment will not attach. As this. Court said in Raley v. Ohio, 360 U. S. 423, 438, we may not convict “a citizen for exercising a privilege which the State clearly had told him was available to him.” As Raley emphasized, criminal sanctions are not supportable if they are to be imposed under “vague and undefined” commands (citing Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451 (1939)); or if they are “inexplicably contradictory” (citing United States v. Cardiff, 344 U. S. 174 (1952)); and certainly not if the Government’s conduct constitutes “active misleading” (citing Johnson v. United States, 318 U. S. 189, 197 (1943)).
In view of our decision that appellees were charged with conspiracy to violate a nonexistent criminal prohibition, we need not consider other issues which the case presents.
Accordingly, the judgment of the District Court is
Affirmed.
APPENDIX TO OPINION OF THE COURT.
The following three Department of State statements in connection with area restrictions are referred to in the foregoing opinion:
(1) State Department Press Release No. 24, Jan. 16, 1961, 44 Dept. State Bull. 178:
“The Department of State announced on January 16 that in view of the U. S. Government’s inability, following the break in diplomatic relations between the United States and Cuba, to extend normal protective services to Americans visiting Cuba, U. S. citizens desiring to go to Cuba must until further notice obtain passports specifically endorsed by the Department of State for such travel. All outstanding passports, except those of U. S. citizens remaining in Cuba, are being declared invalid for travel to Cuba unless specifically endorsed for such travel.
“The Department contemplates that exceptions to these regulations will be granted to persons whose travel may be regarded as being in the best interests of the United States, such as newsmen or businessmen with previously established business interests.
“Permanent resident aliens cannot travel to Cuba unless special permission is obtained for this purpose through the U. S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
“Federal regulations are being amended to put these requirements into effect.
“These actions have been taken in conformity with the Department’s normal practice of limiting-travel to those countries with which the United States does not maintain diplomatic relations.”
(2) State Department Press Release No. 341, May 1, 1952, 26 Dept. State Bull. 736:
“The Department of State announced on May 1 that it was taking additional steps to warn American citizens of the risks of travel in Iron Curtain countries by stamping all passports not valid for travel in those countries unless specifically endorsed by the Department of State for such travel.
“In making this announcement, the Department emphasized that this procedure in no way forbids American travel to those areas. It contemplates that American citizens will consult the Department or the consulates abroad to ascertain the dangers of traveling in countries where acceptable standards of protection do not prevail and that, if no objection is perceived, the travel may be authorized.
“All new passports will be stamped as follows: THIS PASSPORT IS NOT VALID FOR TRAVEL TO ALBANIA, BULGARIA, CHINA, CZECHOSLOVAKIA, HUNGARY, POLAND, RUMANIA OR THE UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS UNLESS SPECIFICALLY ENDORSED UNDER AUTHORITY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF STATE AS BEING VALID FOR SUCH TRAVEL.
“All outstanding passports, which are equally subject to the restriction, will be so endorsed as occasion permits.”
“Freedom to Travel,” a 1958 Report of the Special Committee To Study Passport Procedures of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York, characterized this as “an honest admission of the lack of statutory power to enforce an area restriction of this nature.” At 70. The Department gave a practical construction of this area restriction in 1954 when it informed two newsmen desiring to travel to Bulgaria that they could go there without a passport and “use, as a travel document ... an affidavit in lieu of a passport,” and that, if Bulgaria would permit them entry, “the Department. . . [would hold] no objection.” Hearings on Department of State Passport Policies before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. (1957), p. 65.
(3) 3 Hackworth, Digest of International Law 530 (1942) (1919 Germany restriction):
“The Department is not now issuing or authorizing issuance or amendment of passports for Germany. However, the Department interposes no objection to the entry into Germany of Americans who have important and urgent business to transact there. In view of the present situation, such persons should understand that they go upon their own responsibility and at their own risk. They cannot be guaranteed the same protection which they might expect under normal conditions.”
In response to a motion for a bill of particulars, the Government alleged that the individuals concerned possessed “unexpired and unrevoked United States passports which . . . had not been specifically validated by the Secretary of State for travel to Cuba.”
Proclamation No. 3004, 67 Stat. c31, 3 CFR 180 (1949-1953 Comp.). The current “National Emergency” was proclaimed by President Truman on Dee. 16, 1950. Proclamation No. 2914, 64 Stat. a454, 3 CFR 99 (1949-1953 Comp.).
State Department Press Release No. 24, Jan. 16, 1961, 44 Dept. State Bull. 178. The full text is in the Appendix to this opinion.
But cf. United States v. Healy, 376 U. S. 75, 83, n. 7 (1964).
It is the exception rather than the rule in our history to require that citizens engaged in foreign travel should have a passport. Kent v. Dulles, 357 U. S. 116, 121-123 (1958); Jaffe, The Right To Travel: The Passport Problem, 35 Foreign Affairs 17 (1956).
The “Public Notice” recites that “pursuant to the authority vested in me by Sections 124 and 126 of Executive Order No. 7856, issued on March 31, 1938 (3 FR 681, 687, 22 CFR 51.75 and 51.77) under authority of . . . the Act of . . . July 3, 1926 ... all United States passports are hereby declared to be invalid for travel to or in Cuba'. . . .” Department of State, Public Notice No. 179, Jan. 16, 1961, 26 Fed. Reg. 492.
State Department Press Release No. 24, Jan. 16, 1961, 44 Dept. State Bull. 178. The full text is in the Appendix to this opinion.
The 1918 Act was in effect by Presidential proclamation only between August 8, 1918, and March 3, 1921. (40 Stat. 1829 and 41 Stat. 1359.) The 1941 Act was in effect by successive Presidential proclamations and congressional extensions from November 14, 1941 (55 Stat. 1696), to April 1, 1953 (66 Stat. 57, 96, 137, 333), by which date § 215 (b) was already in effect by Presidential Proclamation No. 3004, Jan. 17, 1953, 67 Stat. c31, 3 CFR, 180 (1949-1953 Comp.).
See p. 477, supra.
1. Restriction in 1919 as to Germany (3 Haekworth, Digest of International Law 530 (1942). 2. Restriction in 1950 as to Bulgaria and Hungary (22 Dept. State Bull. 399). 3. Restriction in 1951 as to Czechoslovakia (24 Dept. State Bull. 932). 4. Restriction in 1951 as to Hungary (26 Dept. State Bull. 7). 5. Restriction in 1952 as to East European countries, China, and the Soviet Union (26 Dept. State Bull. 736).
These were the 1919 Germany restriction and the 1952 East Europe, Soviet Union, and China restriction. See n. 10, supra. The texts of the Department’s announcements of these restrictions are in the Appendix to this opinion.
See the Appendix to this opinion.
1. Restriction in 1955 as to Albania, Bulgaria, China, North Korea, and North Viet Nam (33 Dept. State Bull. 777). 2. Restriction in 1956 as to Hungary (34 Dept. State Bull. 248). 3. Restriction in 1956 as to Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Syria (35 Dept. State Bull. 756, 21 Fed. Reg. 8577).
In the 1956 area restriction relating to Egypt, Israel, Jordan, and Syria, supra, n. 13, as well as the Cuba restriction, the Department expressly recited the 1926 Act as its basis. It did not mention § 215 (b). 21 Fed. Reg. 8577.
Hearings before the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, on Department of State Passport Policies, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. (1957), p. 59.
Hearings before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, on the Right To Travel, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., part 2 (1957), p. 86; see also id., at 62.
The Government conceded this to the court below. See also the Department’s testimony to the same effect in Hearings before the Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, on S. 3243, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966), p. 43. The Chief of the Security Branch of the Legal Division of the State Department testified to the court below that he was unaware of any prosecution for violation of area restrictions under the predecessors of §215 (b).
See also Travis v. United States, No. 67, post, p. 491; Worthy v. United States, 328 F. 2d 386 (C. A. 5th Cir., 1964).
Hearings, n. 16, supra, at 91-95.
See, e. g., President Eisenhower’s request for legislation, H. It. Doc. No. 417, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. (1958). The Administration’s bill was S. 4110, H. It. 13318. In 1957, the Commission on Government Security, specifically established by Congress to study travel and passport legislation, among other things (Public Law 304, 84th Cong., 1st Sess., 69 Stat. 595 (1955)), recommended that “Title 8, U. S. C. A., section 1185 (b), should be amended to make it unlawful for any citizen of the United States to travel to any country in which his passport is declared to be invalid.” Report (S. Doc. 64, 84th Cong.), at 475. The next year, the Special Committee To Study Passport Procedures of the Association of the Bar of the City of New York published a report entitled “Freedom To Travel.” One of the authors of this Report was the Honorable Adrian S. Fisher, former Legal Advisor to the Department of State. This Report concluded, at 70, as to criminal enforcement of area restrictions:
“The Committee has not discovered any statute which clearly provides a penalty for violation of area restrictions, and this seems to be a glaring omission if the United States is seriously interested in the establishment and enforcement of travel controls. Knowing violation of valid restrictions should certainly be subject to an effective sanction, which is not now the case.”
The most recent bill, introduced by the Department after two years of study, was H. R. 14895, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966). See Hearings before the Subcommittee To Investigate the Administration of the Internal Security Act and Other Internal Security Laws, Senate Committee on the Judiciary, on S. 3243, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966), p. 73. Some of the other bills which failed in Congress are discussed in the opinion of the court below.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
Justice Marshall 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: | 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.
A well-documented rise in global temperatures has coincided with a significant increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. Respected scientists believe the two trends are related. For when carbon dioxide is released into the atmosphere, it acts like the ceiling of a greenhouse, trapping solar energy and retarding the escape of reflected heat. It is therefore a species — the most important species — of a “greenhouse gas.”
Calling global warming “the most pressing environmental challenge of our time,” a group of States, local governments, and private organizations alleged in a petition for certiorari that the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has abdicated its responsibility under the Clean Air Act to regulate the emissions of four greenhouse gases, including carbon dioxide. Specifically, petitioners asked us to answer two questions concerning the meaning of § 202(a)(1) of the Act: whether EPA has the statutory authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles; and if so, whether its stated reasons for refusing to do so are consistent with the statute.
In response, EPA, supported by. 10 intervening States and six trade associations, correctly argued that we may not address those two questions unless at least one petitioner has standing to invoke our jurisdiction under Article III of the Constitution. Notwithstanding the serious character of that jurisdictional argument and the absence of any conflicting decisions construing § 202(a)(1), the unusual importance of the underlying issue persuaded us to grant the writ. 548 U. S. 903 (2006).
I
Section 202(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, as added by Pub. L. 89-272, § 101(8), 79 Stat. 992, and as amended by, inter alia, 84 Stat. 1690 and 91 Stat. 791, 42 U.S.C. § 7521(a)(1), provides:
“The [EPA] Administrator shall by regulation prescribe (and from time to time revise) in accordance with the provisions of this section, standards applicable to the emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicles or new motor vehicle engines, which in his judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare....”
The Act defines “air pollutant” to include “any air pollution agent or combination of such agents, including any physical, chemical, biological, radioactive... substance or matter which is emitted into or otherwise enters the ambient air.” § 7602(g). “Welfare” is also defined broadly: among other things, it includes “effects on... weather... and climate.” § 7602(h).
When Congress enacted these provisions, the study of climate change was in its infancy. In 1959, shortly after the U. S. Weather Bureau began monitoring atmospheric carbon dioxide levels, an observatory in Mauna Loa, Hawaii, recorded a mean level of 316 parts per million. This was well above the highest carbon dioxide concentration — no more than 300 parts per million — revealed in the 420,000-year-old ice-core record. By the time Congress drafted § 202(a)(1) in 1970, carbon dioxide levels had reached 325 parts per million.
In the late 1970’s, the Federal Government began devoting serious attention to the possibility that carbon dioxide emissions associated with human activity could provoke climate change. In 1978, Congress enacted the National Climate Program Act, 92 Stat. 601, which required the President to establish a program to “assist the Nation and the world to understand and respond to natural and man-induced climate processes and their implications,” id., § 3.. President Carter, in turn, asked the National Research Council, the working arm of the National Academy of Sciences, to investigate the subject. The Council’s response was unequivocal: “If carbon dioxide continues to increase, the study group finds no reason to doubt that climate changes will result and no reason to believe that these changes will be negligible.... A wait- and-see policy may mean waiting until it is too late.”
Congress next addressed the issue in 1987, when it enacted the Global Climate Protection Act, Title XI of Pub. L. 100-204, 101 Stat. 1407, note following 15 U. S. C. § 2901. Finding that “manmade pollution — the release of carbon dioxide, chlorofluoroearbons, methane, and other trace gases into the atmosphere — may be producing a long-term and substantial increase in the average temperature on Earth,” §1102(1), 101 Stat. 1408, Congress directed EPA to propose to Congress a “coordinated national policy on global climate change,” § 1103(b), and ordered the Secretary of State to work “through the channels of multilateral diplomacy” and coordinate diplomatic efforts to combat global warming, § 1103(c). Congress emphasized that “ongoing pollution and deforestation may be contributing now to an irreversible process” and that “[njecessary actions must be identified and implemented in time to protect the climate.” § 1102(4).
Meanwhile, the scientific understanding of climate change progressed. In 1990, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), a multinational scientific body organized under the auspices of the United Nations, published its first comprehensive report on the topic. Drawing on expert opinions from across the globe, the IPCC concluded that “emissions resulting from human activities are substantially increasing the atmospheric concentrations of... greenhouse gases [which] will enhance the greenhouse effect, resulting on average in an additional warming of the Earth’s surface.”
Responding to the IPCC report, the United Nations convened the “Earth Summit” in 1992 in Rio de Janeiro. The first President Bush attended and signed the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), a nonbinding agreement among 154 nations to reduce atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases for the purpose of “preventing] dangerous anthropogenic [i. e., human-induced] interference with the [Earth’s] climate system.” S. Treaty Doc. No. 102-38, Art. 2, p. 5,1771 U. N. T. S. 107 (1992). The Senate unanimously ratified the treaty.
Some five years later — after the IPCC issued a second comprehensive report in 1995 concluding that “[t]he balance of evidence suggests there is a discernible human influence on global climate” — the UNFCCC signatories met in Kyoto, Japan, and adopted a protocol that assigned mandatory targets for industrialized nations to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Because those targets did not apply to developing and heavily polluting nations such as China and India, the Senate unanimously passed a resolution expressing its sense that the United States should not enter into the Kyoto Protocol. See S. Res. 98, 105th Cong., 1st Sess. (July 25, 1997) (as passed). President Clinton did not submit the protocol to the Senate for ratification.
II
On October 20, 1999, a group of 19 private organizations filed a rulemaking petition asking EPA to regulate “greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles under § 202 of the Clean Air Act.” App. 5. Petitioners maintained that 1998 was the “warmest year on record”; that carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, and hydrofluorocarbons are “heat trapping greenhouse gases”; that greenhouse gas emissions have significantly accelerated climate change; and that the IPCC’s 1995 report warned that “carbon dioxide remains the most important contributor to [manmade] forcing of climate change.” Id., at 13 (internal quotation marks omitted). The petition further alleged that climate change will have serious adverse effects on human health and the environment. Id., at 22-35. As to EPA’s statutory authority, the petition observed that the Agency itself had already confirmed that it had the power to regulate carbon dioxide. See id., at 18, n. 21. In 1998, Jonathan Z. Cannon, then EPA’s general counsel, prepared a legal opinion concluding that “C02 emissions are within the scope of EPA’s authority to regulate,” even as he recognized that EPA had so far declined to exercise that authority. Id., at 54 (memorandum to Carol M. Browner, Administrator (Apr. 10,1998) (hereinafter Cannon memorandum)). Cannon’s successor, Gary S. Guzy, reiterated that opinion before a congressional committee just two weeks before the rulemaking petition was filed. See id., at 61.
Fifteen months after the petition's submission, EPA requested public comment on “all the issues raised in [the] petition,” adding a “particular” request for comments on “any scientific, technical, legal, economic or other aspect of these issues that may be relevant to EPA’s consideration of this petition.” 66 Fed. Reg. 7486, 7487 (2001). EPA received more than 50,000 comments over the next five months. See 68 Fed. Reg. 52924 (2003).
Before the close of the comment period, the White House sought “assistance in identifying the areas in the science of climate change where there are the greatest certainties and uncertainties” from the National Research Council, asking for a response “as soon as possible.” App. 213. The result was a 2001 report titled Climate Change Science: An Analysis of Some Key Questions (NRC Report), which, drawing heavily on the 1995 IPCC report, concluded that “[greenhouse gases are accumulating in Earth’s atmosphere as a result of human activities, causing surface air temperatures and subsurface ocean temperatures to rise. Temperatures are, in fact, rising.” NRC Report 1.
On September 8, 2003, EPA entered an order denying the rulemaking petition. 68 Fed. Reg. 52922. The Agency gave two reasons for its decision: (1) that contrary to the opinions of its former general counsels, the Clean Air Act does not authorize EPA to issue mandatory regulations to address global climate change, see id., at 52925-52929; and (2) that even if the Agency had the authority to set greenhouse gas emission standards, it would be unwise to do so at this time, id., at 52929-52931.
In concluding that it lacked statutory authority over greenhouse gases, EPA observed that Congress “was well aware of the global climate change issue when it last comprehensively amended the [Clean Air Act] in 1990,” yet it declined to adopt a proposed amendment establishing binding emissions limitations. Id., at 52926. Congress instead chose to authorize further investigation into climate change. Ibid, (citing §§ 103(g) and 602(e) of the Clean Air Act Amendments of 1990, 104 Stat. 2652, 2703, 42 U. S. C. §§ 7403(g)(1) and 7671a(e)). EPA further reasoned that Congress’ “specially tailored solutions to global atmospheric issues,” 68 Fed. Reg. 52926 — in particular, its 1990 enactment of a comprehensive scheme to regulate pollutants that depleted the ozone layer, see Title VI, 104 Stat. 2649, 42 U. S. C. §§7671-7671q — counseled against reading the general authorization of § 202(a)(1) to confer regulatory authority over greenhouse gases.
EPA stated that it was “urged on in this view,” 68 Fed. Reg. 52928, by this Court’s decision in FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U. S. 120 (2000). In that case, relying on “tobacco[’s] unique political history,” id., at 159, we invalidated the Food and Drug Administration’s reliance on its general authority to regulate drugs as a basis for asserting jurisdiction over an “industry constituting a significant portion of the American economy,” ibid.
EPA reasoned that climate change had its own “political history”: Congress designed the original Clean Air Act to address local air pollutants rather than a substance that “is fairly consistent in its concentration throughout the world’s atmosphere,” 68 Fed. Reg. 52927; declined in 1990 to enact proposed amendments to force EPA to set carbon dioxide emission standards for motor vehicles, ibid, (citing H. R. 5966, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. (1990)); and addressed global climate change in other legislation, 68 Fed. Reg. 52927. Because of this political history, and because imposing emission limitations on greenhouse gases would have even greater economic and political repercussions than regulating tobacco, EPA was persuaded that it lacked the power to do so. Id., at 52928. In essence, EPA concluded that climate change was so important that unless Congress spoke with exacting specificity, it could not have meant the Agency to address it.
Having reached that conclusion, EPA believed it followed that greenhouse gases cannot be “air pollutants” within the meaning of the Act. See ibid. (“It follows from this conclusion, that [greenhouse gases], as such, are not air pollutants under the [Clean Air Act’s] regulatory provisions... ”). The Agency bolstered this conclusion by explaining that if carbon dioxide were an air pollutant, the only feasible method of reducing tailpipe emissions would be to improve fuel economy. But because Congress has already created detailed mandatory fuel economy standards subject to Department of Transportation (DOT) administration, the Agency concluded that EPA regulation would either conflict with those standards or be superfluous. Id., at 52929.
Even assuming that it had authority over greenhouse gases, EPA explained in detail why it would refuse to exercise that authority. The Agency began by recognizing that the concentration of greenhouse gases has dramatically increased as a result of human activities, and acknowledged the attendant increase in global surface air temperatures. Id., at 52930. EPA nevertheless gave controlling importance to the NRC Report’s statement that a causal link between the two “‘cannot be unequivocally established.’” Ibid, (quoting NRC Report 17). Given that residual uncertainty, EPA concluded that regulating greenhouse gas emissions would be unwise. 68 Fed. Reg. 52930.
The Agency furthermore characterized any EPA regulation of motor-vehicle emissions as a “piecemeal approach” to climate change, id., at 52931, and stated that such regulation would conflict with the President’s “comprehensive approach” to the problem, ibid. That approach involves additional support for technological innovation, the creation of nonregulatory programs to encourage voluntary private-sector reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, and further research on climate change — not actual regulation. Id., at 52932-52933. According to EPA, unilateral EPA regulation of motor-vehicle greenhouse gas emissions might also hamper the President’s ability to persuade key developing countries to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Id., at 52931.
III
Petitioners, now joined by intervenor States and local governments, sought review of EPA’s order in the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. Although each of the three judges on the panel wrote a separate opinion, two judges agreed “that the EPA Administrator properly exercised his discretion under § 202(a)(1) in denying the petition for rule making.” 415 F. 3d 50, 58 (2005). The court therefore denied the petition for review.
In his opinion announcing the court’s judgment, Judge Randolph avoided a definitive ruling as to petitioners’ standing, id., at 56, reasoning that it was permissible to proceed to the merits because the standing and the merits inquiries “overlapped],” ibid. Assuming without deciding that the statute authorized the EPA Administrator to regulate greenhouse gas emissions that “in his judgment” may “reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare,” 42 U. S. C. § 7521(a)(1), Judge Randolph concluded that the exercise of that judgment need not be based solely on scientific evidence, but may also be informed by the sort of policy judgments that motivate congressional action. 415 F. 3d, at 58. Given that framework, it was reasonable for EPA to base its decision on scientific uncertainty as well as on other factors, including the concern that unilateral regulation of U. S. motor-vehicle emissions could weaken efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions from other countries. Ibid.
Judge Sentelle wrote separately because he believed petitioners failed to “demonstrate] the element of injury necessary to establish standing under Article III.” Id., at 59 (opinion dissenting in part and concurring in judgment). In his view, they had alleged that global warming is “harmful to humanity at large,” but could not allege “particularized injuries” to themselves. Id., at 60 (citing Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U. S. 555, 562 (1992)). While he dissented on standing, however, he accepted the contrary view as the law of the case and joined Judge Randolph’s judgment on the merits as the closest to that which he preferred. 415 F. 3d, at 60-61.
Judge Tatel dissented. Emphasizing that EPA nowhere challenged the factual basis of petitioners’ affidavits, id., at 66, he concluded that at least Massachusetts had “satisfied each element of Article III standing — injury, causation, and redressability,” id., at 64. In Judge Tatel’s view, the “‘substantial probability,’” id., at 66, that projected rises in sea level would lead to serious loss of coastal property was a “far cry” from the kind of generalized harm insufficient to ground Article III jurisdiction. Id., at 65. He found that petitioners’ affidavits more than adequately supported the conclusion that EPA’s failure to curb greenhouse gas emissions contributed to the sea level changes that threatened Massachusetts’ coastal property. Ibid. As to redressability, he observed that one of petitioners’ experts, a former EPA climatologist, stated that “ ‘[achievable reductions in emissions of C02 and other [greenhouse gases] from U. S. motor vehicles would... delay and moderate many of the adverse impacts of global warming.’” Ibid, (quoting declaration of Michael MacCracken, former Executive Director, U. S. Global Change Research Program ¶50 (hereinafter MacCracken Deck), available in 2 Petitioners’ Standing Appendix in No. 03-1361 etc. (CADC), p. 209 (Stdg. App.)). He further noted that the one-time director of EPA’s motor-vehicle pollution control efforts stated in an affidavit that enforceable emission standards would lead to the development of new technologies that “‘would gradually be mandated by other countries around the world.’ ” 415 F. 3d, at 66 (quoting declaration of Michael Walsh ¶¶ 7-8, 10, Stdg. App. 309-310, 311). On the merits, Judge Tatel explained at length why he believed the text of the statute provided EPA with authority to regulate greenhouse gas emissions, and why its policy concerns did not justify its refusal to exercise that authority. 415 F. 3d, at 67-82.
IV
Article III of the Constitution limits federal-court jurisdiction to “Cases” and “Controversies.” Those two words confine “the business of federal courts to questions presented in an adversary context and in a form historically viewed as capable of resolution through the judicial process.” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, 95 (1968). It is therefore familiar learning that no justiciable “controversy” exists when parties seek adjudication of a political question, Luther v. Borden, 7 How. 1 (1849), when they ask for an advisory opinion, Hayburn’s Case, 2 Dall. 409 (1792), see also Clinton v. Jones, 520 U. S. 681,700, n. 33 (1997), or when the question sought to be adjudicated has been mooted by subsequent developments, California v. San Pablo & Tulare R. Co., 149 U. S. 308 (1893). This case suffers from none of these defects.
The parties’ dispute turns on the proper construction of a congressional statute, a question eminently suitable to resolution in federal court. Congress has moreover authorized this type of challenge to EPA action. See 42 U. S. C. § 7607(b)(1). That authorization is of critical importance to the standing inquiry: “Congress has the power to define injuries and articulate chains of causation that will give rise to a case or controversy where none existed before.” Lujan, 504 U. S., at 580 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). “In exercising this power, however, Congress must at the very least identify the injury it seeks to vindicate and relate the injury to the class of persons entitled to bring suit.” Ibid. We will not, therefore, “entertain citizen suits to vindicate the public’s nonconcrete interest in the proper administration of the laws.” Id., at 581.
EPA maintains that because greenhouse gas emissions inflict widespread harm, the doctrine of standing presents an insuperable jurisdictional obstacle. We do not agree. At bottom, “the gist of the question of standing” is whether petitioners have “such a personal stake in the outcome of the controversy as to assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination.” Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186, 204 (1962). As Justice Kennedy explained in his Lujan concurrence:
“While it does not matter how many persons have been injured by the challenged action, the party bringing suit must show that the action injures him in a concrete and personal way. This requirement is not just an empty formality. It preserves the vitality of the adversarial process by assuring both that the parties before the court have an actual, as opposed to professed, stake in the outcome, and that the legal questions presented... will be resolved, not in the rarified atmosphere of a debating society, but in a concrete factual context conducive to a realistic appreciation of the consequences of judicial action.” 504 U. S., at 581 (internal quotation marks omitted).
To ensure the proper adversarial presentation, Lujan holds that a litigant must demonstrate that it has suffered a concrete and particularized injury that is either actual or imminent, that the injury is fairly traceable to the defendant, and that it is likely that a favorable decision will redress that injury. See id., at 560-561. However, a litigant to whom Congress has “accorded a procedural right to protect his concrete interests,” id., at 572, n. 7 — here, the right to challenge agency action unlawfully withheld, § 7607(b)(1) — “can assert that right without meeting all the normal standards for redressability and immediacy,” ibid. When a litigant is vested with a procedural right, that litigant has standing if there is some possibility that the requested relief will prompt the injury-causing party to reconsider the decision that allegedly harmed the litigant. Ibid.; see also Sugar Cane Growers Cooperative of Fla. v. Veneman, 289 F. 3d 89, 94-95 (CADC 2002) (“A [litigant] who alleges a deprivation of a procedural protection to which he is entitled never has to prove that if he had received the procedure the substantive result would have been altered. All that is necessary is to show that the procedural step was connected to the substantive result”).
Only one of the petitioners needs to have standing to permit us to consider the petition for review. See Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U. S. 47, 52, n. 2 (2006). We stress here, as did Judge Tatel below, the special position and interest of Massachusetts. It is of considerable relevance that the party seeking review here is a sovereign State and not, as it was in Lujan, a private individual.
Well before the creation of the modern administrative state, we recognized that States are not normal litigants for the purposes of invoking federal jurisdiction. As Justice Holmes explained in Georgia v. Tennessee Copper Co., 206 U. S. 230, 237 (1907), a case in which Georgia sought to protect its citizens from air pollution originating outside its borders:
“The case has been argued largely as if it were one between two private parties; but it is not. The very elements that would be relied upon in a suit between fellow-citizens as a ground for equitable relief are wanting here. The State owns very little of the territory alleged to be affected, and the damage to it capable of estimate in money, possibly, at least, is small. This is a suit by a State for an injury to it in its capacity of gwcm-sovereign. In that capacity the State has an interest independent of and behind the titles of its citizens, in all the earth and air within its domain. It has the last word as to whether its mountains shall be stripped of their forests and its inhabitants shall breathe pure air.”
Just as Georgia’s independent interest “in all the earth and air within its domain” supported federal jurisdiction a century ago, so too does Massachusetts’ well-founded desire to preserve its sovereign territory today. Cf. Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999) (observing that in the federal system, the States “are not relegated to the role of mere provinces or political corporations, but retain the dignity, though not the full authority, of sovereignty”). That Massachusetts does in fact own a great deal of the “territory alleged to be affected” only reinforces the conclusion that its stake in the outcome of this case is sufficiently concrete to warrant the exercise of federal judicial power.
When a State enters the Union, it surrenders certain sovereign prerogatives. Massachusetts cannot invade Rhode Island to force reductions in greenhouse gas emissions, it cannot negotiate an emissions treaty with China or India, and in some circumstances the exercise of its police powers to reduce in-state motor-vehicle emissions might well be pre-empted. See Alfred L. Snapp & Son, Inc. v. Puerto Rico ex rel. Barez, 458 U. S. 592, 607 (1982) (“One helpful indication in determining whether an alleged injury to the health and welfare of its citizens suffices to give the State standing to sue parens patriae is whether the injury is one that the State, if it could, would likely attempt to address through its sovereign lawmaking powers”).
These sovereign prerogatives are now lodged in the Federal Government, and Congress has ordered EPA to protect Massachusetts (among others) by prescribing standards applicable to the “emission of any air pollutant from any class or classes of new motor vehicle engines, which in [the Administrator’s] judgment cause, or contribute to, air pollution which may reasonably be anticipated to endanger public health or welfare.” 42 U. S. C. § 7521(a)(1). Congress has moreover recognized a concomitant procedural right to challenge the rejection of its rulemaking petition as arbitrary and capricious. § 7607(b)(1). Given that procedural right and Massachusetts’ stake in protecting its quasi-sovereign interests, the Commonwealth is entitled to special solicitude in our standing analysis.
With that in mind, it is clear that petitioners’ submissions as they pertain to Massachusetts have satisfied the most demanding standards of the adversarial process. EPA’s steadfast refusal to regulate greenhouse gas emissions presents a risk of harm to Massachusetts that is both “actual” and “imminent.” Lujan, 504 U. S., at 560 (internal quotation marks omitted). There is, moreover, a “substantial likelihood that the judicial relief requested” will prompt EPA to take steps to reduce that risk. Duke Power Co. v. Carolina Environmental Study Group, Inc., 438 U. S. 59, 79 (1978).
The Injury
The harms associated with climate change are serious and well recognized. Indeed, the NRC Report itself — which EPA regards as an “objective and independent assessment of the relevant science,” 68 Fed. Reg. 52930 — identifies a number of environmental changes that have already inflicted significant harms, including “the global retreat of mountain glaciers, reduction in snow-cover extent, the earlier spring melting of ice on rivers and lakes, [and] the accelerated rate of rise of sea levels during the 20th century relative to the past few thousand years....” NRC Report 16.
Petitioners allege that this only hints at the environmental damage yet to come. According to the climate scientist Michael MacCracken, “qualified scientific experts involved in climate change research” have reached a “strong consensus” that global warming threatens (among other things) a precipitate rise in sea levels by the end of the century, MacCraeken Decl. ¶ 5, Stdg. App. 207, “severe and irreversible changes to natural ecosystems,” id., ¶ 5(d), at 209, a “significant reduction in water storage in winter snowpack in mountainous regions with direct and important economic consequences,” ibid., and an increase in the spread of disease, id., ¶ 28, at 218-219. He also observes that rising ocean temperatures may contribute to the ferocity of hurricanes. Id., ¶¶ 23-25, at 216-217.
That these climate-change risks are “widely shared” does not minimize Massachusetts’ interest in the outcome of this litigation. See Federal Election Comm’n v. Akins, 524 U. S. 11, 24 (1998) (“[W]here a harm is concrete, though widely shared, the Court has found ‘injury in fact’”). According to petitioners’ unchallenged affidavits, global sea levels rose somewhere between 10 and 20 centimeters over the 20th century as a result of global warming. MacCracken Decl. ¶ 5(c), Stdg. App. 208. These rising seas have already begun to swallow Massachusetts’ coastal land. Id., at 196 (declaration of Paul H. Kirshen ¶ 5), 216 (MacCracken Deck ¶23). Because the Commonwealth “owns a substantial portion of the state’s coastal property,” id., at 171 (declaration of Karst R. Hoogeboom ¶ 4), it has alleged a particularized injury in its capacity as a landowner. The severity of that injury will only increase over the course of the next century: If sea levels continue to rise as predicted, one Massachusetts official believes that a significant fraction of coastal property will be “either permanently lost through inundation or temporarily lost through periodic storm surge and flooding events.” Id., ¶6, at 172. Remediation costs alone, petitioners allege, could run well into the hundreds of millions of dollars. Id., ¶ 7, at 172; see also Kirshen Decl. ¶ 12, at 198.
Causation
EPA does not dispute the existence of a causal connection between manmade greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. At a minimum, therefore, EPA’s refusal to regulate such emissions “contributes” to Massachusetts’ injuries.
EPA nevertheless maintains that its decision not to regulate greenhouse gas emissions from new motor vehicles contributes so insignificantly to petitioners’ injuries that the Agency cannot be haled into federal court to answer for them. For the same reason, EPA does not believe that any realistic possibility exists that the relief petitioners seek would mitigate global climate change and remedy their injuries. That is especially so because predicted increases in greenhouse gas emissions from developing nations, particularly China and India, are likely to offset any marginal domestic decrease.
But EPA overstates its case. Its argument rests on the erroneous assumption that a small incremental step, because it is incremental, can never be attacked in a federal judicial forum. Yet accepting that premise would doom most challenges to regulatory action. Agencies, like legislatures, do not generally resolve massive problems in one fell regulatory swoop. See Williamson v. Lee Optical of Okla., Inc., 348 U. S. 483, 489 (1955) (“[A] reform may take one step at a time, addressing itself to the phase of the problem which seems most acute to the legislative mind”)- They instead whittle away at them over time, refining their preferred approach as circumstances change and as they develop a more nuanced understanding of how best to proceed. Cf. SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U. S. 194, 202 (1947) (“Some principles must await their own development, while others must be adjusted to meet particular, unforeseeable situations”). That a first step might be tentative does not by itself support the notion that federal courts lack jurisdiction to determine whether that step conforms to law.
And reducing domestic automobile emissions is hardly a tentative step. Even leaving aside the other greenhouse gases, the United States transportation sector emits an enormous quantity of carbon dioxide into the atmosphere — according to the MacCracken affidavit, more than 1.7 billion metric tons in 1999 alone. ¶ 30, Stdg. App. 219. That accounts for more than 6% of worldwide carbon dioxide emissions. Id., at 232 (Oppenheimer Decl. ¶3); see also MacCracken Decl. ¶31, at 220. To put this in perspective: Considering just emissions from the transportation sector, which represent less than one-third of this country's total carbon dioxide emissions, the United States would still rank as the third-largest emitter of carbon dioxide in the world, outpaced only by the European Union and China. Judged by any standard, U. S. motor-vehicle emissions make a meaningful contribution to greenhouse gas concentrations and hence, according to petitioners, to global warming.
The Remedy
While it may be true that regulating motor-vehicle emissions will not by itself reverse global warming, it by no means follows that we lack jurisdiction to decide whether EPA has a duty to take steps to slow or reduce it. See also Larson v. Valente, 456 U. S. 228, 244, n. 15 (1982) ("[A] plaintiff satisfies the redressability requirement when he shows that a favorable decision will relieve a discrete injury to himself. He need not show that a favorable decision will relieve his every injury”). Because of the enormity of the potential consequences associated with manmade climate change, the fact that the effectiveness of a remedy might be delayed during the (relatively short) time it takes for a new motor-vehicle fleet to replace an older one is essentially irrelevant. Nor is it dispositive that developing countries such as China and India are poised to increase greenhouse gas emissions substantially over the next century: A reduction in domestic emissions would slow the pace of global emissions increases, no matter what happens elsewhere.
We moreover attach considerable significance to EPA’s “agree[ment] with the President that ‘we must address the issue of global climate change,’ ” 68 Fed. Reg. 52929 (quoting remarks announcing Clear Skies and Global Climate Initiatives, 2002 Public Papers of George W. Bush, Vol. 1, Feb. 14, p. 227 (2004)), and to EPA’s ardent support for various voluntary emission-reduction programs, 68 Fed. Reg. 52932. As Judge Tatel observed in dissent below, “EPA would presumably not bother with such efforts if it thought emissions reductions would have no discernable impact on future global warming.” 415 F. 3d, at 66.
In sum — at least according to petitioners’ uncontested affidavits — the rise in sea levels associated with global warming has already harmed and will continue to harm Massachusetts. The risk of catastrophic harm, though remote, is nevertheless real. That risk would be reduced to some extent if petitioners received the relief they seek. We therefore hold that petitioners have standing to challenge EPA’s denial of their rulemaking petition.
V
The scope of our review of the merits of the statutory issues is narrow. As we have repeated time and again, an agency
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether a railroad engineer is entitled under the Railway Labor Act, 44 Stat. (part 2) 577, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 151 et seq., to be represented at company-level grievance or disciplinary proceedings by a union other than his collective-bargaining representative.
I
Petitioner is employed as a passenger engineer by respondent National. Railroad Passenger Corporation (Amtrak). Amtrak engineers are represented for purposes of collective bargaining by respondent Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE). Petitioner does not belong to the BLE. Instead, he is a member and officer of the rival United Transportation Union (UTU), which represents certain other crafts of Amtrak employees.
In February 1984, petitioner was charged with a violation of company work rules. An internal disciplinary hearing was convened pursuant to the BLE-Amtrak collective-bargaining agreement. Petitioner’s request that the UTU be allowed to represent him at the disciplinary hearing was denied on the ground that the collective-bargaining agreement provided that only the BLE could represent engineers at company-level hearings. Petitioner represented himself at the hearing. He received a 30-day suspension, which he has now served. He did not appeal his suspension to the National Railroad Adjustment Board.
Petitioner then filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against both Amtrak and the BLE. He contended that his rights under the Railway Labor Act had been violated because UTU had not been allowed to represent him at the disciplinary hearing.
The District Court dismissed petitioner’s complaint following a bench trial, and the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit affirmed. 814 F. 2d 41 (1987). The Court of Appeals concluded that neither the language nor the legislative history of the Railway Labor Act supported petitioner’s contention that railroad operating employees have a statutory right to be represented by the union of their choice at company-level grievance and disciplinary proceedings. The court rejected as unpersuasive the contrary decision of the Fifth Circuit in Taylor v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 794 F. 2d 1082, cert. denied, 479 U. S. 1018 (1986).
We granted certiorari, 484 U. S. 962 (1987), to resolve the conflict between two Courts of Appeals over this question of federal railway labor law. We now affirm.
II
Petitioner contends that §2, Eleventh, of the Railway Labor Act, 45 U. S. C. § 152, Eleventh, provides railroad operating employees with a right to be represented by a “minority” union (i. e., a union other than their collective-bargaining representative) at company-level grievance or disciplinary proceedings.
Section 2, Eleventh (a), permits a railroad and a union “duly designated and authorized to represent [its] employees” to enter into a union-shop agreement requiring “as a condition of continued employment, that ... all employees shall become members of the labor organization representing their craft or class.” An employee engaged in “engine, train, yard, or hostling service” may satisfy the requirement of membership in a labor organization, however, by “hold-ting] or acquiring] membership in any one of the labor organizations, national in scope, organized in accordance with this chapter and admitting to membership employees of a craft or class in any of said services.” §2, Eleventh (c). It is not disputed in this action that §2, Eleventh (c), permits petitioner to satisfy the union-shop provision of the BLE-Amtrak collective-bargaining agreement by holding membership in the UTU.
Neither §2, Eleventh, nor any other provision of the Railway Labor Act expressly addresses what role, if any, a minority union is entitled to play in company-level grievance and disciplinary proceedings. For example, §3, First (i), of the Act provides merely that disputes “growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions . . . shall be handled in the usual manner up to and including the chief operating officer of the carrier designated to handle such disputes.” 45 U. S. C. § 153, First (i). In contrast, § 3, First (j), specifies that, once such disputes reach the Adjustment Board level, “[p]arties may be heard either in person, by counsel, or by other representatives, as they may respectively elect.” 45 U. S. C. § 153, First (j).
We are unwilling to read into the Railway Labor Act a right to minority union participation in company-level grievance and disciplinary proceedings that Congress declined to put there. That Congress expressly provided railroad employees with the right to the representative of their choice in Adjustment Board proceedings, but did not do so with regard to any earlier phase of the dispute resolution process, is persuasive evidence that Congress did not believe that the participation of minority unions or other outsiders in company-level proceedings was necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Act.
Indeed, the statutory purpose of “providing] for the prompt and orderly settlement of all disputes growing out of grievances or out of the interpretation or application of agreements covering rates of pay, rules, or working conditions,” 45 U. S. C. § 151a(5), might often be frustrated if employees could demand to be heard through the representative of their choice at grievance and disciplinary proceedings conducted on the employer’s property. For example, many disputes might be resolved less expeditiously, or not at all, if employees had a statutory right to be represented at the company level by minority unions, which do not have the same established relationship with the employer as do official bargaining representatives or the same familiarity with how similar disputes have been resolved in the past.
In addition, a minority union might use the grievance and disciplinary proceedings to undermine the position of the bargaining representative and thereby destabilize labor-management relations. A majority union’s prosecution of employee grievances and defense of employee disciplinary charges “complemenft] [its] status as exclusive bargaining representative by permitting it to participate actively in the continuing administration of the contract.” Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U. S. 650, 653 (1965). As Professor Cox has recognized, if the bargaining representative is instead prevented from exercising control over the presentation of grievances, the opportunity arises for “dissident groups, who may belong to rival unions, ... to press aggressively all manner of grievances, regardless of their merit, in an effort to squeeze the last drop of competitive advantage out of each grievance and to use the settlement even of the most trivial grievances, as a vehicle to build up their own prestige.” Cox, Rights Under a Labor Agreement, 60 Harv. L. Rev. 601, 626 (1956). In such circumstances, “[t]he settlement of grievances could become the source of friction and competition and a means for creating and perpetuating employee dissatisfaction instead of a method of. eliminating it.” Ibid. The same potential for friction and competition exists, of course, when minority unions are allowed to participate in disciplinary proceedings such as those at issue here.
We find no merit in petitioner’s contention that the right of railroad operating employees to be represented by minority unions at company-level grievance and disciplinary proceedings is implicit in § 2, Eleventh (c).
This congressional intent underlying § 2, Eleventh (c), was extensively analyzed by the Court in Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Rychlik, 352 U. S. 480, 489 (1957). The Court there noted that the different crafts in the railroad industry were often represented by different unions and that employees often shuttled back and forth between two crafts. A union-shop agreement would ordinarily have required such an employee either to “belong to two unions — one representing each of his crafts — or ... to shuttle between unions as he shuttles between jobs.” Id., at 490. The former alternative would be “expensive and sometimes impossible,” we observed, while the latter alternative would be “complicated and might mean loss of seniority and union benefits.” Ibid. Accordingly, we concluded that Congress had enacted §2, Eleventh (c), for the single narrow purpose of “preventing] compulsory dual unionism or the necessity of changing from one union to another when an employee temporarily changes crafts.” Id., at 492.
This purpose has been fully achieved in the instant case. Petitioner has been accorded his statutory right to refrain from acquiring membership in the BLE — either instead of or in addition to his membership in the UTU — as a condition of his employment as an engineer by Amtrak. However, unless the UTU becomes the official bargaining representative for Amtrak engineers or the “usual manner” of processing disputes on the Amtrak property is changed, petitioner cannot claim the additional right to be represented by the UTU at company-level grievance and disciplinary proceedings.
There is no reason to believe that petitioner will suffer any appreciable prejudice if he cannot be represented by the UTU at grievance and disciplinary proceedings conducted on the Amtrak property. It is appropriate to assume that petitioner’s interests will be adequately represented by the BLE, which owes the same duty of fair representation to all members of the bargaining unit regardless of their union affiliation. See Steele v. Louisville & Nashville R. Co., 323 U. S. 192, 204 (1944). Moreover, if the dispute cannot be resolved at the company level, petitioner may be heard by the Adjustment Board through the representative of his choice.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Affirmed.
Amtrak is subject to the federal labor statutes applicable to railroads. 45 U. S. C. § 546(b).
Petitioner no longer challenges this construction of the BLE-Amtrak collective-bargaining agreement.
We note that Congress declined in 1934 to amend the RLA to provide that a railroad employee could select a representative other than his collective-bargaining representative to pursue his grievance with his employer. Such an amendment had been proposed by Joseph B. Eastman, Federal Coordinator of Transportation, and George M. Harrison, President of the Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks. See Railway Labor Act Amendments: Hearings on H. R. 7650 before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 44, 89 (1934) (H. R. 7650 was the predecessor of H. R. 9861).
Of course, an employee may be entitled to be heard through the representative of his choice at company-level grievance and disciplinary proceedings if that has become the “usual manner” of handling disputes at his workplace.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | G | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case, a companion case to No. 211, Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama, ante, p. 448, was brought by respondent-union in the District Court to compel specific performance of a grievance arbitration provision of a collective bargaining agreement between it and petitioner. The controversy arose over the layoff of employees incident to a curtailment of production and a liquidation of the plants in question. Petitioner terminated the employment of the men who were laid off. The respondent protested the termination of employment, claiming that the men should not have been discharged, thus preserving certain accrued rights to fringe benefits (such as insurance, pensions, and vacations) payable to laid-off employees.
The District Court granted specific performance. 131 F. Supp. 767. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 233 F. 2d 104, relying on its prior decision in General Electric Co. v. United Electrical Workers, ante, p. 547. For the reasons given in No. 211, Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama, ante, p. 448, we think the Court of Appeals was correct in affirming the District Court’s judgment ordering enforcement of the agreement to arbitrate.
There remains the question whether an order directing arbitration is appealable. This case is not comparable to Baltimore Contractors v. Bodinger, 348 U. S. 176, which held that a stay pending arbitration was not a “final decision” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1291. Nor need we consider cases like In re Pahlberg, 131 F. 2d 968, and Schoenamsgruber v. Hamburg Line, 294 U. S. 454, holding that an order directing arbitration under the United States Arbitration Act is not appealable. The right enforced here is one arising under § 301 (a) of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. Arbitration is not merely a step in judicial enforcement of a claim nor auxiliary to a main proceeding, but the full relief sought. A decree under § 301 (a) ordering enforcement of an arbitration provision in a collective bargaining agreement is, therefore, a “final decision” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1291.
[For dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter, see ante, p. 460.]
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Burton, whom Mr. Justice Harlan joins, concurs in the result in this case for the reasons set forth in his concurrence in No. 211, Textile Workers Union of America v. Lincoln Mills of Alabama, ante, p. 459.
Mr. Justice Black took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | G | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed on the authority of Local 1976, United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America, AFL, et al. v. National Labor Relations Board; National Labor Relations Board v. General Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers Union, Local No. 886, AFL-CIO; and Local 850, International Association of Machinists, AFL-CIO, v. National Labor Relations Board, all decided together June 16, 1958, and reported ante, p. 93.
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black, and Mr. Justice Douglas dissent for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Douglas in these cases.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case involves the validity of copyrights obtained by respondents for statuettes of male and female dancing figures made of semivitreous china. The controversy centers around the fact that although copyrighted as “works of art,” the statuettes were intended for use and used as bases for table lamps, with electric wiring, sockets and lamp shades attached.
Respondents are partners in the manufacture and sale of electric lamps. One of the respondents created original works of sculpture in the form of human figures by traditional clay-model technique. From this model, a production mold for casting copies was made. The resulting statuettes, without any lamp components added, were submitted by the respondents to the Copyright Office for registration as “works of art” or reproductions thereof under § 5 (g) or § 5 (h) of the copyright law, and certificates of registration issued. Sales (publication in accordance with the statute) as fully equipped lamps preceded the applications for copyright registration of the statuettes. 17 U. S. C. (Supp. V, 1952) §§ 10, 11, 13, 209; Rules and Regulations, 37 CFR, 1949, §§ 202.8 and 202.9. Thereafter, the statuettes were sold in quantity throughout the country both as lamp bases and as statuettes. The sales in lamp form accounted for all but an insignificant portion of respondents’ sales.
Petitioners are partners and, like respondents, make and sell lamps. Without authorization, they copied the statuettes, embodied them in lamps and sold them.
The instant case is one in a series of reported suits brought by respondents against various alleged infringers of the copyrights, all presenting the same or a similar question. Because of conflicting decisions, we granted certiorari. 346 U. S. 811. In the present case respondents sued petitioners for infringement in Maryland. Stein v. Mazer, 111 F. Supp. 359. Following the Expert decision and rejecting the reasoning of the District Court in the Rosenthal opinion, both referred to in the preceding note, the District Court dismissed the complaint. The Court of Appeals reversed and held the copyrights valid. Stein v. Mazer, 204 F. 2d 472. It said: “A subsequent utilization of a work of art in an article of manufacture in no way affects the right of the copyright owner to be protected against infringement of the work of art itself.” Id., at 477.
Petitioners, charged by the present complaint with infringement of respondents’ copyrights of reproductions of their works of art, seek here a reversal of the Court of Appeals decree upholding the copyrights. Petitioners in their petition for certiorari present a single question:
“Can statuettes be protected in the United States by copyright when the copyright applicant intended primarily to use the statuettes in the form of lamp bases to be made and sold in quantity and carried the intentions into effect?
“Stripped down to its essentials, the question presented is: Can a lamp manufacturer copyright his lamp bases?”
The first paragraph accurately summarizes the issue. The last gives it a quirk that unjustifiably, we think, broadens the controversy. The case requires an answer, not as to a manufacturer’s right to register a lamp base but as to an artist’s right to copyright a work of art intended to be reproduced for lamp bases. As petitioners say in their brief, their contention “questions the validity of the copyright based upon the actions of the respondents.” Petitioners question the validity of a copyright of a work of art for “mass” production. “Reproduction of a work of art” does not mean to them unlimited reproduction. Their position is that a copyright does not cover industrial reproduction of the protected article. Thus their reply brief states:
“When an artist becomes a manufacturer or a designer for a manufacturer he is subject to the limitations of design patents and deserves no more consideration than any other manufacturer or designer.”
It is not the right to copyright an article that could have utility under §§ 5 (g) and (h), note 1, supra, that petitioners oppose. Their brief accepts the copyrightability of the great carved golden saltcellar of Cellini but adds: It is publication as a lamp and registration as a statue to gain a monopoly in manufacture that they assert is such a misuse of copyright as to make the registration invalid.
“If, however, Cellini designed and manufactured this item in quantity so that the general public could have salt cellars, then an entirely different conclusion would be reached. In such case, the salt cellar becomes an article of manufacture having utility in addition to its ornamental value and would therefore have to be protected by design patent.”
No unfair competition question is presented. The constitutional power of Congress to confer copyright protection on works of art or their reproductions is not questioned. Petitioners assume, as Congress has in its enactments and as do we, that the constitutional clause empowering legislation “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries/’ Art. I, § 8, cl. 8, includes within the term “Authors” the creator of a picture or a statue. The Court’s consideration will be limited to the question presented by the petition for the writ of certiorari. In recent years the question as to utilitarian use of copyrighted articles has been much discussed.
In answering that issue, a review of the development of copyright coverage will make clear the purpose of the Congress in its copyright legislation. In 1790 the First Congress conferred a copyright on “authors of any map, chart, book or books already printed.” Later, designing, engraving and etching were included; in 1831 musical compositions; dramatic compositions in 1856; and photographs and negatives thereof in 1865.
The Act of 1870 defined copyrightable subject matter as:
“... any book, map, chart, dramatic or musical composition, engraving, cut, print, or photograph or negative thereof, or of a painting, drawing, chromo, statue, statuary, and of models or designs intended to be •perfected as works of the fine arts.” (Emphasis supplied.)
The italicized part added three-dimensional work of art to what had been protected previously. In 1909 Congress again enlarged the scope of the copyright statute. The new Act provided in § 4:
“That the works for which copyright may be secured under this Act shall include all the writings of an author.”
Some writers interpret this section as being coextensive with the constitutional grant, but the House Report, while inconclusive, indicates that it was “declaratory of existing law” only. Section 5 relating to classes of writings in 1909 read as shown in the margin with subsequent additions not material to this decision. Significant for our purposes was the deletion of the fine-arts clause of the 1870 Act. Verbal distinctions between, purely aesthetic articles and useful works of art ended insofar as the statutory copyright language is concerned.
The practice of the Copyright Office, under the 1870 and 1874 Acts and before the 1909 Act, was to allow registration “as works of the fine arts” of articles of the same character as those of respondents now under challenge. Seven examples appear in the Government’s brief amicus curiae. In 1910, interpreting the 1909 Act, the pertinent Copyright Regulations read as shown in the margin. Because, as explained by the Government, this regulation “made no reference to articles which might fairly be considered works of art although they might also serve a useful purpose,” it was reworded in 1917 as shown below. The amicus brief gives sixty examples selected at five-year intervals, 1912-1952, said to be typical of registrations of works of art possessing utilitarian aspects. The current pertinent regulation, published in 37 CFR, 1949, § 202.8, reads thus:
“Works of art (Class O) — (a) In General. This class includes works of artistic craftsmanship, in so far as their form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects are concerned, such as artistic jewelry, enamels, glassware, and tapestries, as well as all works belonging to the fine arts, such as paintings, drawings and sculpture....”
So we have a contemporaneous and long-continued construction of the statutes by the agency charged to administer them that would allow the registration of such a statuette as is in question here.
This Court once essayed to fix the limits of the fine arts. That effort need not be appraised in relation to this copyright issue. It is clear Congress intended the scope of the copyright statute to include more than the traditional fine arts. Herbert Putnam, Esq., then Librarian of Congress and active in the movement to amend the copyright laws, told the joint meeting of the House and Senate Committees:
“The term ‘works of art’ is deliberately intended as a broader specification than ‘works of the fine arts’ in the present statute with the idea that there is subject-matter (for instance, of applied design, not yet within the province of design patents), which may properly be entitled to protection under the copyright law.”
The successive acts, the legislative history of the 1909 Act and the practice of the Copyright Office unite to show that “works of art” and “reproductions of works of art” are terms that were intended by Congress to include the authority to copyright these statuettes. Individual perception of the beautiful is too varied a power to permit a narrow or rigid concept of art. As a standard we can hardly do better than the words of the present Regulation, § 202.8, supra, naming the things that appertain to the arts. They must be original, that is, the author’s tangible expression of his ideas. Compare Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U. S. 53, 59-60. Such expression, whether meticulously delineating the model or mental image or conveying the meaning by modernistic form or color, is copyrightable. What cases there are confirm this coverage of the statute.
The conclusion that the statues here in issue may be copyrighted goes far to solve the question whether their intended reproduction as lamp stands bars or invalidates their registration. This depends solely on statutory interpretation. Congress may after publication protect by copyright any writing of an author. Its statute creates the copyright. It did not exist at common law even though he had a property right in his unpublished work.
But petitioners assert that congressional enactment of the design patent laws should be interpreted as denying protection to artistic articles embodied or reproduced in manufactured articles. They say:
“Fundamentally and historically, the Copyright Office is the repository of what each claimant considers to be a cultural treasure, whereas the Patent Office is the repository of what each applicant considers to be evidence of the advance in industrial and technological fields.”
Their argument is that design patents require the critical examination given patents to protect the public against monopoly. Attention is called to Gorham Co. v. White, 14 Wall. 511, interpreting the design patent law of 1842, 5 Stat. 544, granting a patent to anyone who by “their own industry, genius, efforts, and expense, may have invented or produced any new and original design for a manufacture....” A pattern for flat silver was there upheld. The intermediate and present law differs little. “Whoever invents any new, original and ornamental design for an article of manufacture may obtain a patent therefor,...” subject generally to the provisions concerning patents for invention. § 171, 66 Stat. 805. As petitioner sees the effect of the design patent law:
“If an industrial designer can not satisfy the novelty requirements of the design patent laws, then his design as used on articles of manufacture can be copied by anyone.”
Petitioner has furnished the Court a booklet of numerous design patents for statuettes, bases for table lamps and similar articles for manufacture, quite indistinguishable in type from the copyrighted statuettes here in issue. Petitioner urges that overlapping of patent and copyright legislation so as to give an author or inventor a choice between patents and copyrights should not be permitted. We assume petitioner takes the position that protection for a statuette for industrial use can only be obtained by patent, if any protection can be given.
As we have held the statuettes here involved copyrightable, we need not decide the question of their patentability. Though other courts have passed upon the issue as to whether allowance by the election of the author or pat-entee of one bars a grant of the other, we do not. We do hold that the patentability of the statuettes, fitted as lamps or unfitted, does not bar copyright as works of art. Neither the Copyright Statute nor any other says that because a thing is patentable it may not be copyrighted. We should not so hold.
Unlike a patent, a copyright gives no exclusive right to the art disclosed; protection is given only to the expression of the idea — not the idea itself. Thus, in Baker v. Selden, 101 U. S. 99, the Court held that a copyrighted book on a peculiar system of bookkeeping was not infringed by a similar book using a similar plan which achieved similar results where the alleged infringer made a different arrangement of the columns and used different headings. The distinction is illustrated in Fred Fisher, Inc. v. Dillingham, 298 F. 145, 151, when the court speaks of two men, each a perfectionist, independently making maps of the same territory. Though the maps are identical, each may obtain the exclusive right to make copies of his own particular map, and yet neither will infringe the other’s copyright. Likewise a copyrighted directory is not infringed by a similar directory which is the product of independent work. The copyright protects originality rather than novelty or invention — conferring only “the sole right of multiplying copies.” Absent copying there can be no infringement of copyright. Thus, respondents may not exclude others from using statuettes of human figures in table lamps; they may only prevent use of copies of their statuettes as such or as incorporated in some other article. Regulation § 202.8, supra, makes clear that artistic articles are protected in “form but not their mechanical or utilitarian aspects.” See Stein v. Rosenthal, 103 F. Supp. 227, 231. The dichotomy of protection for the aesthetic is not beauty and utility but art for the copyright and the invention of original and ornamental design for design patents. We find nothing in the copyright statute to support the argument that the intended use or use in industry of an article eligible for copyright bars or invalidates its registration. We do not read such a limitation into the copyright law.
Nor do we think the subsequent registration of a work of art published as an element in a manufactured article, is a misuse of the copyright. This is not different from the registration of a statuette and its later embodiment in an industrial article.
“The copyright law, like the patent statutes, makes reward to the owner a secondary consideration.” United States v. Paramount Pictures, 334 U. S. 131, 158. However, it is “intended definitely to grant valuable, enforceable rights to authors, publishers, etc., without burdensome requirements; ‘to afford greater encouragement to the production of literary [or artistic] works of lasting benefit to the world.’ ” Washingtonian Co. v. Pearson, 306 U. S. 30, 36.
The economic philosophy behind the clause empowering Congress to grant patents and copyrights is the conviction that encouragement of individual effort by personal gain is the best way to advance public welfare through the talents of authors and inventors in “Science and useful Arts.” Sacrificial days devoted to such creative activities deserve rewards commensurate with the services rendered.
Affirmed.
17 U. S. C. (Supp.V, 1952) §4:
“The works for which copyright may be secured under this title shall include all the writings of an author.”
Id.A 5:
“The application for registration shall specify to which of the following classes the work in which copyright is claimed belongs:
“(g) Works of art; models or designs for works of art.
“(h) Reproductions of a work of art.”
Errors of classification are immaterial. See note 19, infra.
An unreported action, Stein v. Zuckerman and DuBeshter, was pending in the Eastern District, of New York. Note, 66 Harv. L. Rev. 877, 878, n. 8. We are advised that it was dismissed by consent February 24, 1953.
Stein v. Expert Lamp Co., 188 F. 2d 611. Stein v. Expert Lamp Co., 96 F. Supp. 97, was the first action brought. Through an accident in presentation, the trial court determined the case as though the copyright was on a statuette with lamp attachments. It held the statuettes not copyrightable because this “was evidence of the practical use” intended. Id., at 98. On petition for reconsideration, it held the presence or absence of the attachments immaterial. Stein v. Mazer, 111 F. Supp. 359, 361; Rosenthal v. Stein, 205 F. 2d 633, 634. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed on the ground that the Copyright Act “does not refer to articles of manufacture having a utilitarian purpose nor does it provide for a previous examination by a proper tribunal as to the originality of the matter offered for copyright....” Stein v. Expert Lamp Co., 188 F. 2d 611, 613.
Stein v. Rosenthal, 103 F. Supp. 227, was a second infringement case. It was there held “Protection is not dissipated by taking an unadulterated object of art as copyrighted and integrating it into commercially valuable merchandise.” Id., at 230. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed, saying “The theory that the use of a copyrighted work of art loses its status as a work of art if and when it is put to a functional use has no basis in the wording of the copyright laws and there is nothing in the design-patent laws which excludes a work of art from the operation of the copyright laws.” Rosenthal v. Stein, 205 F. 2d 633, 635.
In Stein v. Benaderet, 109 F. Supp. 364, 365, a district, court of Michigan held that it is the “intent and purpose” of the designer which determines whether an object is copyrightable as a work of art. The court said plaintiffs should have applied for a design patent and held for defendants. An appeal is pending now in the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
The opinions in the above cases and those of the District Court and the Court of Appeals in the present litigation deserve careful reading.
In this case the Register of Copyrights participated as amicus curiae and supported respondents. Through the Solicitor General he has also filed a brief in this Court, and participated in the oral argument. 346 U. S. 882.
We do not reach for constitutional questions not raised by the parties. Chicago & G. T. R. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U. S. 339, 345; New York ex rel. Rosevale Realty Co. v. Kleinert, 268 U. S. 646, 651; C. I. O. v. McAdory, 325 U. S. 472, 475. The fact that the issue was mentioned in argument does not bring the question properly before us. Herbring v. Lee, 280 U. S. 111, 117.
No question of our jurisdiction emerges. Chicot County Dist. v. Bank, 308 U. S. 371. Compare Kalb v. Feuerstein, 308 U. S. 433, and Continental Illinois Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co., 294 U. S. 648, 667.
Compare on the constitutional question the following: Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U. S. 53, upheld the copyright of a photograph unanimously. It was said: “By writings in that clause is meant the literary productions of those authors, and Congress very properly has declared these to include all forms of writing, printing, engraving, etching, &c., by which the ideas in the mind of the author are given visible expression.” Id., at 58.
“These findings, we think, show this photograph to be an original work of art, the product of plaintiff’s intellectual invention, of which plaintiff is the author, and of a class of inventions for which the. Constitution intended that Congress should secure to him the exclusive right to use, publish and sell, as it has done by section 4952 of the Revised Statutes.” Id., at 60.
Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U. S. 239, 249-250, upheld a copyright on circus posters. The Court said:
“We shall do no more than mention the suggestion that painting and engraving unless for a mechanical end are not among the useful arts, the progress of which Congress is empowered by the Constitution to promote. The Constitution does not limit the useful to that which satisfies immediate bodily needs.... Personality always contains something unique. It expresses its singularity even in handwriting, and a very modest grade of art has in it something irreducible, which is one man’s alone. That something he may copyright unless there is a restriction in the words of the act.”
Kalem Co. v. Harper Bros., 222 U. S. 55, 63, involved pirating by motion pictures of the copyrighted dramatic rights of a book. This Court said:
“It is argued that the law construed as we have construed it goes beyond the power conferred upon Congress by the Constitution, to secure to authors for a limited time the exclusive right to their writings. Art. I, § 8, cl. 8. It is suggested that to extend the copyright to a case like this is to extend it to the ideas as distinguished from the words in which those ideas are clothed. But there is no attempt to make a monopoly of the ideas expressed. The law confines itself to a particular, cognate and well known form of reproduction. If to that extent a grant of monopoly is thought a proper way to secure the right to the writings this court cannot say that Congress was wrong.”
See also Schreiber v. Thornton, 17 F. 603, reversed on other grounds, Thornton v. Schreiber, 124 U. S. 612.
See Fenning, The Origin of the Patent and Copyright Clause of the Constitution, 17 Geo. L. J. 109; 2 Story, Constitution (5th ed.), c. XIX.
Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82, 94. Congress had passed a trade-mark act under the Patent and Copyright Clause. A unanimous Court held this effort to protect trade-marks was unconstitutional :
“The ordinary trade-mark has no necessary relation to invention or discovery.... If we should endeavor to classify it under the head of writings of authors, the objections are equally strong. In this, as in regard to inventions, originality is required. And while the word writings may be liberally construed, as it has been, to include original designs for engravings, prints, &c., it is only such as are original, and are founded in the creative powers of the mind. The writings which are to be protected are the fruits of intellectual labor, embodied in the form of books, prints, engravings, and the like.” The trade-mark does not “depend upon novelty, invention, discovery, or any work of the brain. It requires no fancy or imagination, no genius, no laborious thought. It is simply founded on priority of appropriation.”
See as to commerce, id., at 95-98; Robert, Commentary on the Lanham Trade-Mark Act, 15 U. S. C. A. (§§ 81-1113, 1948) p. 265.
National Licorice Co. v. Labor Board, 309 U. S. 350, 357, n. 2; General Talking Pictures Corp. v. Western Electric Co., 304 U. S. 175; Crown C. & S. Co. v. Ferdinand Gutmann Co., 304 U. S. 159, and cases cited; Gunning v. Cooley, 281 U. S. 90. The policy is incorporated in Rule 38 (2), Revised Rules of the Supreme Court of the United States, and the practice of bringing “additional questions into a case” has been condemned recently in Irvine v. California, 347 U. S. 128, 129.
Ball, Law of Copyright and Literary Property (1944), 390; Howell, Copyright Law (1952), 130; 1 Ladas, The International Protection of Literary and Artistic Property (1938), 247; Weil, Copyright Law (1917), 227; Derenberg, Copyright No-Man’s Land: Fringe Rights in Literary and Artistic Property, 1953 Copyright Problems Analyzed (CCH), 215; Pogue, Borderland — Where Copyright and Design Patent Meet, 52 Mich. L. Rev. 33; Notes, 21 Geo. Wash. L. Rev. 353; 66 Harv. L. Rev. 877; 27 Ind. L. J. 130. See Report of the Copyright Committee, Board of Trade (London, October 1952), Artistic Copyright and Industrial Designs, 82 et seq.
1 Stat. 124.
2 Stat. 171.
4 Stat. 436.
11 Stat. 139.
13 Stat. 540. Between 1789 and 1904, there were in all some twenty-five laws dealing with copyrights. Solberg, Copyright in Congress (1905), 89-93.
§ 86, 16 Stat. 212. This Act also vested control of records relating to copyrights in the Librarian of Congress and provided he should administer the law. Id., § 85.
In connection with the phrase in the 1870 Act “intended to be perfected as works of the fine arts,” see the 1874 amendatory Act, 18 Stat. 78, and Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U. S. 239. Section 3 contained the following provision: “That in the construction of this act, the words ‘Engraving,’ ‘cut’ and ‘print’ shall be applied only to pictorial illustrations or works connected with the fine arts, and no prints or labels designed to be used for any other articles of manufacture shall be entered under the copyright law, but may be registered in the Patent Office.”
This was repealed in 1939 and the following enacted:
“Sec. 2. Section 5 (k) of the Act entitled ‘An Act to amend and consolidate the Acts respecting copyright’ approved March 4, 1909, is hereby amended to read: ‘(k) Prints and pictorial illustrations including prints or labels used for articles of merchandise.’ ” 53 Stat. 1142. This was an amendment to § 5 (k) of the Act of 1909, 35 Stat. 1077. It is to be noted, however, that the 1909 Act did not conform to the 1874 language, but the present Act, 17 U. S. C. (Supp. V, 1952) §5 (k), does contain the amendatory language of the 1939 Act.
S. Rep. No. 6187, 59th Cong., 2d Sess. 4:
“The existing statutes attempt specifications which are unfortunate because necessarily imperfect and requiring frequent additions to cover new forms or new processes. The bill in its general definition substitutes a general term, ‘all the works of an author.’ The term used in the constitution is ‘writings.’ But Congress has always construed this term broadly, and in doing so has been uniformly supported by judicial decision. It has, for instance, interpreted it as authorizing subject-matter so remote from its popular significance as photographs, paintings, statuary, and dramas, even if unwritten.
“As thus interpreted, the word ‘writings’ would to-day in popular parlance be more nearly represented by the word ‘works;’ and this the bill adopts; referring back, however, to the word ‘writings’ by way of safe anchorage, but regarding this as including ‘all forms of record in which the thought of an author may be recorded and from which it may be read or reproduced.’ ”
Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U. S. 53 (1884), has held that photographs were copyrightable in spite of the argument that the Constitution only specified protection for “writings” of an “author.” This decision made clear that “writings” was not limited to chirography and typography.
35 Stat. 1076.
Weil, Copyright Law (1917), 214; Howell, The Copyright Law (3d ed. 1952), 8.
H. R. Rep. No. 2222, 60th Cong., 2d Sess. 10. The report is not very clear on the point, however.
“The application for registration shall specify to which of the following classes the work in which copyright is claimed belongs:
“(a) Books including composite and cyclopaedic works, directories, gazetteers, and other compilations;
“(b) Periodicals, including newspapers;
“(e) Lectures, sermons, addresses, prepared for oral delivery;
“(d) Dramatic or dramatico-musical compositions;
“(e) Musical compositions;
“(f) Maps;
“(g) Works of art; models or designs for works of art;
“(h) Reproductions of a work of art;
“(i) Drawings or plastic works of a scientific or technical character;
“(j) Photographs;
“(k) Prints and pictorial illustrations:
“Provided, nevertheless, That the above specifications shall not be held to limit the subject-matter of copyright as defined in section four of this Act, nor shall any error in classification invalidate or impair the copyright protection secured under this Act.” 35 Stat. 1076.
Subsection (k) was amended by the addition of the words “including prints or labels used for articles of merchandise” in 1939. 53 Stat. 1142. See note 14, supra. Two more classes “(1) Motion-picture photoplays” and “(m) Motion pictures other than photoplays” were added in 1912. 37 Stat. 488.
See note 14, supra, for repeal of clause defining engraving cuts and prints in terms of “fine art.”
Title 17 of the United States Code entitled “Copyrights” was codified into positive law in 1947 without change in the pertinent provisions. 61 Stat. 652, 17 U. S. C. (Supp. V, 1952) §§ 4, 5.
E. g., “k female figure bearing an urn in front partly supported by drapery' around the head. The figure nude from the waist up and below this the form concealed by conventionalized skirt draperies which flow down and forward forming a tray at the base. Sides and back of skirt in fluted form. The whole being designed as a candlestick with match tray. The figure standing and bent forward from hips and waist.”
“Works of art. — This term includes all works belonging fairly to the so-called fine arts. (Paintings, drawings, and sculpture.)
“Productions of the industrial arts utilitarian in purpose and character are not subject to copyright registration, even if' artistically made or ornamented.” Rules and Regulations for the Registration of Claims to Copyright, Bulletin No. 15 (1910), 8.
“Works of art and models or designs for works of art. This term includes all works belonging fairly to the so-called fine arts. (Paintings, drawings, and sculpture.)
“The protection of productions of the industrial arts utilitarian in purpose and character even if artistically made or ornamented depends upon action under the patent law; but registration in the Copyright Office has been made to protect artistic drawings notwithstanding they may afterwards be utilized for articles of manufacture.” 37 CFR, 1939, §201.4 (7).
E. g., “Lighting fixture design. By F. E. Guitini. [Bowl-shaped bracket embellished with figure of half-nude woman standing in bunch of flowers.] Copyright December 28, 1912. Registration number G 42645. Copyright claimant: Kathodion Bronze Works, New York.”
Great Northern R. Co. v. United States, 315 U. S. 262, 275.
United States v. Perry, 146 U. S. 71, 74.
Arguments before the Committees on Patents of the Senate and House of Representatives, conjointly, on S. 6330 and H. R. 19853, To Amend and Consolidate the Acts Respecting Copyright, 59th Cong., 1st Sess., June 6-9, 1906, p. 11. The statement is applicable to the 1909 Act since §§ 5 (g) and (h) of the 1909 Act are identical with the same sections of S. 6330 and H. R. 19853. Although there were other hearings and reports (see 51 House Committee Hearings before Committee on Patents (1906-1912), on Consolidating and Revising the Copyright Laws; H. R. Rep. No. 2222, 60th Cong., 2d Sess. 3), this statement of Mr. Putnam is the only explanation of the change in statutory language, though S. Rep. No. 6187, 59th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 11, refers to “works of art” as a new designation and mentioned the deletion of “fine” from the category.
Cf. H. C. White Co. v. Morton E. Converse & Son Co., 20 F. 2d 311.
Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U. S. 53, 60; Bleistein v. Donaldson Lithographing Co., 188 U. S. 239, 250; Louis De Jonge & Co. v. Breaker & Kessler Co., 182 F. 150, 152; F. W. Woolworth Co. v. Contemporary Arts, 193 F. 2d 162, 164; see same case, 344 U. S. 228; Yuengling v. Schile, 12 F. 97, 100; Schumacher v. Schwencke, 25 F. 466; Pellegrini v. Allegrini, 2 F. 2d 610.
Wheaton and Donaldson v. Peters and Grigg, 8 Pet. 591, 661; Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U. S. 123, 127.
Lord Brougham and Lord St. Leonards in Jefferys v. Boosey, IV H. L. C. 815, 968, 979, 10 Eng. Rep. 681, 741, 745.
Two cases are relied upon to support the position of the petitioners. Taylor Instrument Companies v. Fawley-Brost, 139 F. 2d 98, and Brown Instrument Co. v. Warner, 82 U. S. App. D. C. 232, 161 F. 2d 910. These cases hold that the Mechanical Patent Law and Copyright Laws are mutually
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Stewaet
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented by this case is whether the reception of a radio broadcast of a copyrighted musical composition can constitute copyright infringement, when the copyright owner has licensed the broadcaster to perform the composition publicly for profit.
I
The respondent George Aiken owns and operates a small fast-service food shop in downtown Pittsburgh, Pa., known as “George Aiken's Chicken.” Some customers carry out the food they purchase, while others remain and eat at counters or booths. Usually the “carry-out” customers are in the restaurant for less than five minutes, and those who eat there seldom remain longer than 10 or 15 minutes.
A radio with outlets to four speakers in the ceiling receives broadcasts of music and other normal radio programing at the restaurant. Aiken usually turns on the radio each morning at the start of business. Music, news, entertainment, and commercial advertising broadcast by radio stations are thus heard by Aiken, his employees, and his customers during the hours that the establishment is open for business.
On March 11, 1972, broadcasts of two copyrighted musical compositions were received on the radio from a local station while several customers were in Aiken’s establishment. Petitioner Twentieth Century Music Corp. owns the copyright on one of these songs, “The More I See You”; petitioner Mary Bourne the copyright on the other, “Me and My Shadow.” Petitioners are members of the American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers (ASCAP), an association that licenses the performing rights of its members to their copyrighted works. The station that broadcast the petitioners’ songs was licensed' by ASCAP to broadcast them. Aiken, however, did not hold a license from ASCAP.
The petitioners sued Aiken in the United States District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania to recover for copyright infringement. Their complaint alleged that the radio reception in Aiken’s restaurant of the licensed broadcasts infringed their exclusive rights to “perform” their copyrighted works in public for profit. The District Judge agreed, and granted statutory monetary awards for each infringement. 356 F. Supp. 271. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed that judgment, 500 F. 2d 127, holding that the petitioners’ claims against the respondent were foreclosed by this Court’s decisions in Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists, 392 U. S. 390, and Teleprompter Corp. v. CBS, 415 U. S. 394. We granted certiorari. 419 U. S. 1067.
II
The Copyright Act of 1909, 35 Stat. 1075, as amended, 17 U. S. C. § 1 et seq., gives to a copyright holder a monopoly limited to specified “exclusive” rights in his copyrighted works. As the Court explained in Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists, supra:
“The Copyright Act does not give a copyright holder control over all uses of his copyrighted work. Instead, § 1 of the Act enumerates several ‘rights’ that are made ‘exclusive’ to the holder of the copyright. If a person, without authorization from the copyright holder, puts a copyrighted work to a use within the scope of one of these ‘exclusive rights,’ he infringes the copyright. If he puts the work to a use not enumerated in § 1, he does not infringe.” 392 U. S., at 393-395.
Accordingly, if an unlicensed use of a copyrighted work does not conflict with an “exclusive” right conferred by the statute, it is no infringement of the holder’s rights. No license is required by the Copyright Act, for example, to sing a copyrighted lyric in the shower.
The limited scope of the copyright holder’s statutory monopoly, like the limited copyright duration required by the Constitution, reflects a balance of competing claims upon the public interest: Creative work is to be encouraged and rewarded, but private motivation must ultimately serve the cause of promoting broad public availability of literature, music, and the other arts. The immediate effect of our copyright law is to secure a fair return for an “author’s” creative labor; But the ultimate aim is, by this incentive, to stimulate artistic creativity for the general public good. “The sole interest of the United States and the primary object in conferring the monopoly,” this Court has said, “lie in the general benefits derived by the public from the labors of authors.” Fox Film Corp. v. Doyal, 286 U. S. 123, 127. See Kendall v. Winsor, 21 How. 322, 327-328; Grant v. Raymond, 6 Pet. 218, 241-242. When technological change has rendered its literal terms ambiguous, the Copyright Act must be construed in light of this basic purpose.
The precise statutory issue in the present case is whether Aiken infringed upon the petitioners’ exclusive right, under the Copyright Act of 1909, 17 U. S. C. § 1 (e), “[t]o perform the copyrighted work publicly for profit.” We may assume that the radio reception of the musical compositions in Aiken’s restaurant occurred “publicly for profit.” See Herbert v. Shanley Co., 242 U. S. 591. The dispositive question, therefore, is whether this radio reception constituted a “performance” of the copyrighted works.
When this statutory provision was enacted in 1909, its purpose was to prohibit unauthorized performances of copyrighted musical compositions in such public places as concert halls, theaters, restaurants, and cabarets. See H. R. Rep. No. 2222, 60th Cong., 2d Sess. (1909). An orchestra or individual instrumentalist or singer who performs a copyrighted musical composition in such a public place without a license is thus clearly an infringer under the statute. The entrepreneur who sponsors such a public performance for profit is also an infringer— direct or contributory. See generally 1 & 2 M. Nimmer, Copyright §§ 102, 134 (1974). But it was never contemplated that the members of the audience who heard the composition would themselves also be simultaneously “performing,” and thus also guilty of infringement. This much is common ground.
With the advent of commercial radio, a broadcast musical composition could be heard instantaneously by an enormous audience of distant and separate persons operating their radio receiving sets to reconvert the broadcast to audible form. Although Congress did not revise the statutory language, copyright law was quick to adapt to prevent the exploitation of protected works through the new electronic technology. In short, it was soon established in the federal courts that the broadcast of a copyrighted musical composition by a commercial radio station was a public performance of that composition for profit — and thus an infringement of the copyright if not licensed. In one of the earliest cases so holding, the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit said:
“While the fact that the radio was not developed at the time the Copyright Act . . . was enacted may raise some question as to whether it properly comes within the purview of the statute, it is not by that fact alone excluded from the statute. In other words, the statute may be applied to new situations not anticipated by Congress, if, fairly construed, such situations come within its intent and meaning. . . . While statutes should not be stretched to apply to new situations not fairly within their scope, they should not be so narrowly construed as to permit their evasion because of changing habits due to new inventions and discoveries.
“A performance, in our judgment, is no less public because the listeners are unable to communicate with one another, or are not assembled within an inclosure, or gathered together in some open stadium or park or other public place. Nor can a performance, in our judgment, be deemed private because each listener may enjoy it alone in the privacy of his home. Radio broadcasting is intended to, and in fact does, reach a very much larger number of the public at the moment of the rendition than any other medium of performance. The artist is consciously addressing a great, though unseen and widely scattered, audience, and is therefore participating in a public performance.” Jerome H. Remick & Co. v. American Automobile Accessories Co., 5 F. 2d 411, 411-412.
See also M. Witmark & Sons v. L. Bamberger & Co., 291 F. 776 (NJ); Jerome H. Remick & Co. v. General Electric Co., 4 F. 2d 160 (SDNY); Jerome H. Remick & Co. v. General Electric Co., 16 F. 2d 829 (SDNY); Associated Music Publishers, Inc. v. Debs Memorial Radio Fund, 141 F. 2d 852 (CA2). Cf. Chappell & Co., Ltd. v. Associated Radio Co. of Australia, Ltd., [1925] Vict. L. R. 350; Messager v. British Broadcasting Co., Ltd., [1927] 2 K. B. 543, rev’d on other grounds, [1928] 1 K. B. 660, aff’d, [1929] A. C. 151. See generally Caldwell, The Broadcasting of Copyrighted Works, 1 J. Air L. 584 (1930); Note, 75 U. Pa. L. Rev. 549 (1927); Note, 39 Harv. L. Rev. 269 (1925).
If, by analogy to a live performance in a concert hall or cabaret, a radio station “performs” a musical composition when it broadcasts it, the same analogy would seem to require the conclusion that those who listen to the broadcast through the use of radio receivers do not perform the composition. And that is exactly what the early federal cases held. “Certainly those who listen do not perform, and therefore do not infringe.” Jerome H. Remick & Co. v. General Electric Co., supra, at 829. “One who manually or by human agency merely actuates electrical instrumentalities, whereby inaudible elements that are omnipresent in the air are made audible to persons who are within hearing, does not 'perform’ within the meaning of the Copyright Law.” Buck v. Debaum, 40 F. 2d 734, 735 (SD Cal. 1929).
Such was the state of the law when this Court in 1931 decided Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co., 283 U. S. 191. In that case the Court was called upon to answer the following question certified by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit: “Do the acts of a hotel proprietor, in making available to his guests, through the instrumentality of a radio receiving set and loud speakers installed in his hotel and under his control and for the entertainment of his guests, the hearing of a copyrighted musical composition which has been broadcast from a radio transmitting station, constitute a performance of such composition within the meaning of 17 USC Sec. 1 (e) ?” The Court answered the certified question in the affirmative. In stating the facts of the case, however, the Court’s opinion made clear that the broadcaster of the musical composition was not licensed to perform it, and at least twice in the course of its opinion the Court indicated that the answer to the certified question might have been different if the broadcast itself had been authorized by the copyright holder.
We may assume for present purposes that the JewelLaSalle decision retains authoritative force in a factual situation like that in which it arose. But, as the Court of Appeals in this case perceived, this Court has in two recent decisions explicitly disavowed the view that the reception of an electronic broadcast can constitute a performance, when the broadcaster himself is licensed to perform the copyrighted material that he broadcasts. Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists, 392 U. S. 390; Teleprompter Corp. v. CBS, 415 U. S. 394.
The language of the Court’s opinion in the Fortnightly case could hardly be more explicitly dispositive of the question now before us:
“The television broadcaster in one sense does less than the exhibitor of a motion picture or stage play; he supplies his audience not with visible images but only with electronic signals. The viewer conversely does more than a member of a theater audience; he provides the equipment to convert electronic signals into audible sound and visible images. Despite these deviations from the conventional situation contemplated by the framers of the Copyright Act, broadcasters have been judicially treated as exhibitors, and viewers as members of a theater audience. Broadcasters perform. Viewers do not perform. Thus, while both broadcaster and viewer play crucial roles in the total television process, a line is drawn between them. One is treated as active performer; the other, as passive beneficiary.” 392 U. S., at 398-399 (footnotes omitted).
The Fortnightly and Teleprompter cases, to be sure, involved television, not radio, and the copyrighted materials there in issue were literary and dramatic works, not musical compositions. But, as the Court of Appeals correctly observed: “[I]f Fortnightly, with its elaborate CATV plant and Teleprompter with its even more sophisticated and extended technological and programming facilities were not ‘performing,’ then logic dictates that no ‘performance’ resulted when the [respondent] merely activated his restaurant radio.” 500 F. 2d, at 137.
To hold in this case that the respondent Aiken “performed” the petitioners’ copyrighted works would thus require us to overrule two very recent decisions of this Court. But such a holding would more than offend the principles of stare decisis; it would result in a regime of copyright law that would be both wholly unenforceable and highly inequitable.
The practical unenforceability of a ruling that all of those in Aiken’s position are copyright infringers is self-evident. One has only to consider the countless business establishments in this country with radio or television sets on their premises — bars, beauty shops, cafeterias, car washes, dentists’ offices, and drive-ins — to realize the total futility of any evenhanded effort on the part of copyright holders to license even a substantial percentage of them.
And a ruling that a radio listener “performs” every broadcast that he receives would be highly inequitable for two distinct reasons. First, a person in Aiken’s position would have no sure way of protecting himself from liability for copyright infringement except by keeping his radio set turned off. For even if he secured a license from ASCAP, he would have no way of either foreseeing or controlling the broadcast of compositions whose copyright was held by someone else. Secondly, to hold that all in Aiken’s position “performed” these musical compositions would be to authorize the sale of an untold number of licenses for what is basically a single public rendition of a copyrighted work. The exaction of such multiple tribute would go far beyond what is required for the economic protection of copyright owners, and would be wholly at odds with the balanced congressional purpose behind 17 U. S. C. § 1 (e):
“The main object to be desired in expanding copyright protection accorded to music has been to give to the composer an adequate return for the value of his composition, and it has been a serious and a difficult task to combine the protection of the composer with the protection of the public, and to so frame an act that it would accomplish the double purpose of securing to the composer an adequate return for all use made of his composition and at the same time prevent the formation of oppressive monopolies, which might be founded upon the very rights granted to the composer for the purpose of protecting his interests.” H. R. Rep. No. 2222, 60th Cong., 2d Sess., 7 (1909).
For the reasons stated in this opinion, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
For a discussion of ASCAP, see K-91, Inc. v. Gershwin Publishing Corp., 372 F. 2d 1 (CA9).
ASCAP’s license agreement with the Pittsburgh broadcasting station contained, as is customary, the following provision:
“Nothing herein contained shall be construed as authorizing LICENSEE [WKJF-FM] to grant to others any right to reproduce or perform publicly for profit by any means, method or process whatsoever, any of the musical compositions licensed hereunder or as authorizing any receiver of any radio broadcast to perform publicly or reproduce the same for profit, by any means, method or process whatsoever.”
The Constitution gives Congress the power: “To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries.” U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 8. See, e. g., Burrow-Giles Lithographic Co. v. Sarony, 111 U. S. 53, 58; Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82, 94.
Title 17 TJ. S. C. § 1 provides in part:
“Any person entitled thereto, upon complying with the provisions of this title, shall have the exclusive right:
“(a) To print, reprint, publish, copy, and vend the copyrighted work;
“(b) To translate the copyrighted work into other languages or dialects, or make any other version thereof, if it be a literary work; to dramatize it if it be a nondramatic work; to convert it into a novel or other nondramatic work if it be a drama; to arrange or adapt it if it be a musical work; to complete, execute, and finish it if it be a model or design for a work of art;
“(c) To deliver, authorize the delivery of, read, or present the copyrighted work in public for profit if it be a lecture, sermon, address or similar production, or other nondramatic literary work; to make or procure the making of any transcription or record thereof by or from which, in whole or in part, it may in any manner or by any method be exhibited, delivered, presented, produced, or reproduced; and to play or perform it in public for profit, and to exhibit, represent, produce, or reproduce it in any manner or by any method whatsoever. The damages for the infringement by broadcast of any work referred to in this subsection shall not exceed the sum of $100 where the infringing broadcaster shows that he was not
aware that he was infringing and that such infringement could not have been reasonably foreseen; and
“(d) To perform or represent the copyrighted work publicly if it be a drama or, if it be a dramatic work and not reproduced in copies for sale, to vend any manuscript or any record whatsoever thereof; to make or to procure the making of any transcription or record thereof by or from which, in whole or in part, it may in any manner or by any method be exhibited, performed, represented, produced, or reproduced; and to exhibit, perform, represent, produce or reproduce it in any manner or by any method whatsoever; and
"(e) To perform the copyrighted work publicly for profit if it be a musical composition; and for the purpose of public performance for profit, and for the purposes set forth in subsection (a) hereof, to make any arrangement or setting of it or of the melody of it in any system of notation or any form of record in which the thought of an author may be recorded and from which it may be read or reproduced . . . .”
Cf. Wall v. Taylor, 11 Q. B. D. 102, 106-107 (1883) (Brett, M. R.): “Singing for one’s own gratification without intending thereby to represent anything, or to amuse any one else, would not, I think, be either a representation or performance, according to the ordinary meaning of those terms, nor would the fact of some other person being in the room at the time of such singing make it so ....”
See 1 M. Nimmer, Copyright §5 (1974).
Lord Mansfield’s statement of the problem almost 200 years ago in Sayre v. Moore, quoted in a footnote to Cary v. Longman, 1 East *358, 362 n. (b), 102 Eng. Rep. 138, 140 n. (b) (1801), bears repeating:
“[W]e must take care to guard against two extremes equally prejudicial; the one, that men of ability, who have employed their time for the service of the community, may not be deprived of their just merits, and the reward of their ingenuity and labour; the other, that the world may not be deprived of improvements, nor the progress of the arts be retarded.”
In Fortnightly Corp. v. United Artists, 392 U. S. 390, the Court stated:
“[0]ur inquiry cannot be limited to ordinary meaning and legislative history, for this is a statute that was drafted long before the development of the electronic phenomena with which we deal here. In 1909 radio itself was in its infancy, and television had not been invented. We must read the statutory language of 60 years ago in the light of drastic technological change.” Id., at 395-396 (footnotes omitted).
See n. 3, supra.
Station KDKA, established in Pittsburgh in 1920, is said to have been the first commercial radio broadcasting station in the world. See Buck v. Jewell-LaSalle Realty Co., 283 U. S. 191, 196 n. 2.
“[W]e have no occasion to determine under what circumstances a broadcaster will be held to be a performer, or the effect upon others of his paying a license fee.” 283 U. S., at 198 (emphasis added). See also id., at 199 n. 5.
The decision in J ewell-LaSalle might be supported by a concept akin to that of contributory infringement, even though there was no relationship between the broadcaster and the hotel company and, therefore, technically no question of actual contributory infringement in that case. Id., at 197 n. 4.
The Court of Appeals observed that ASCAP now has license agreements with some 5,150 business establishments in the whole country, 500 F. 2d 127, 129, noting that these include “firms which employ on premises sources for music such as tape recorders and live entertainment.” Id., at 129 n. 4. As a matter of so-called “policy” or “practice,” we are told, ASCAP has not even tried to exact licensing agreements from commercial establishments whose radios have only a single speaker.
This inequity, in the context of the decision in Buck v. Jewell LaSalle Realty Co., 283 U. S. 191, was pointed out by Professor Zechariah Chafee, Jr., 30 years ago:
“A rule which is very hard for laymen to apply so as to keep clear of litigation was established by the La Salle Hotel case. The hotel was heavily liable if it rebroadcast unlicensed music, but how could it protect itself? Must it maintain a monitor always on the job to sit with a list before him pages long showing what pieces are licensed and turn off the master set the instant an unlicensed piece comes from the broadcasting station? The dilemma thus created by the Copyright Act was mitigated for a time by the machinery of ASCAP, which was a device entirely outside the statute. The hotel could obtain a blanket license from ASCAP and thus be pretty sure of safety about all the music which came through its master set. . . . [But if] any composer outside of ASCAP has his music broadcast, what is the hotel to do ? Besides getting an ASCAP license, must the hotel bargain separately with every independent composer on the chance that his music may come through to the hotel patrons?
“Such divergences from the ideal . . . are likely to be corrected . . . .” Reflections on the Law of Copyright: I, 45 Col. L. Rev. 503, 528-529.
The petitioners have not demonstrated that they cannot receive from a broadcaster adequate royalties based upon the total size of the broadcaster’s audience. On the contrary, the respondent points out that generally copyright holders can and do receive royalties in proportion to advertising revenues of licensed broadcasters, and a broadcaster’s advertising revenues reflect the total number of its listeners, including those who listen to the broadcasts in public business establishments.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Under the terms of the Civil Rights Act of 1991 (1991 Act), 105 Stat. 1071, punitive damages are available in claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (Title VII), 78 Stat. 253, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. III), and the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 104 Stat. 328, 42 U. S. C. § 12101 et seq. Punitive damages are limited, however, to cases in which the employer has engaged in intentional discrimination and has done so “with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved individual.” Rev. Stat. § 1977, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1981a(b)(1). We here consider the circumstances under which punitive damages may be awarded in an action under Title VIL
I
A
In September 1992, Jack O’Donnell announced that he would be retiring as the Director of Legislation and Legislative Policy and Director of the Council on Government Affairs and Federal Dental Services for respondent, American Dental Association (respondent or Association). Petitioner, Carole Kolstad, was employed with O’Donnell in respondent’s Washington, D. C., office, where she was serving as respondent’s Director of Federal Agency Relations. When she learned of O’Donnell’s retirement, she expressed an interest in filling his position. Also interested in replacing O’Donnell was Tom Spangler, another employee in respondent’s Washington office. At this time, Spangler was serving as the Association’s Legislative Counsel, a position that involved him in respondent’s legislative lobbying efforts. Both petitioner and Spangler had worked directly with O’Donnell, and both had received “distinguished” performance ratings by the acting head of the Washington office, Leonard Wheat.
Both petitioner and Spangler formally applied for O’Donnell’s position, and Wheat requested that Dr. William Allen, then serving as respondent’s Executive Director in the Association’s Chicago office, make the ultimate promotion decision. After interviewing both petitioner and Spangler, Wheat recommended that Allen select Spangler for O’Donnell’s post. Allen notified petitioner in December 1992 that he had, in fact, selected Spangler to serve as O’Donnell’s replacement. Petitioner’s challenge to this employment decision forms the basis of the instant action.
B
After first exhausting her avenues for relief before the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, petitioner filed suit against the Association in Federal District Court, alleging that respondent’s decision to promote Spangler was an act of employment discrimination proscribed under Title VII. In petitioner’s view, the entire selection process was a sham. Tr. 8 (Oct. 26, 1995) (closing argument for plaintiff’s counsel). Counsel for petitioner urged the jury to conclude that Allen’s stated reasons for selecting Spangler were pretext for gender discrimination, id., at 19, 24, and that Spangler had been chosen for the position before the formal selection process began, id., at 19. Among the evidence offered in support of this view, there was testimony to the effect that Allen modified the description of O’Donnell’s post to track aspects of the job description used to hire Spangler. See id., at 132-136 (Oct. 19, 1995) (testimony of Cindy Simms); id., at 48-51 (Oct. 20, 1995) (testimony of Leonard Wheat). In petitioner’s view, this “preselection” procedure suggested an intent by the Association to discriminate on the basis of sex. Id., at 24. Petitioner also introduced testimony at trial that Wheat told sexually offensive jokes and that he had referred to certain prominent professional women in derogatory terms. See id., at 120-124 (Oct. 18, 1995) (testimony of Carole Kolstad). Moreover, Wheat allegedly refused to meet with petitioner for several weeks regarding her interest in O’Donnell’s position. See id., at 112-113. Petitioner testified, in fact, that she had historically experienced difficulty gaining access to meet with Wheat. See id., at 114-115. Allen, for his part, testified that he conducted informal meetings regarding O’Donnell’s position with both petitioner and Spangler, see id., at 148 (Oct. 23, 1995), although petitioner stated that Allen did not discuss the position with her, see id., at 127-128 (Oct. 18, 1995).
The District Court denied petitioner’s request for a jury instruction on punitive damages. The jury concluded that respondent had discriminated against petitioner on the basis of sex and awarded her backpay totaling $52,718. App. 109-110. Although the District Court subsequently denied respondent’s motion for judgment as a matter of law on the issue of liability, the court made clear that it had not been persuaded that respondent had selected Spangler over petitioner on the basis of sex, and the court denied petitioner’s requests for reinstatement and for attorney’s fees. 912 F. Supp. 13, 15 (DC 1996).
Petitioner appealed from the District Court’s decisions denying; her requested jury instruction on punitive damages and her request for reinstatement and attorney’s fees. Respondent cross-appealed from the denial of its motion for judgment as a matter of law. In a split decision, a panel of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed the District Court’s decision denying petitioner’s request for an instruction on punitive damages. 108 F. 3d 1431, 1435 (1997). In so doing, the court rejected respondent’s claim that punitive damages are available under Title VII only in “‘extraordinarily egregious cases.’” Id., at 1437. The panel reasoned that, “because ‘the state of mind necessary to trigger liability for the wrong is at least as culpable as that required to make punitive damages applicable,’ ” id., at 1438 (quoting Rowlett v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 832 F. 2d 194, 205 (CA1 1987)), the fact that the jury could reasonably have found intentional discrimination meant that the jury should have been permitted to consider punitive damages. The court noted, however, that not all cases involving intentional discrimination would support a punitive damages award. 108 F. 3d, at 1438. Such an award might be improper, the panel reasoned, in instances where the employer justifiably believes that intentional discrimination is permitted or where an employee engages in discrimination outside the scope of that employee’s authority. Id., at 1438-1439. Here, the court concluded, respondent “neither attempted to justify the use of sex in its promotion decision nor disavowed the actions of its agents.” Id., at 1439.
The Court of Appeals subsequently agreed to rehear the case en banc, limited to the punitive damages question. In a divided opinion, the court affirmed the decision of the District Court. 139 F. 3d 958 (1998). The en bane majority concluded that, “before the question of punitive damages can go to the jury, the evidence of the defendant’s culpability must exceed what is needed to show intentional discrimination.” Id., at 961. Based on the 1991 Act’s structure and legislative history, the court determined, specifically, that a defendant must be shown to have engaged in some “egregious” misconduct before the jury is permitted to consider a request for punitive damages. Id., at 965. Although the court declined to set out the “egregiousness” requirement in any detail, it concluded that petitioner failed to make the requisite showing in the instant case. Judge Randolph concurred, relying chiefly on § 1981a’s structure as evidence of a congressional intent to “limi[t] punitive damages to exceptional cases.” Id., at 970. Judge Tatel wrote in dissent for five judges, who agreed generally with the panel majority.
We granted certiorari, 525 U. S. 960 (1998), to resolve a conflict among the Federal Courts of Appeals concerning the circumstances under which a jury may consider a request for punitive damages under § 1981a(b)(1). Compare 139 F. 3d 958 (CADC 1998) (case below), with Luciano v. Olsten Corp., 110 F. 3d 210, 219-220 (CA2 1997) (rejecting contention that punitive damages require showing of “extraordinarily egregious” conduct).
II
A
Prior to 1991, only equitable relief, primarily backpay, was available to prevailing Title VII plaintiffs; the statute provided no authority for an award of punitive or compensatory damages. See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U. S. 244,252-253 (1994). With the passage of the 1991 Act, Congress provided for additional remedies, including punitive damages, for certain classes of Title VII and ADA violations.
The 1991 Act limits compensatory and punitive damages awards, however, to cases of "intentional discrimination”— that is, cases that do not rely on the “disparate impact” theory of discrimination. 42 U. S. C. § 1981a(a)(1). Section 1981a(b)(1) further qualifies the availability of punitive awards:
“A complaining party may recover punitive damages under this section against a respondent (other than a government, government agency or political subdivision) if the complaining party demonstrates that the respondent engaged in a discriminatory practice or discriminatory practices with malice or with reckless indifference to the federally protected rights of an aggrieved individual.” (Emphasis added.)
The very structure of § 1981a suggests a congressional intent to authorize punitive awards in only a subset of eases involving intentional discrimination. Section 1981a(a)(1) limits compensatory and punitive awards to instances of intentional discrimination, while § 1981a(b)(1) requires plaintiffs to make an additional “demonstration]” of their eligibility for punitive damages. Congress plainly sought to impose two standards of liability — one for establishing a right to compensatory damages and another, higher standard that a plaintiff must satisfy to qualify for a punitive award.
The Court of Appeals sought to give life to this two-tiered structure by limiting punitive awards to eases involving intentional discrimination of an “egregious” nature. We credit the en bane majority’s effort to effectuate congressional intent, but, in the end, we reject its conclusion that eligibility for punitive damages can only be described in terms of an employer’s “egregious” misconduct. The terms “malice” and “reckless” ultimately focus on the actor’s state of mind. See, e. g., Black’s Law Dictionary 956-957, 1270 (6th ed. 1990); see also W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton, Law of Torts 212-214 (5th ed. 1984) (defining “willful,” “wanton,” and “reckless”). While egregious misconduct is evidence of the requisite mental state, see infra, at 538-589; Keeton, supra, at 213-214, § 1981a does not limit plaintiffs to this form of evidence, and the section does not require a showing of egregious or outrageous discrimination independent of the employer’s state of mind. Nor does the statute’s structure imply an independent role for “egregiousness” in the face of congressional silence. On the contrary, the view that § 1981a provides for punitive awards based solely on an employer’s state of mind is consistent with the 1991 Act’s distinction between equitable and compensatory relief. Intent determines which remedies are open to a plaintiff here as well; compensatory awards are available only where the employer has engaged in “intentional discrimination.” § 1981a(a)(1) (emphasis added).
Moreover, § 1981a’s focus on the employer’s state of mind gives some effect to Congress’ apparent intent to narrow the class of cases for which punitive awards are available to a subset of those involving intentional discrimination. The employer must act with “malice or with reckless indifference to the [plaintiff’sJ federally protected rights.” § 1981a(b)(1) (emphasis added). The terms “malice” or “reckless indifference” pertain to the employer’s knowledge that it may be acting in violation of federal law, not its awareness that it is engaging in discrimination.
We gain an understanding of the meaning of the terms “malice” and “reckless indifference,” as used in § 1981a, from this Court’s decision in Smith v. Wade, 461 U. S. 30 (1983). The parties, as well as both the en banc majority and dissent, recognize that Congress looked to the Court’s decision in Smith in adopting this language in § 1981a. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 28-29; Brief for Petitioner 24; 139 F. 3d, at 964-965; id., at 971 (Tatel, J., dissenting). Employing language similar to what later appeared in § 1981a, the Court concluded in Smith that "a jury may be permitted to assess punitive damages in an action under § 1983 when the defendant’s conduct is shown to be motivated by evil motive or intent, or when it involves reckless or callous indifference to the federally protected rights of others.” 461 U. S., at 56. While the Smith Court determined that it was unnecessary to show actual malice to qualify for a punitive award, id., at 45-48, its intent standard, at a minimum, required recklessness in its subjective form. The Court referred to a “subjective consciousness” of a risk of injury or illegality and a “ ‘criminal indifference to civil obligations.’ ” Id., at 37, n. 6, 41 (quoting Philadelphia, W. & B. R. Co. v. Quigley, 21 How. 202, 214 (1859)); see also Farmer v. Brennan, 511 U. S. 825, 837 (1994) (explaining that criminal law employs a subjective form of recklessness, requiring a finding that the defendant “disregards a risk of harm of which he is aware”); see generally 1 T. Sedgwick, Measure of Damages §§366, 368, pp. 528, 529 (8th ed. 1891) (describing “wantonness” in punitive damages context in terms of “criminal indifference” and “gross negligence” in terms of a “conscious indifference to consequences”). The Court thus compared the recklessness standard to the requirement that defendants act with “ ‘knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard for the truth’ ” before punitive awards are available in defamation actions, Smith, supra, at 50 (quoting Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U. S. 323, 349 (1974)), a subjective standard, Harte-Hanks Communications, Inc. v. Connaughton, 491 U. S. 657, 688 (1989). Applying this standard in the context of § 1981a, an employer must at least discriminate in the face of a perceived risk that its actions will violate federal law to be Hable in punitive damages.
There will be circumstances where intentional discrimination does not give rise to punitive damages Hability under this standard. In some instances, the employer may simply be unaware of the relevant federal prohibition. There will be eases, moreover, in which the employer discriminates with the distinct belief that its discrimination is lawful. The underlying theory of discrimination may be novel or otherwise poorly recognized, or an employer may reasonably believe that its discrimination satisfies a bona fide occupational qualification defense or other statutory exception to liability. See, e. g., 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(e)(1) (setting out Title VII defense “where religion, sex, or national origin is a bona fide occupational qualification”); see also § 12113 (setting out defenses under ADA). In Hazen Paper Co. v. Biggins, 507 U. S. 604, 616 (1993), we thus observed that, in light of statutory defenses and other exceptions permitting age-based de-cisionmaking, an employer may knowingly rely on age to make employment decisions without recklessly violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act of 1967 (ADEA). Accordingly, we determined that limiting liquidated damages under the ADEA to cases where the employer “knew or showed reckless disregard for the matter of whether its conduct was prohibited by the statute,” without an additional showing of outrageous conduct, was sufficient to give effect to the ADEA’s two-tiered liability scheme. Id., at 616, 617.
At oral argument, respondent urged that the common law tradition surrounding punitive awards includes an “egregious misconduct” requirement. See, e. g., Tr. of Oral Arg. 26-28; see also Brief for Chamber of Commerce of the United States as Amicus Curiae 8-22 (advancing this argument). We assume that Congress, in legislating on punitive awards, imported common law principles governing this form of relief. See, e. g., Molzof v. United States, 502 U. S. 301, 307 (1992). Moreover, some courts and commentators have described punitive awards as requiring both a specified state of mind and egregious or aggravated misconduct. See, e. g., 1 D. Dobbs, Law of Remedies 468 (2d ed. 1993) (“Punitive damages are awarded when the defendant is guilty of both a bad state of mind and highly serious misconduct”).
Most often, however, eligibility for punitive awards is characterized in terms of a defendant’s motive or intent. See, e. g., 1 Sedgwick, supra, at 526, 528; C. McCormick, Law of Damages 280 (1935). Indeed, “[t]he justification of exemplary damages lies in the evil intent of the defendant.” 1 Sedgwick, supra, at 526; see also 2 J. Sutherland, Law of Damages §390, p. 1079 (3d ed. 1903) (discussing punitive damages under rubric of “[compensation for wrongs done with bad motive”). Accordingly, “a positive element of conscious wrongdoing is always required.” McCormick, supra, at 280.
Egregious misconduct is often associated with the award of punitive damages, but the reprehensible character of the conduct is not generally considered apart from the requisite state of mind. Conduct warranting punitive awards has been characterized as “egregious,” for example, because of the defendant’s mental state. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 908(2) (1979) (“Punitive damages may be awarded for conduct that is outrageous, because of the defendant’s evil motive or his reckless indifference to the rights of others”). Respondent, in fact, appears to endorse this characterization. See, e. g., Brief for Respondent 19 (“Malicious and reckless conduct [is] by definition egregious”); see also id., at 28-29. That conduct committed with the specified mental state may be characterized as egregious, however, is not to say that employers must engage in conduct with some independent, “egregious” quality before being subject to a punitive award.
To be sure, egregious or outrageous acts may serve as evidence supporting an inference of the requisite “evil motive.” “The allowance of exemplary damages depends upon the bad motive of the wrong-doer as exhibited by his acts” 1 Sedgwick, supra, at 529 (emphasis added); see also 2 Sutherland, supra, §394, at 1101 (“The spirit which actuated the wrong-doer may doubtless be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the parties and the transaction”); see, e. g., Chizmar v. Mackie, 896 P. 2d 196, 210 (Alaska 1995) (“[W]here there is no evidence that gives rise to an inference of actual malice or conduct sufficiently outrageous to be deemed equivalent to actual malice, the trial court need not, and indeed should not, submit the issue of punitive damages to the jury” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Horton v. Union Light, Heat & Power Co., 690 S. W. 2d 382, 389 (Ky. 1985) (observing that “malice... may be implied from outrageous conduct”). Likewise, under § 1981a(b)(1), pointing to evidence of an employer’s egregious behavior would provide one means of satisfying the plaintiff’s burden to “demonstrate]” that the employer acted with the requisite “malice or... reckless indifference.” See 42 U. S. C. § 1981a(b)(1); see, e. g., 3 BNA EEOC Compliance Manual N:6085-N6084 (1992) (Enforcement Guidance: Compensatory and Punitive Damages Available Under §102 of the Civil Rights Act of 1991) (listing “[t]he degree of egregiousness and nature of the respondent’s conduct” among evidence tending to show malice or reckless disregard). Again, however, respondent has not shown that the terms “reckless indifference” and “malice,” in the punitive damages context, have taken on a consistent definition including an independent, “egregiousness” requirement. Cf. Morissette v. United States, 342 U. S. 246, 263 (1952) (“[W]here Congress borrows terms of art in which are accumulated the legal tradition and meaning of centuries of practice, it presumably knows and adopts the cluster of ideas that were attached to each borrowed word in the body of learning from which it was taken and the meaning its use will convey to the judicial mind unless otherwise instructed”).
B
The inquiry does not end with a showing of the requisite “malice or... reckless indifference” on the part of certain individuals, however. 42 U. S. C. § 1981a(b)(1). The plaintiff must impute liability for punitive damages to respondent. The en bane dissent recognized that agency principles place limits on vicarious liability for punitive damages. 139 F. 3d, at 974 (Tatel, J., dissenting). Likewise, the Solicitor General as amicus acknowledged during argument that common law limitations on a principal’s liability in punitive awards for the acts of its agents apply in the Title VII context. Tr. of Oral Arg. 23.
Justice Stevens urges that we should not consider these limitations here. See post, at 552-558 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). While we decline to engage in any definitive application of the agency standards to the facts of this case, see infra, at 546, it is important that we address the proper legal standards for imputing liability to an employer in the punitive damages context. This issue is intimately bound up with the preceding discussion on the evidentiary showing necessary to qualify for a punitive award, and it is easily subsumed within the question on which we granted certiorari — namely, “[i]n what circumstances may punitive damages be awarded under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, as amended, for unlawful intentional discrimination?” Pet. for Cert, i; see also this Court’s Rule 14.1(a). “On a number of occasions, this Court has considered issues waived by the parties below and in the petition for certiorari because the issues were so integral to decision of the case that they could be considered ‘fairly subsumed’ by the actual questions presented.” Gilmer v. Interstatel Johnson Lane Corp., 500 U. S. 20, 37 (1991) (Stevens, J., dissenting) (citing cases). The Court has not always confined itself to the set of issues addressed by the parties. See, e. g., Steel Co. v. Citizens for Better Environment, 523 U. S. 83, 93-102, and n. 1 (1998); H. J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Telephone Co., 492 U. S. 229, 243-249 (1989); Continental Ill. Nat. Bank & Trust Co. v. Chicago R. I. & P. R. Co., 294 U. S. 648, 667-675 (1935). Here, moreover, limitations on the extent to which principals may be liable in punitive damages for the torts of their agents was the subject of discussion by both the en bane majority and dissent, see 139 F. 3d, at 968; id., at 974 (Tatel, J., dissenting), amicus briefing, see Brief for Chamber of Commerce of the United States as Amicus Curiae 22-27, and substantial questioning at oral argument, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 11-17, 19-24, 49-50, 54-55. Nor did respondent discount the notion that agency principles may place limits on an employer’s vicarious liability for punitive damages. See post, at 552. In fact, respondent advanced the general position “that the higher agency principles, under common law, would apply to punitive damages.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 49. Accordingly, we conclude that these potential limitations on the extent of respondent’s liability are properly considered in the instant case.
The common law has long recognized that agency principles limit vicarious liability for punitive awards. See, e. g., G. Field, Law of Damages §§85-87 (1876); 1 Sedgwick, Damages §378; McCormick, Damages §80; 2 F. Mechem, Law of Agency §§2014-2015 (2d ed. 1914). This is a principle, moreover, that this Court historically has endorsed. See, e. g., Lake Shore & Michigan Southern R. Co. v. Prentice, 147 U. S. 101, 114-115 (1893); The Amiable Nancy, 3 Wheat. 546, 558-559 (1818). Courts of Appeals, too, have relied on these liability limits in interpreting 42 U. S. C. § 1981a. See, e. g., Dudley v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 166 F. 3d 1317, 1322-1323 (CA11 1999); Harris v. L & L Wings, Inc., 132 F. 3d 978, 983-985 (CA4 1997). See also Fitzgerald v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., 68 F. 3d 1257, 1263-1264 (CA10 1995) (same in suit under 42 U. S. C. § 1981). But see Deffehbaugh-Williams v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 156 F. 3d 581, 592-594 (CA5 1998), rehearing en banc ordered, 169 F. 3d 215 (1999).
We have observed that, “[i]n express terms, Congress has directed federal courts to interpret Title VII based on agency principles.” Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 524 U. S. 742, 754 (1998); see also Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U. S. 57, 72 (1986) (noting that, in interpreting Title VII, “Congress wanted courts to look to agency principles for guidance”). Observing the limits on liability that these principles impose is especially important when interpreting the 1991 Act. In promulgating the Act, Congress conspicuously left intact the “limits of employer liability” established in Meritor. Faragher v. Boca Raton, 524 U. S. 775, 804, n. 4 (1998); see also Burlington Industries, Inc., supra, at 763-764 (“[W]e are bound by our holding in Meritor that agency principles constrain the imposition of vicarious liability in cases of supervisory harassment”).
Although jurisdictions disagree over whether and how to limit vicarious liability for punitive damages, see, e. g., 2 J. Ghiardi & J. Kircher, Punitive Damages: Law and Practice §24.01 (1998) (discussing disagreement); 22 Am. Jur. 2d, Damages § 788 (1988) (same), our interpretation of Title YII is informed by “the general common law of agency, rather than... the law of any particular State.” Burlington Industries, Inc., supra, at 754 (internal quotation marks omitted). The common law as codified in the Restatement (Second) of Agency (1957), provides a useful starting point for defining this general common law. See Burlington Industries, Inc., supra, at 755 (“[T]he Restatement... is a useful beginning point for a discussion of general agency principles”); see also Meritor, supra, at 72. The Restatement of Agency places strict limits on the extent to which an agent’s misconduct may be imputed to the principal for purposes of awarding punitive damages:
“Punitive damages can properly be awarded against a master or other principal because of an act by an agent if, but only if:
“(a) the principal authorized the doing and the manner of the act, or
“(b) the agent was unfit and the principal was reckless in employing him, or
“(c) the agent was employed in a managerial capacity and was acting in the seope of employment, or
“(d) the principal or a managerial agent of the principal ratified or approved the act.” Restatement (Second) of Agency, supra, §217 C.
See also Restatement (Second) of Torts §909 (same).
The Restatement, for example, provides that the principal may be liable for punitive damages if it authorizes or ratifies the agent’s tortious act, or if it acts recklessly in employing the malfeasing agent. The Restatement also contemplates liability for punitive awards where an employee serving in a “managerial capacity” committed the wrong while “acting in the scope of employment.” Restatement (Second) of Agency, supra, §217 C; see also Restatement (Second) of Torts, supra, §909 (same). “Unfortunately, no good definition of what constitutes a ‘managerial capacity* has been found,” 2 Ghiardi, Punitive Damages, §24.05, at 14, and determining whether an employee meets this description requires a fact-intensive inquiry, id., §24.05; 1 L. Schlueter & K. Redden, Punitive Damages, § 4.4(B)(2)(a), p. 181 (3d ed. 1995). “In making this determination, the court should review the type of authority that the employer has given to the employee, the amount of discretion that the employee has in what is done and how it is accomplished.” Id., § 4.4(B)(2)(a), at 181. Suffice it to say here that the examples provided in the Restatement of Torts suggest that an employee must be “important,” but perhaps need not be the employer’s “top management, officers, or directors,” to be acting “in a managerial capacity.” Ibid.; see also 2 Ghiardi, supra, §24.05, at 14; Restatement (Second) of Torts, supra, § 909, at 468, Comment b and Illus. 3.
Additional questions arise from the meaning of the “scope of employment” requirement. The Restatement of Agency provides that even intentional torts are within the scope of an agent’s employment if the conduct is “the kind [the employee] is employed to perform,” “occurs substantially within the authorized time and space limits,” and “is actuated, at least in part, by a purpose to serve the” employer. Restatement (Second) of Agency, § 228(1), at 504. According to the Restatement, so long as these rules are satisfied, an employee may be said to act within the scope of employment even if the employee engages in acts “specifically forbidden” by the employer and uses “forbidden means of accomplishing results.” Id., §230, at 511, Comment b; see also Burlington Industries, Inc., 524 U. S., at 756; Keeton, Torts § 70. On this view, even an employer who makes every effort to comply with Title VII would be held liable for the discriminatory acts of agents acting in a “managerial capacity.”
Holding employers liable for punitive damages when they engage in good faith efforts to comply with Title VII, however, is in some tension with the very principles underlying common law limitations on vicarious liability for punitive damages — that it is “improper ordinarily to award punitive damages against one who himself is personally innocent and therefore hable only vicariously.” Restatement (Second) of Torts, supra, § 909, at 468, Comment b. Where an employer has undertaken such good faith efforts at Title VII compliance, it “demonstrates] that it never acted in reckless disregard of federally protected rights.” 139 F. 3d, at 974 (Tatel, J., dissenting); see also Harris, 132 F. 3d, at 983, 984 (observing that, “[i]n some eases, the existence of a written policy instituted in good faith has operated as a total bar to employer liability for punitive damages” and concluding that “the institution of a written sexual harassment policy goes a long way towards dispelling any claim about the employer’s ‘reckless’ or ‘malicious’ state of mind”).
Applying the Restatement of Agency’s “scope of employment” rule in the Title VII punitive damages context, moreover, would reduce the incentive for employers to implement antidiscrimination programs. In fact, such a rule would likely exacerbate concerns among employers that §1981a’s “malice” and “reckless indifference” standard penalizes those employers who educate themselves and their employees on Title VII’s prohibitions. See Brief for Equal Employment Advisory Council as Amicus Curiae 12 (“[I]f an employer has made efforts to familiarize itself with Title VII’s requirements, then any violation of those requirements by the employer can be inferred to have been committed ‘with malice or with reckless indifference’”). Dissuading employers from implementing programs or policies to prevent discrimination in the workplace is directly contrary to the purposes underlying Title VII. The statute’s “primary objective” is “a prophylactic one,” Albemarle Paper Co. v. Moody, 422 U. S. 405, 417 (1975); it aims, chiefly, “not to provide redress but to avoid harm,” Faragher, 524 U. S., at 806. With regard to sexual harassment, “[f]or example, Title VII is designed to encourage the creation of antiharassment policies and effective grievance mechanisms.” Burlington Industries, Inc., 524 U. S., at 764. The purposes underlying Title VII are similarly advanced where employers are encouraged to adopt antidiscrimination policies and to educate their personnel on Title VII’s prohibitions.
In light of the perverse incentives that the Restatement’s “scope of employment” rules create, we are compelled to modify these principles to avoid undermining the objectives underlying Title VII. See generally ibid. See also Faragher, supra, at 802, n. 3 (noting that Court must “adapt agency concepts to the practical objectives of Title VII”); Meritor Savings Bank, FSB, 477 U. S., at 72 (“[C
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719 (1966), we held that Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), “applies only to cases in which the trial began after the date of our [Miranda] decision . . . 384 U. S., at 721. In this case, we must decide whether Miranda’s, standards for determining the admissibility of in-custody statements apply to post-Miranda retrials of cases originally tried prior to that decision. We hold that they do not.
Petitioner was arrested on the morning of March 17, 1965, as a murder suspect, and was interrogated on three separate occasions, at 11:30 a. m., 2:50 p. m., and 7:05 p. m. Although indigent, he was not advised that he had the right to have an attorney present at the State’s expense. Approximately 10 minutes after the evening interrogation began, petitioner gave the police a statement in which he admitted struggling with the victim during a burglary the preceding evening.
Petitioner’s first trial commenced on January 13, 1966. He did not take the stand, but his incriminating statement was admitted into evidence. The jury found him guilty of murder in the first degree and burglary in the fourth degree. Disregarding the jury’s recommendation, the trial court sentenced him to death. During the pendency of petitioner’s appeal to the Supreme Court of Delaware, we decided Miranda and Johnson. In reversing petitioner’s conviction on various state grounds, the Delaware Supreme Court also determined, sua sponte, that under Johnson petitioner’s statement, which was obtained without fully advising him of his constitutional rights, would be admissible at his retrial. - Del. -, 230 A. 2d 262 (1967). It reasoned that the retrial would be a mere continuation of the case originally commenced prior to our decision in Miranda.
Petitioner’s second trial began on October 2, 1967. He was convicted of second degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court of Delaware affirmed, again rejecting petitioner’s argument that under Johnson his incriminating statement was inadmissible at his retrial. - Del. -, 240 A. 2d 146 (1968). Because of a disagreement among state courts over this issue, we granted certiorari. 393 U. S. 950 (1968). For the reasons stated below, we affirm.
Petitioner and the decisions he relies upon emphasize our references in Johnson to “trials” commenced before the date Miranda was decided and our stated concern for the reliance placed on pre-Miranda standards by trial courts as well as by law enforcement officers. Petitioner argues that this “studied” focus on the trial process indicates that we intended Miranda to be applied to retrials, which, he insists, begin that process anew. As Delaware correctly points out, however, more than once we stated our holding in Johnson in terms of “cases” commenced before the date of Miranda. See 384 U. S., at 733. Delaware and the authorities it relies upon argue that, since the word “case” usually incorporates all the judicial proceedings against an accused, a retrial is not the “commencement” of a case. Delaware also quotes our statement that only “[fjuture defendants will benefit fully from our new standards governing in-custody interrogation, while past defendants may still avail themselves of the voluntariness test.” Id., at 732. Delaware suggests that petitioner, who was tried six months before Miranda, cannot be regarded as a “future” defendant within the meaning of Johnson. That there is language in Johnson supporting the positions of both petitioner and respondent demonstrates what some courts and commentators have readily recognized: in that decision, we did not consider the applicability of Miranda to retrials. The issue simply was not presented.
Petitioner buttresses his interpretation of Johnson by arguing that Miranda must be applied to retrials in order to insure the uniform treatment of individuals similarly situated. If it is not applied, he points out, it is possible that different standards for the protection of constitutional rights could be applied to two defendants simultaneously tried in the same courthouse for similar offenses. This anomaly could result if one of the defendants had been previously tried for the same offense prior to Miranda. This identical result, however, is also possible under our more recent prospectivity decisions. Because both Desist v. United States, 394 U. S. 244 (1969), and Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293 (1967), selected the date on which the prohibited practice was engaged in, rather than the date the trial commenced, to determine the applicability of newly formulated constitutional standards, those standards do not apply to retrials of defendants originally tried prior to the dates the standards were announced. In fact, under those decisions, different rules could govern where neither defendant had been tried before, depending upon when the condemned practice was engaged in.
Moreover, as petitioner acknowledges, Johnson made it quite clear that Miranda need not be applied to trials commenced prior to that decision but not yet final when it was announced. On that date, petitioner’s case was in precisely that posture. The type of apparent incongruity petitioner urges us to avoid is equally present in refusing to apply Miranda to defendants whose cases, like petitioner’s, were not final on the date Miranda was decided, yet making an exception for petitioner simply because he was afforded a post -Miranda retrial for reasons wholly unrelated to the admissibility of his incriminating statement. Nor is petitioner’s hypothetical more disconcerting than applying the new standards for in-custody interrogation to Ernesto Miranda while denying them to other defendants whose cases, for wholly fortuitous reasons, simply reached this Court at a later date, although the defendants in those cases may have been both interrogated and tried after Ernesto Miranda.
In short, petitioner’s concern for what he refers to as “visible imperfection[s] in a judicial process” merely highlights the problem inherent in prospective decision-making, i. e., some defendants benefit from the new rule while others do not, solely because of the fortuities that determine the progress of their cases from initial investigation and arrest to final judgment. The resulting incongruities must be balanced against the impetus the technique provides for the implementation of long overdue reforms, which otherwise could not be practicably effected. Thus, raising the specter of potential anomalies does not further the difficult decision of selecting the precise event that should determine the prospective application of a newly formulated constitutional principle.
Once the need is established for applying the principle prospectively, as the Supreme Court of New Jersey has pointed out, “there is a large measure of judicial discretion involved in deciding ... the time from which the new principle is to be deemed controlling.” State v. Vigliano, 50 N. J. 51, 65-66, 232 A. 2d 129, 137 (1967). In our more recent decisions in this area, we have regarded as determinative the moment at which the discarded standards were first relied upon. See, e. g., Desist v. United States, supra; Stovall v. Denno, supra. The point of reliance is critical, not because of any constitutional compulsion, but because it determines the impact that newly articulated constitutional principles will have upon convictions obtained pursuant to investigatory and prose-cutorial practices not previously proscribed. See Johnson v. New Jersey, supra, at 733. See generally Schaefer, The Control of “Sunbursts”: Techniques of Prospective Overruling, 42 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 631 (1967).
In Johnson, after considering the need to avoid unreasonably disrupting the administration of our criminal laws, we selected the commencement of trial as determinative. We of course could have applied Miranda to all judgments not yet final, although they were obtained in good-faith reliance upon constitutional standards then applicable. See Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618 (1965). As we pointed out, however, that choice "would [have] impose[d] an unjustifiable burden on the administration of justice.” 384 U. S., at 733. On the other hand, we could have adopted the approach we took in Stovall and Desist and made the point of initial reliance, the moment the defendant is interrogated, the operative event. See Schaefer, supra, at 646. But in an effort to extend the protection of Miranda to as many defendants as was consistent with society’s legitimate concern that convictions already validly obtained not be needlessly aborted, we selected the commencement of the trial. Implicit in this choice was the assumption that, with few exceptions, the commission and investigation of a crime would be sufficiently proximate to the commencement of the defendant’s trial that no undue burden would be imposed upon prosecuting authorities by requiring them to find evidentiary substitutes for statements obtained in violation of the constitutional protections afforded by Miranda.
This same concern for the justifiable reliance of law enforcement officials upon pre-Miranda standards militates against applying Miranda to retrials, which would place a much heavier burden upon prosecutors to compensate for the inadmissibility of incriminating statements obtained and admitted into evidence pursuant to practices not previously proscribed. See, e. g., State v. Vigliano, supra; People v. Sayers, 22 N. Y. 2d 571, 240 N. E. 2d 540 (1968); Comment, The Applicability of Miranda to Retrials, 116 U. Pa. L. Rev. 316, 324-325 (1967). As we stated in Stovall, “[I]nquiry would be handicapped by the unavailability of witnesses and dim memories.” 388 U. S., at 300. The burden would be particularly onerous where an investigation was closed years prior to a retrial because law enforcement officials relied in good faith upon a strongly incriminating statement, admissible at the first trial, to provide the cornerstone of the prosecution’s case. Moreover, we cannot assume that applying Miranda to retrials would affect only a small number of cases. It could, for example, render significantly more difficult the prosecutions of defendants, some of whom may have been convicted many years ago, who are afforded retrials because their convictions were obtained in violation of recently articulated constitutional principles that are fully retroactive. See, e. g., Berger v. California, 393 U. S. 314 (1969); Roberts v. Russell, 392 U. S. 293 (1968). Such a decision could also pose a serious obstacle to the successful prosecution of an undetermined number of defendants whose pr e-Miranda convictions are reversed because of errors under federal or state law that do not even constitute constitutional violations.
In determining how much weight to give the increased evidentiary burden that would result if we were to insist that Miranda be applied to retrials, we must consider society’s interest in the effective prosecution of criminals in light of the protection our pr e-Miranda standards afford criminal defendants. As we pointed out in Johnson, an individual who cannot claim the benefits of Miranda may still resort to whatever state and federal procedures are available to insure that statements admitted against him were made voluntarily. Moreover, he may invoke a “substantive test of voluntariness which, because of the persistence of abusive practices, has become increasingly meticulous . . . , [taking] specific account of the failure to advise the accused of his privilege against self-incrimination or to allow him access to outside assistance.” 384 U. S., at 730. As a result, not applying Miranda to retrials will not preclude the invocation of “the same safeguards as part of an involuntariness claim.” Ibid. Thus, because of the increased evidentiary burden that would be placed unreasonably upon law enforcement officials by insisting that Miranda be applied to retrials, and for all the reasons we gave in Johnson for not applying Miranda retroactively, we hold that Miranda does not apply to any retrial of a defendant whose first trial commenced prior to June 13, 1966.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Delaware is Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black, with whom Mb. Justice Douglas joins, dissents for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinions in Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618, 640, and Johnson v. New Jersey, 384 U. S. 719, 736.
The word “retrial’' is used in this opinion to refer only to a subsequent trial of a defendant whose original trial for the same conduct commenced prior to June 13, 1966, the day on which Miranda was announced.
Petitioner’s remaining contentions have been adequately resolved by the court below. See Jenkins v. State, - Del. -, 230 A. 2d 262 (1967), and Jenkins v. State, - Del. -, 240 A. 2d 146 (1968).
At least eight States, including Delaware, decline to apply Miranda to post-Miranda retrials of cases originally tried prior to that decision. See People v. Worley, 37 Ill. 2d 439, 227 N. E. 2d 746 (1967) (dictum); Boone v. State, 3 Md. App. 11, 237 A. 2d 787 (Md. Ct. Sp. App.) (dictum), cert. to Md. Ct. App. denied, 393 U. S. 872 (1968); Chapman v. State, 282 Minn. 13, 162 N. W. 2d 698 (1968); State v. Vigliano, 50 N. J. 51, 232 A. 2d 129 (1967) (dictum); People v. Sayers, 22 N. Y. 2d 571, 240 N. E. 2d 540 (1968); State v. Lewis, 274 N. C. 438, 164 S. E. 2d 177 (1968) (dictum); Murphy v. State, 221 Tenn. 351, 426 S. W. 2d 509 (1968).
At least nine other States have indicated in dicta that Miranda should be applied to such retrials. See Smith v. State, 282 Ala. 268, 210 So. 2d 826 (1968); State v. Brock, 101 Ariz. 168, 416 P. 2d 601 (1966); People v. Doherty, 67 Cal. 2d 9, 429 P. 2d 177 (1967); State v. Ruiz, 49 Haw. 504, 421 P. 2d 305 (1966); Dell v. State, 249 Ind. 231, 231 N. E. 2d 522 (1967); State v. McCarther, 197 Kan. 279, 416 P. 2d 290 (1966); Creech v. Commonwealth, 412 S. W. 2d 245 (Ct. App. Ky. 1967); State v. Shoffner, 31 Wis. 2d 412, 143 N. W. 2d 458 (1966). In State v. Bradshaw, 101 R. I. 233, 237, n. 1, 221 A. 2d 815, 817, n. 1 (1966), the court expressly declined to pass on the issue in an opinion reversing a conviction on other grounds, but it nevertheless suggested that under Johnson the defendant’s statement might not be admissible at his retrial.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has held Miranda applicable, United States v. Phillips, 401 F. 2d 301 (C. A. 7th Cir. 1968); and that holding is supported by dicta in at least three other circuits. See United States v. Young, 388 F. 2d 675 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1968); Virgin Islands v. Lovell, 378 F. 2d 799, 802, n. 4 (C. A. 3d Cir. 1967); Gibson v. United States, 363 F. 2d 146 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1966). Without discussion, the Fourth Circuit appears to have reached a contrary result by implication. Moorer v. South Carolina, 368 F. 2d 458 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1966).
E. g., United States v. Phillips, supra; People v. Doherty, supra.
E. g., People v. Worley, supra; State v. Vigliano, supra.
E. g., Smith v. State, supra; People v. Worley, supra; People v. Sayers, supra; Comment, The Applicability of Miranda to Retrials, 116 U. Pa. L. Rev. 316, 320 (1967); Comment, Post-Miranda Retrials of Pre-Miranda Defendants, 25 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 108, 109 (1968).
Our initial approach to prospective decision-making has undergone some modification. Compare Linkletter v. Walker, 381 U. S. 618 (1965), with Desist v. United States, 394 U. S. 244 (1969). With Johnson we began placing increasing emphasis upon the point at which law enforcement officials relied upon practices not yet proscribed; and, more recently, we have selected the point of initial reliance. See, e. g., Desist v. United States, supra; Stovall v. Denno, supra. In addition to being more consistent with the fundamental justification for not applying newly enunciated constitutional principles retroactively, this latest approach has obviated at least one administrative problem, the treatment of retrials. Our experience, therefore, has confirmed Mr. Justice Schaefer’s observation: “Sound growth can be promoted and erratic results avoided by focusing attention on the element of reliance that justifies the technique. Even when that is done there will not always be agreement as to the quality or degree of reliance that justifies a particular prospective limitation. But the area of disaffection will be narrowed if time before and time after are measured from the moment of reliance.” Schaefer, The Control of “Sunbursts”: Techniques of Prospective Overruling, 42 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 631, 646 (1967).
In one recent case, for example, in which the court refused to apply Miranda to the defendant’s retrial, it noted: “The investigation of this brutal assault and the interrogation of defendant began in January 1955 — more than 12 years previous to this retrial. The evidence is clear that in 1955 defendant was warned of his constitutional rights in accordance with the requirements then prevailing.” State v. Lewis, 1 N. C. App. 296, 297-298, 161 S. E. 2d 497, 499 (1968).
See, e. g., United States v. Phillips, supra (discretion abused by admitting unduly “prejudicial” evidence); State v. Ruiz, supra (“plain error” in trial court’s fact finding); Boone v. State, supra (insufficient corroboration of accomplice’s testimony).
For purposes of this holding, it is immaterial whether state law treats a retrial as the continuation of the original trial, see, e. g., People v. Worley, supra, or as a completely new trial that proceeds as if the former trial never occurred. See, e. g., State v. Brock, supra. What is determinative is that the defendant is being tried for the same conduct that was the subject of a previously reversed conviction. A State is free, of course, for any reason it finds persuasive, to apply Miranda to a subsequent trial of a defendant whose original trial commenced prior to that decision. See Johnson v. New Jersey, supra, at 733.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Two oil companies, petitioners here, seek restitution of $156 million they paid the Government in return for lease contracts giving them rights to explore for and develop oil off the North Carolina coast. The rights were not absolute, but were conditioned on the companies’ obtaining a set of further governmental permissions. The companies claim that the Government repudiated the contracts when it denied them certain elements of the permission-seeking opportunities that the contracts had promised. We agree that the Government broke its promise; it repudiated the contracts; and it must give the companies their money back.
> — i
A
A description at the outset of the few basic contract law principles applicable to this action will help the reader understand the significance of the complex factual circumstances that follow. “When the United States enters into contract relations, its rights and duties therein are governed generally by the law applicable to contracts between private individuals.” United States v. Winstar Corp., 518 U. S. 889, 895 (1996) (plurality opinion) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Restatement of Contracts reflects many of the principles of contract law that are applicable to this action. As set forth in the Restatement of Contracts, the relevant principles specify that, when one party to a contract repudiates that contract, the other party “is entitled to restitution for any benefit that he has conferred on” the repudiating party “by way of part performance or reliance.” Restatement (Second) of Contracts §378 (1979) (hereinafter Restatement). The Restatement explains that “repudiation” is a “statement by the obligor to the obligee indicating that the obligor will commit a breach that would of itself give the obligee a claim for damages for total breach.” Id.-, §250. And “total breach” is a breach that “so substantially impairs the value of the contract to the injured party at the time of the breach that it is just in the circumstances to allow him to recover damages based on all his remaining rights to performance.” Id., §248.
As applied to this action, these principles amount to the following; If the Government said it would break, or did break, an important contractual promise, thereby “substantially impairing] the value of the contract^]” to the companies, ibid., then (unless the companies waived their rights to restitution) the Government must give the companies their money back. And it must do so whether the contracts would, or would not, ultimately have proved financially beneficial to the companies. The Restatement illustrates this point as follows:
“A contracts to sell a tract of land to B for $100,000. After B has made a part payment of $20,000, A wrongfully refuses to transfer title. B can recover the $20,000 in restitution. The result is the same even if the market price of the land is only $70,000, so that performance would have been disadvantageous to B.” Id., §378, Comment a, Illustration 1.
B
In 1981, in return for up-front “bonus” payments to the United States of about $156 million (plus annual rental payments), the companies received 10-year renewable lease contracts with the United States. In these contracts, the United States promised the companies, among other things, that they could explore for oil off the North Carolina coast and develop any oil that they found (subject to further royalty payments) provided that the companies received exploration and development permissions in accordance with various statutes and regulations to which the lease contracts were made “subject.” App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 99-253, pp. 174a-185a.
The statutes and regulations, the terms of which in effect were incorporated into the contracts, made clear that obtaining the necessary permissions might not be an easy matter. In particular, the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (OCSLA), 67 Stat. 462, as amended, 43 U. S. C. § 1331 et seq. (1994 ed. and Supp. Ill), and the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 (CZMA), 86 Stat. 1280, 16 U.S.C. §1451 et seq., specify that leaseholding companies wishing to explore and drill must successfully complete the following four procedures.
First, a company must prepare and obtain Department of the Interior approval for a Plan of Exploration (Exploration Plan or Plan). 43 U. S. C. § 1340(e). Interior must approve a submitted Exploration Plan unless it finds, after “considering] available relevant environmental information,” § 1346(d), that the proposed exploration
“would probably cause serious harm or damage to life (including fish and other aquatic life), to property, to any mineral ... , to the national security or defense, or to the marine, coastal, or human environment.” § 1334(a)(2)(A)(i).
Where approval is warranted, Interior must act quickly— within “thirty days” of the company’s submission of a proposed Plan. § 1340(e)(1).
Second, the company must obtain an exploratory well drilling permit. To do so, it must certify (under CZMA) that its Exploration Plan is consistent with the coastal zone management program of each affected State. 16 U. S. C. § 1456(c)(3). If a State objects, the certification fails,- unless the Secretary of Commerce overrides the State’s objection. If Commerce rules against the State, then Interior may grant the permit. § 1456(e)(3)(A).
Third, where waste discharge into ocean waters is at issue, the company must obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit from the Environmental Protection Agency. 33 U. S. C. §§ 1311(a), 1342(a). It can obtain this permit only if affected States agree that its Exploration Plan is consistent with the state coastal zone management programs or (as just explained) the Secretary of Commerce overrides the state objections. 16 U. S. C. § 1456.
Fourth, if exploration is successful, the company must prepare, and obtain Interior approval for, a Development and Production Plan — a Plan that describes the proposed drilling and related environmental safeguards. 43 U. S. C. §1351. Again, Interior’s approval is conditioned upon certification that the Plan is consistent with state coastal zone management plans — a certification to which States can object, subject to Commerce Department override. § 1351(a)(3).
C
The events at issue here concern the first two steps of the process just described — Interior’s consideration of a submitted Exploration Plan and the companies’ submission of the CZMA “consistency certification” necessary to obtain an exploratory well drilling permit. The relevant circumstances are the following:
1. In 1981, the companies and the Government entered into the lease contracts. The companies paid the Government $156 million in up-front cash “bonus” payments.
2. In 1989, the companies, Interior, and North Carolina entered into a memorandum of understanding. In that memorandum, the companies promised that they would submit an initial draft Exploration Plan to North Carolina before they submitted their final Exploration Plan to Interior. Interior promised that it would prepare an environmental report on the initial draft. It also agreed to suspend the companies’ annual lease payments (about $250,000 per year) while the companies prepared the initial draft and while any state objections to the companies’ CZMA consistency certifications were being worked out, with the life of each lease being extended accordingly.
3. In September 1989, the companies submitted their initial draft Exploration Plan to North Carolina. Ten months later, Interior issued the promised (“informal” pre-submission) environmental report, after a review which all parties concede was “extensive and intensive.” App. 179 (deposition of David Courtland O’Neal, former Assistant Secretary of the Interior) (agreeing that the review was “the most extensive and intensive” ever “afforded an exploration well in the outer continental shelf (OCS) program”). Interior concluded that the proposed exploration would not “significantly affee[t]” the marine environment or “the quality of the human environment.” Id., at 138-140 (U. S. Dept, of Interior Minerals Management Service, Environmental Assessment of Exploration Plan for Manteo Area Block 467 (Sept. 1990)).
4. On August 20,1990, the companies submitted both their final Exploration Plan and their CZMA “consistency certification” to Interior.
5. Just two days earlier, on August 18, 1990, a new law, the Outer Banks Protection Act (OBPA), §6003, 104 Stat. 555, had come into effect. That law prohibited the Secretary of the Interior from approving any Exploration Plan or Development and Production Plan or to award any drilling permit until (a) a new OBPA-created Environmental Sciences Review Panel had reported to the Secretary, (b) the Secretary had certified to Congress that he had sufficient information to make these OCSLA-required approval decisions, and (c) Congress had been in session an additional 45 days, but (d) in no event could he issue an approval or permit for the next 13 months (until October 1991). § 6003(c)(3). OBPA also required the Secretary, in his certification, to explain and justify in detail any differences between his own certified conclusions and the new Panel’s recommendations. § 6003(c)(3)(A)(ii)(II).
6. About five weeks later, and in light of the new statute, Interior wrote a letter to the Governor of North Carolina with a copy to petitioner Mobil. It said that the final submitted Exploration Plan “is deemed to be approvable in all respects.” It added:
“[W]e are required to approve an Exploration Plan unless it is inconsistent with applicable law or because it would result in serious harm to the environment. Because we have found that Mobil’s Plan fully complies with the law and will have only negligible effect on the environment, we are not authorized to disapprove the Plan or require its modification.” App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 99-253, p. 194a (letter from Regional Director Bruce Weetman to the Honorable James G. Martin, Governor of North Carolina, dated Sept. 28,1996).
But, it noted, the new law, the “Outer Banks Protection Act (OBPA) of 1990... prohibits the approval of any Exploration Plan at this time.” It concluded, “because we are currently prohibited from approving it, the Plan will remain on file until the requirements of the OBPA are met.” In the meantime a “suspension has been granted to all leases offshore the State of North Carolina.” Ibid. See also App. 129-131 (letter from Lawrence H. Ake, Minerals Management Service, to William C. Whittemore, Mobil Exploration & Producing U. S. Inc., dated Sept. 21, 1990 (notice of suspension of leases, citing 30 CFR § 250.10(b)(7) (1990) as the basis for the suspensions)).
About 18 months later, the Secretary of the Interior, after receiving the new Panel’s report, certified to Congress that he had enough information to consider the companies’ Exploration Plan. He added, however, that he would not consider the Plan until he received certain further studies that the new Panel had recommended.
7. In November 1990, North Carolina objected to the companies’ CZMA consistency certification on the ground that Mobil had not provided sufficient information about possible environmental impact. A month later, the companies asked the Secretary of Commerce to override North Carolina’s objection.
8. In 1994, the Secretary of Commerce rejected the companies’ override request, relying in large part on the fact that the new Panel had found a lack of adequate information in respect to certain environmental issues.
9. In 1996, Congress repealed OBPA. §109, 110 Stat. 1321-177.
D
In October 1992, after all but the two last-mentioned events had taken place, petitioners joined a breach-of-contraet lawsuit brought in the Court of Federal Claims. On motions for summary judgment, the court found that the United States had broken its contractual promise to follow OCSLA’s provisions, in particular the provision requiring Interior to approve an Exploration Plan that satisfied OCSLA’s requirements within 30 days of its submission to Interior. The United States thereby repudiated the contracts. And that repudiation entitled the companies to restitution of the up-front cash “bonus” payments they had made. Conoco Inc. v. United States, 35 Fed. Cl. 309 (1996).
A panel of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed, one judge dissenting. The panel held that the Government’s refusal to consider the companies’ final Exploration Plan was not the “operative cause” of any failure to carry out the contracts’ terms because the State’s objection to the companies’ CZMA “consistency statement” would have prevented the companies from exploring regardless. 177 F. 3d 1331 (1999).
We granted certiorari to review the Federal Circuit’s decision.
II
The record makes clear (1) that OCSLA required Interior to approve “within thirty days” a submitted Exploration Plan that satisfies OCSLA’s requirements, (2) that Interior told Mobil the companies’ submitted Plan met those requirements, (3) that Interior told Mobil it would not approve the companies’ submitted Plan for at least 13 months, and likely longer, and (4) that Interior did not approve (or disapprove) the Plan, ever. The Government does not deny that the contracts, made “pursuant to” and “subject to” OCSLA, incorporated OCSLA provisions as promises. The Government fiir-ther concedes, as it must, that relevant contract law entitles a contracting party to restitution if the other party “substantially” breached a contract or communicated its intent to do so. See Restatement §373(1); 11 W. Jaeger, Williston on Contracts § 1312, p. 109 (3d ed. 1968) (hereinafter Williston); 5 A. Corbin, Contracts § 1104, p. 560 (1964); see also Ankeny v. Clark, 148 U. S. 345, 353 (1893). Yet the Government denies that it must refund the companies’ money.
This is because, in the Government’s view, it did not breach the contracts or communicate its intent to do so; any breach was not “substantial”; and the companies waived their rights to restitution regardless. We shall consider each of these arguments in turn.
A
The Government’s “no breach” arguments depend upon the contract provisions that “subject” the contracts to various statutes and regulations. Those provisions state that the contracts are “subject to” (1) OCSLA, (2) “Sections 302 and 303 of the Department of Energy Organization Act,” (3) “all regulations issued pursuant to such statutes and in existence upon the effective date of” the contracts, (4) “all regulations issued pursuant to such statutes in the future which provide for the prevention of waste and the conservation” of Outer Continental Shelf resources, and (5) “all other applicable statutes and regulations.” App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 99-253, at 175a. The Government says that these provisions incorporate into the contracts, not only the OCSLA provisions we have mentioned, but also certain other statutory provisions and regulations that, in the Government’s view, granted Interior the legal authority to refuse to approve the submitted Exploration Plan, while suspending the leases instead.
First, the Government refers to 43 U. S. C. § 1334(a)(1)(A), an OCSLA provision that authorizes the Secretary to promulgate regulations providing for “the suspension... of any operation or activity ... at the request of a lessee, in the national interest, to facilitate proper development of a lease.” (Emphasis added.) This provision, as the emphasized terms show, requires “the request of a lessee,” i. e., the companies. The Government does not explain how this requirement was satisfied here. Hence, the Government cannot rely upon the provision.
Second, the Government refers to 30 CFE § 250.110(b)(4) (1999), formerly codified at 30 CFR § 250.10(b)(4) (1997), a regulation stating that “[t]he Regional Supervisor may . . . direct... a suspension of any operation or activity... [when the] suspension is necessary for the implementation of the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act or to conduct an environmental analysis.” The Government says that this regulation permitted the Secretary of the Interior to suspend the companies’ leases because that suspension was “necessary ... to conduct an environmental analysis,” namely, the analysis demanded by the new statute, OBPA.
The “environmental analysis” referred to, however, is an analysis the need for which was created by OBPA, a later enacted statute. The lease contracts say that they are subject to then-existing regulations and to certain future regulations, those issued pursuant to OCSLA and §§302 and 303 of the Department of Energy Organization Act. This explicit reference to future regulations makes it clear that the catchall provision that references “all other applicable . . . •regulations,” supra, at 615, must include only statutes and regulations already existing at the time of the contract, see 35 Fed. Cl., at 322-323, a conclusion not questioned here by the Government. Hence, these provisions mean that the contracts are not subject to future regulations promulgated under other statutes, such as new statutes like OBPA. Without some such contractual provision limiting the Government’s power to impose new and different requirements, the companies would have spent $156 million to buy next to nothing. In any event, the Court of Claims so interpreted the lease; the Federal Circuit did not disagree with that interpretation; nor does the Government here dispute it.
Instead, the Government points out that the regulation in question — the regulation authorizing a governmental suspension in order to conduct “an environmental analysis”— was not itself a future regulation. Rather, a similar regulation existed at the time the parties signed the contracts, 30 CFR §250.12(a)(iv) (1981), and, in any event, it was promulgated under OCSLA, a statute exempted from the contracts’ temporal restriction. But that fact, while true, is not sufficient to produce the incorporation of future statutory requirements, which is what the Government needs to prevail. If the pre-existing regulation’s words, “an environmental analysis,” were to apply to analyses mandated by future statutes, then they would make the companies subject to the . same unknown future requirements that the contracts’ specific temporal restrictions were intended to avoid. Consequently, whatever the regulation’s words might mean in other contexts, we believe the contracts before us must be interpreted as excluding the words “environmental analysis” insofar as those words would incorporate the requirements of future statutes and future regulations excluded by the contracts’ provisions. Hence, they would not incorporate into the contracts requirements imposed by a new statute such as OBPA.
Third, the Government refers to OCSLA, 48 U. S. C. § 1334(a)(1), which, after granting Interior rulemaking authority, says that Interior’s
“regulations ... shall inelude ... provisions ... for the suspension ... of any operation . . . pursuant to any lease . . . if there is a threat of serious, irreparable, or immediate harm or damage to life ..., to property, to any mineral deposits ... , or to the marine, coastal, or human environment.” (Emphasis added.)
The Government points to the OBPA Conference Report, which says that any OBPA-caused delay is “related to . . . environmental protection” and to the need “for the collection and analysis of crucial oceanographic, ecological, and socioeconomic data,” to “prevent a publie harm.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 101-653, p. 163 (1990); see also Brief for United States 32. At oral argument, the Government noted that the OBPA mentions “tourism” in North Carolina as a “major industry . . . which is subject to potentially significant disruption by offshore oil or gas development.” § 6003(b)(3). From this, the Government infers that the pre-existing OCSLA provision authorized the suspension in light of a “threat of... serious harm” to a “human environment.”
The fatal flaw in this argument, however, arises out of the Interior Department’s own statement — a statement made when citing OBPA to explain its approval delay. Interior then said that the Exploration Plan “fully complies” with current legal requirements. And the OCSLA statutory provision quoted above was the most pertinent of those current requirements. Supra, at 609. The Government did not deny the accuracy of Interior’s statement, either in its brief filed here or its brief filed in the Court of Appeals. Insofar as the Government means to suggest that the new statute, OBPA, changed the relevant OCSLA standard (or that OBPA language and history somehow constitute findings Interior must incorporate by reference), it must mean that OBPA in effect created a new requirement. For the reasons set out supra, at 616, however, any such new requirement would not be incorporated into the contracts.
Finally, we note that Interior itself, when imposing the lengthy approval delay, did not rely upon any of the regulations to which the Government now refers. Rather, it relied upon, and cited, a different regulation, 30 CFR § 250.110(b)(7) (1999), which gives Interior the power to suspend leases when “necessary to comply with judicial decrees prohibiting production or any other operation or activity.” The Government concedes that no judicial decree was involved in this action and does not rely upon this regulation here.
We conclude, for these reasons, that the Government violated the contracts. Indeed, as Interior pointed out in its letter to North Carolina, the new statute, OBPA, required Interior to impose the contract-violating delay. See App. 129 (“The [OBPA] contains provisions that specifically prohibit the Minerals Management Service from approving any Exploration Plan, approving any Application for Permit to Drill, or permitting any drilling offshore the State of North Carolina until at least October 1,1991”). It therefore made clear to Interior and to the companies that the United States had to violate the contracts’ terms and would continue to do so.
Moreover, OBPA changed pre-existing contract-incorporated requirements in several ways. It delayed approval, not only of an Exploration Plan but also of Development and Production Plans; and it delayed the issuance of drilling permits as well. It created a new type of Interior Department environmental review that had not previously existed, conducted by the newly created Environmental Sciences Review Panel; and, by insisting that the Secretary explain in detail any differences between the Secretary’s findings and those of the Panel, it created a kind of presumption in favor of the new Panel’s findings.
The dissent argues that only the statements contained in the letter from Interior to the companies may constitute a repudiation because “the enactment of legislation is not typically conceived of as a ‘statement’ of anything to any one party in particular,” and a repudiation requires a “statement by the obligor to the obligee indicating that the obligor will commit a breach.” Post, at 630-631, n. 4 (opinion of Stevens, J.) (quoting Restatement §250). But if legislation passed by Congress and signed by the President is not a “statement by the obligor,” it is difficult to imagine what would constitute such a statement. In this action, it was the United States who was the “obligor” to the contract. See App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 99-253, at 174a (lease, identifying “the United States of America” as the “Lessor”). Although the dissent points out that legislation is “addressed to the public at large,” post, at 631, n. 4, that “public” includes those to whom the United States had contractual obligations. If the dissent means to invoke a special exception such as the “sovereign acts” doctrine, which treats certain laws as if they simply created conditions of impossibility, see Winstar, 518 U. S., at 891-899 (principal opinion of Souter, J.); id., at 923-924 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment), it cannot do so here. The Court of Federal Claims rejected the application of that doetrine to this action, see 35 Fed. CL, at 334-336, and the Government has not contested that determination here. Hence, under these circumstances, the fact that Interior’s repudiation rested upon the enactment of a new statute makes no significant difference.
We do not say that the changes made by the statute were unjustified. We say only that they were changes of a kind that the contracts did not foresee. They were changes in those approval procedures and standards that the contracts had incorporated through cross-reference. The Government has not convinced us that Interior’s actions were authorized by any other contractually cross-referenced provision. Hence, in communicating to the companies its intent to follow OBPA, the United States was communicating its intent to violate the contracts.
B
The Government next argues that any violation of the contracts’ terms was not significant; hence there was no “substantial” or “material” breach that could have amounted to a “repudiation.” In particular, it says that OCSLA’s 30-day approval period “does not function as the ‘essence’ of these agreements.” Brief for United States 37. The Court of Claims concluded, however, that timely and fair consideration of a submitted Exploration Plan was a “necessary reciprocal obligation,” indeed, that any “contrary interpretation would render the bargain illusory.” 35 Fed. CL, at 327. We agree.
We recognize that the lease contracts gave the companies more than rights to obtain approvals. They also gave the companies rights to explore for, and to develop, oil. But the need to obtain Government approvals so qualified the likely future enjoyment of the exploration and development rights that the contract, in practice, amounted primarily to an opportunity to try to obtain exploration and development rights in accordance with the procedures and under the standards specified in the cross-referenced statutes and regulations. Under these circumstances, if the companies did not at least buy a promise that the Government would not deviate significantly from those procedures and standards, then what did they buy? Cf. id., at 324 (the companies bought exclusive rights to explore and develop oil “if they met?’ OCSLA requirements (emphasis added)).
The Government’s modification of the contract-incorporated processes was not technical or insubstantial. It did not announce an (OBPA-required) approval delay of a few days or weeks, but of 13 months minimum, and likely much longer. The delay turned out to be at least four years. And lengthy delays matter, particularly where several successive agency approvals are at stake. "Whether an applicant approaches Commerce with an Interior Department approval already in hand can make a difference (as can failure to have obtained that earlier approval). Moreover, as we have pointed out, OBPA changed the contract-referenced procedures in several other ways as well. Supra, at 619.
The upshot is that, under the contracts, the incorporated procedures and standards amounted to a gateway to the companies’ enjoyment of all other rights. To significantly narrow that gateway violated material conditions in the contracts. The breach was “substantia[l],” depriving the companies of the benefit of their bargain. Restatement §243. And the Government’s communication of its intent to commit that breach amounted to a repudiation of the contracts.
C
The Government argues that the companies waived their rights to restitution. It does not deny that the United States repudiated the contracts if (as we have found) OBPA’s changes amounted to a substantial breach. The Government does not claim that the United States retracted its repudiation. Cf. id., §256 (retraction will nullify the effects of repudiation if done before the other party either changes position in reliance on the refraction or communicates that it considers the repudiation to be final). It cannot claim that the companies waived their rights simply by urging performance. Id., §257 (the injured party “does not change the effect of a repudiation by urging the repudiator to perform in spite of his repudiation”); see also 11 Williston § 1334, at 177-178. Nor has the Government convinced us that the companies’ continued actions under the contracts amount to anything more than this urging of performance. See 2 E. Farnsworth, Contracts § 8.22, p. 544 (2d ed. 1998) (citing United Cal. Bank v. Prudential Ins. Co., 140 Ariz. 238,282-283, 681 P. 2d 390, 433-434 (App. 1983) (urging performance and making “efforts of its own to fulfill the conditions” of the contract come to the same thing)); ef. 11 Williston § 1337, at 186-187. Consequently the Government’s waiver claim must come down to a claim that the companies received at least partial performance. Indeed, acceptance of performance under a once-repudiated contract can constitute a waiver of the right to restitution that repudiation would otherwise create. Restatement § 373, Comment a; cf. Restatement of Restitution § 68, Comment b (1936).
The United States points to three events that, in its view, amount to continued performance of the contracts. But it does not persuade us. First, the oil companies submitted their Exploration Plan to Interior two days after OBPA became law. Supra, at 611. The performance question, however, is not just about what the oil companies did or requested, but also about what they actually received from the Government. And, in respect to the Exploration Plan, the companies received nothing.
Second, the companies subsequently asked the Secretary of Commerce to overturn North Carolina’s objection to the companies’ CZMA consistency certification. And, although the Secretary’s eventual response was negative, the companies did at least receive that reply. Supra, at 613. The Secretary did not base his reply, however, upon application of the contracts’ standards, but instead relied in large part on the findings of the new, OBPA-created, Environmental Sciences Review Panel. See App. 224, 227, n. 35, 232-233, 239, 244 (citing the Panel’s report). Consequently, we cannot say that the companies received from Commerce the kind of consideration for which their contracts called.
Third, the oil companies received suspensions of their leases (suspending annual rents and extending lease terms) pending the OBPA-mandated approval delays. Supra, at 612-613. However, a separate contract — the 1989 memorandum of understanding — entitled the companies to receive these suspensions. See App. to Brief for United States 2a (letter from Toni D. Hennike, Counsel, Mobil Exploration & Producing U. S. Inc., to Ralph Melancon, Regional Supervisor, U. S. Dept, of Interior Minerals Management Service, dated Feb. 21,1995 (quoting the memorandum as a basis for the requested suspensions)). And the Government has provided no convincing reason why we should consider the suspensions to amount to significant performance of the lease contracts in question.
We conclude that the companies did not receive significant postrepudiation performance. We consequently find that they did not waive their right to restitution.
D
Finally, the Government argues that repudiation could not have hurt the companies. Since the companies could not have met the CZMA consistency requirements, they could not have explored (or ultimately drilled) for oil in any event. Hence, OBPA caused them no damage. As the Government puts it, the companies have already received "such damages as were actually caused by the [Exploration Plan approval] delay,” namely, none. Brief for United States 43-44; see also 177 F. 3d, at 1340. This argument, however, misses the basic legal point. The oil companies do not seek damages for breach of contract. They seek restitution of their initial payments. Because the Government repudiated the lease contracts, the law entitles the companies to that restitution whether the contracts would, or would not, ultimately have produced a financial gain or led them to obtain a definite right to explore. See supra, at 608. If a lottery operator fails to deliver a purchased ticket, the purchaser can get his money back- — whether or not he eventually would have won the lottery. And if one party to a contract, whether oil company or ordinary citizen, advances the other party money, principles of restitution normally require the latter, upon repudiation, to refund that money. Restatement § 373.
Ill
Contract law expresses no view about the wisdom of OBPA. We have examined only that statute’s consistency with the promises that the earlier contracts contained. We find that the oil companies gave the United States $156 million in return for a contractual promise to follow the terms of pre-existing statutes and regulations. The new statute prevented the Government from keeping that promise. The breach “substantially impair[ed] the value of the contracts].” Id., §243. And therefore the Government must give the companies their money back.
For these reasons, the judgment of the Federal Circuit is reversed. We remand the cases for farther proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We consider the circumstances in which an invalidated sentencing factor will render a death sentence unconstitutional by reason of its adding an improper element to the aggravation scale in the jury’s weighing process.
I
Respondent Ronald Sanders and a companion invaded the home of Dale Boender, where they bound and blindfolded him and his girlfriend, Janice Allen. Both of the victims were then struck on the head with a heavy, blunt object; Allen died from the blow. Sanders was convicted of first-degree murder, of attempt to murder Boender, and of robbery, burglary, and attempted robbery.
Sanders’ jury found four “special circumstances” under California law, each of which independently rendered him eligible for the death penalty. See Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 190.2 (West Supp. 1995). The trial then moved to a penalty phase, at which the jury was instructed to consider a list of sentencing factors relating to Sanders’ background and the nature of the crime, one of .which was “[t]he circumstances of the crime of which the defendant was convicted in the present proceeding and the existence of any special circumstances found to be true.” § 190.3(a) (West 1999). The jury sentenced Sanders to death.
On direct appeal, the California Supreme Court declared invalid two of the four special circumstances found by the jury. It nonetheless affirmed Sanders’ death sentence, relying on our decision in Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S. 862 (1983), which, it said, “upheld a death penalty judgment despite invalidation of one of several aggravating factors.” People v. Sanders, 51 Cal. 3d 471, 520, 797 P. 2d 561, 589-590 (1990) (in bank). It affirmed the conviction and sentence in all other respects. We denied certiorari. Sanders v. California, 500 U. S. 948 (1991).
Sanders then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §2254 in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California, arguing, as relevant here, that the jury’s consideration of invalid special circumstances rendered his death sentence unconstitutional. After Sanders exhausted various state remedies, the District Court denied relief.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. Sanders v. Woodford, 373 F. 3d 1054 (2004). It concluded that “the California court erroneously believed that it could apply the rule of Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S. 862 (1983)— which is applicable only to nonweighing states — and uphold the verdict despite the invalidation of two special circumstances because it was upholding other special circumstances.” Id., at 1064 (citations, omitted). Finding California to be a weighing State, and applying the rules we have announced for such States, see Stringer v. Black, 503 U. S. 222, 232 (1992), the Ninth Circuit concluded that California courts could uphold Sanders’ death sentence only by finding the jury’s use of the invalid special circumstances to have been harmless beyond a reasonable doubt or by independently reweighing the sentencing factors under § 190.3. Since, it continued, the state courts had done neither, Sanders had been unconstitutionally deprived of an “individualized death sentence.” 373 F. 3d, at 1064. We granted certiorari. 544 U. S. 947 (2005).
Since Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238 (1972) (per curiam), we have required States to limit the class of murderers to which the death penalty may be applied. This narrowing requirement is usually met when the trier of fact finds at least one statutorily defined eligibility factor at either the guilt or penalty phase. See Tuilaepa v. California, 512 U. S. 967, 971-972 (1994). Once the narrowing requirement has been satisfied, the sentencer is called upon to determine whether a defendant thus found eligible for the death penalty should in fact receive it. Most States channel this function by specifying the aggravating factors (sometimes identical to the eligibility factors) that are to be weighed against mitigating considerations. The issue in the line of cases we confront here is what happens when the sen-tencer imposes the death penalty after at least one valid eligibility factor has been found, but under a scheme in which an eligibility factor or a specified aggravating factor is later held to be invalid.
To answer that question, our jurisprudence has distinguished between so-called weighing and non7weighing States. The terminology is somewhat misleading, since we have held that in all capital cases the sentencer must be allowed to weigh the facts and circumstances that arguably justify a death sentence against the defendant’s mitigating evidence. See, e. g., Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104, 110 (1982). The terminology was adopted, moreover, relatively early in the development of our death-penalty jurisprudence, when we were perhaps unaware of the great variety of forms that state capital-sentencing legislation would ultimately take. We identified as “weighing State[s]” those in which the only aggravating factors permitted to be considered by the sentencer were the specified eligibility factors. See, e. g., Parker v. Dugger, 498 U. S. 308, 313, 318-319 (1991) (citing Fla. Stat. § 921.141(3)(b) (1985)); Richmond v. Lewis, 506 U. S. 40, 47 (1992) (quoting Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-703(E) (1989)). Since the eligibility factors by definition identified distinct and particular aggravating features, if one of them was invalid the jury could not consider the facts and circumstances relevant to that factor as aggravating in some other capacity — for example, as relevant to an omnibus “circumstances of the crime” sentencing factor such as the one in the present case. In a weighing State, therefore, the sen-tencer’s consideration of an invalid eligibility factor necessarily skewed its balancing of aggravators with mitigators, Stringer, 503 U. S., at 232, and required reversal of the sentence (unless a state appellate court determined the error was harmless or reweighed the mitigating evidence against the valid aggravating factors), ibid.
By contrast, in a non-weighing State — a State that permitted the sentencer to consider aggravating factors different from, or in addition to, the eligibility factors — this automatic skewing would not necessarily occur. It would never occur if the aggravating factors were entirely different from the eligibility factors. Nor would it occur if the aggravating factors added to the eligibility factors a category (such as an omnibus “circumstances of the crime” factor, which is quite common) that would allow the very facts and circumstances relevant to the invalidated eligibility factor to be weighed in aggravation under a different rubric. We therefore set forth different rules governing the consequences of an invalidated eligibility factor in a non-weighing State. The sen-tencer’s consideration of an invalid eligibility factor amounts to constitutional error in a non-weighing State in two situations. First, due process requires a defendant’s death sentence to be set aside if the reason for the invalidity of the eligibility factor is that it “authorizes a jury to draw adverse inferences from conduct that is constitutionally protected,” or that it “attache[s] the ‘aggravating’ label to factors that are constitutionally impermissible or totally irrelevant to the sentencing process, ... or to conduct that actually should militate in favor of a lesser penalty.” Zant, 462 U. S., at 885. Second, the death sentence must be set aside if the jury’s consideration of the invalidated eligibility factor allowed it to hear evidence that would not otherwise have been before it. See id., at 886; see also Tuggle v. Netherland, 516 U. S. 10, 13-14 (1995) (per curiam).
This weighing/non-weighing scheme is accurate as far as it goes, but it now seems to us needlessly complex and incapable of providing for the full range of possible variations. For example, the same problem that gave rise to our weighing-State jurisprudence would arise if it were a sentencing factor, and not an eligibility factor, that was later found to be invalid. The weighing process would just as clearly have been prima facie “skewed,” and skewed for the same basic reason: The sentencer might have given weight to a statutorily or constitutionally invalid aggravator. And the prima facie skewing could in appropriate cases be shown to be illusory for the same reason that separates weighing States from non-weighing States: One of the other aggravating factors, usually an omnibus factor but conceivably another one, made it entirely proper for the jury to consider as aggravating the facts and circumstances underlying the invalidated factor.
We think it will clarify the analysis, and simplify the sentence-invalidating factors we have hitherto applied to non-weighing States, see supra, at 218-219, if we are henceforth guided by the following rule: An invalidated sentencing factor (whether an eligibility factor or not) will render the sentence unconstitutional by reason of its adding an improper element to the aggravation scale in the weighing process unless one of the other sentencing factors enables the sentencer to give aggravating weight to the same facts and circumstances.
This test is not, as Justice Breyer describes it, “an inquiry based solely on the admissibility of the underlying evidence.” Post, at 241 (dissenting opinion). If the presence of the invalid sentencing factor allowed the sentencer to consider evidence that would not otherwise have been before it, due process would mandate reversal without regard to the rule we apply here. See supra, at 219; see also n. 6, supra. The issue we confront is the skewing that could result from the jury’s considering as aggravation properly admitted evidence that should not have weighed in favor of the death penalty. See, e. g., Stringer, 503 U. S., at 232 '(“[W]hen the sentencing body is told to weigh an invalid factor in its decision, a reviewing court may not assume it would have made no difference if the thumb had been removed from death’s side of the scale”). As we have explained, such skewing will occur, and give rise to constitutional error, only where the jury could not have given aggravating weight to the same facts and circumstances under the rubric of some other, , valid sentencing factor.
III
In California, a defendant convicted of first-degree murder is eligible for the death penalty if the jury finds one of the “special circumstances” listed in Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 190.2 (West Supp. 2005) to be true. These are the eligibility factors designed to satisfy Furman. See People v. Baciga- lupo, 6 Cal. 4th 457, 467-468, 862 R 2d 808, 813 (1993) (in bank). If the jury finds the existence of one of the special circumstances, it is instructed to “take into account” a separate list of sentencing factors describing aspects of the defendant and the crime. Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 190.3 (West 1999). These sentencing factors include, as we have said, “[t]he circumstances of the crime of which the defendant was convicted in the present proceeding.”
The Court of Appeals held that California is a weighing State because “ ‘the sentencer [is] restricted to a “weighing” of aggravation against mitigation’ and ‘the sentencer [is] prevented from considering evidence in aggravation other than discrete, statutorily-defined factors.’” 373 F. 3d, at 1061 (quoting Williams v. Calderon, 52 F. 3d 1465, 1478 (CA9 1995); brackets , in original). The last statement is inaccurate. The “circumstances of the crime” factor can hardly be called “discrete.” It has the effect of rendering all the specified factors nonexclusive, thus causing California to be (in our prior terminology) a non-weighing State. Contrary to Sanders’ contention, and Justice Stevens’ views in dissent, the mere fact that the sentencing factors included “the existence of any special circumstances [eligibility factors] found to be true,” Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 190.3(a), did not make California a weighing State. That fact was redundant for purposes of our weighing jurisprudence because it in no way narrowed the universe of aggravating facts the jury was entitled to consider in determining a sentence. But leaving aside the weighing/non-weighing dichotomy and proceeding to the more direct analysis set forth earlier in this opinion: All of the aggravating facts and circumstances that the invalidated factor permitted the jury to consider were also open to their proper consideration under one of the other factors. The erroneous factor could not have “skewed” the sentence, and no constitutional violation occurred.
More specifically, Sanders’ jury found four special circumstances to be true: that “[t]he murder was committed while the defendant was engaged in... Robbery,” § 190.2(a)(17)(A) (West Supp. 2005); that it was “committed while the defendant was engaged in . . . Burglary in the first or second degree,” § 190.2(a)(17)(G); that “[t]he victim [Allen] was a witness to a crime who was intentionally killed for the purpose of preventing... her testimony in any criminal... proceeding,” § 190.2(a)(10); and that “[t]he murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel,” § 190.2(a)(14). The California Supreme Court set aside the burglary-murder special circumstance under state merger law because the instructions permitted the jury to find a burglary (and thus the burglary-murder special circumstance) based on Sanders’ intent to commit assault, which is already an element of homicide, see People v. Wilson, 1 Cal. 3d 431, 439-440, 462 R 2d 22, 27-28 (1969) (in banc). 51 Cal. 3d, at 517, 797 R 2d, at 587. The court invalidated the “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” special circumstance because it had previously found that to be unconstitutionally vague. Id., at 520, 797 P. 2d, at 589 (citing People v. Superior Court, 31 Cal. 3d 797, 647 P. 2d 76 (1982) (in bank)).
As the California Supreme Court noted, however, “the jury properly considered two special circumstances [eligibility factors] (robbery-murder and witness-killing).” 51 Cal. 3d, at 520, 797 P. 2d, at 589-590. These are sufficient to satisfy Furman’s, narrowing requirement, and alone rendered Sanders eligible for the death penalty. Moreover, the jury’s consideration of the invalid eligibility factors in the weighing process did not produce constitutional error because all of the facts and circumstances admissible to establish the “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” and burglary-murder eligibility factors were also properly adduced as aggravating facts bearing upon the “circumstances of the crime” sentencing factor. They were properly considered whether or not they bore upon the invalidated eligibility factors. See 51 Cal. 3d, at 521, 797 P. 2d, at 590.
Sanders argues that the weighing process was skewed by the fact that the jury was asked to consider, as one of the sentencing factors, “the existence of any special circumstances [eligibility factors] found to be true.” Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 190.3(a) (West 1999). In Sanders’ view, that placed special emphasis upon those facts and circumstances relevant to the invalid eligibility factor. Virtually the same thing happened in Zant. There the Georgia jury was permitted to “ ‘conside[r] all evidence in extenuation, mitigation and aggravation of punishment,’” 462 U. S., at 871-872 (quoting Zant v. Stephens, 250 Ga. 97, 99-100, 297 S. E. 2d 1, 3-4 (1982)), but also instructed specifically that it could consider “ ‘any of [the] statutory aggravating circumstances which you find are supported by the evidence,’ ” 462 U. S., at 866. This instruction gave the facts underlying the eligibility factors special prominence. Yet, even though one of the three factors (that the defendant had a “substantial history of serious assaultive convictions,” id., at 867) was later invalidated, we upheld the sentence. We acknowledged that the erroneous instruction “might have caused the jury to give somewhat greater weight to respondent’s prior criminal record than it otherwise would have given,” id., at 888; indeed, we assumed such an effect, ibid. But the effect was “merely a consequence of the statutory label ‘aggravating circumstanc[e].’” We agreed with the Georgia Supreme Court that any such impact was “ ‘inconsequential,’ ” id., at 889, and held that it “cannot fairly be regarded as a constitutional defect in the sentencing process,” ibid. The same is true here.
* * *
Because the jury’s consideration of the invalid “special circumstances” gave rise to no constitutional violation, the Court of Appeals erred in ordering habeas relief. 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.
Because Sanders filed his habeas petition before April 24,1996, we do not apply the substantive review standards required by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, 110 Stat. 1214. See Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320, 327 (1997).
Our cases have frequently employed the terms “aggravating circumstance” or “aggravating factor” to refer to those statutory factors which determine death eligibility in satisfaction of Furman’s narrowing requirement. See, e. g., Tuilaepa v. California, 512 U. S., at 972. This terminology becomes confusing when, as in this case, a State employs the term “aggravating circumstance” to refer to factors that play a different role, determining which defendants eligible for the death penalty will actually receive that penalty. See Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 190.3 (West 1999). To avoid confusion, this opinion will use the term “eligibility factor” to describe a factor that performs the constitutional narrowing function.
Justice Breyer contends that harmless-error review applies in both weighing and non-weighing States. See post, at 235-239 (dissenting opinion). It would be strange indeed to discover at this late stage that our long-held distinction between the two sorts of States for purposes of reviewing invalid eligibility factors in fact made no difference. Cf., e. g., Stringer v. Black, 503 U. S. 222, 232 (1992) (weighing/non-weighing distinction is “of critical importance”). Not surprisingly, the Courts of Appeals have uniformly understood that different rules apply to weighing and non-weighing States, and that harmless-error review is necessary only in the former. See, e. g., Sanders v. Woodford, 373 F. 3d 1054, 1059-1060 (CA9 2004); Flamer v. Delaware, 68 F. 3d 736, 746-749 (CA3 1995); Williams v. Cain, 125 F. 3d 269, 281 (CA5 1997).
Our own cases, moreover, are flatly inconsistent with requiring harmless-error review in both types of States. As Justice Breyer notes, post, at 235, Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S. 862 (1983), did endorse the Georgia Supreme Court’s holding that attaching the statutory label “aggravating” to the invalid eligibility factor had an “inconsequential impact on the jury’s decision regarding the death penalty,” id., at 889 (internal quotation marks omitted). But the core holding is what we said next: “More importantly, . . . any possible impact cannot fairly be regarded as a constitutional defect in the sentencing process.” Ibid, (emphasis added); see also post, at 237-239. Zant must therefore be read not as holding that any constitutional error was harmless, but as rejecting respondent’s claim of constitutional error.
Neither Clemons v. Mississippi, 494 U. S. 738 (1990), nor Stringer says anything to the contrary. Justice Breyer points out that Clemons’ harmless-error discussion focused on the emphasis given to, the invalid factor, rather than on the fact that Mississippi is a weighing State, but that is hardly relevant: Our discussion of how harmless-error analysis should be conducted (the issue in the passage from Clemons that Justice Breyer cites, 494 U. S., at 753-754) says nothing about when that analysis should be conducted (the issue addressed by the weighing/non-weighing distinction). On the latter question, Clemons maintains the distinction envisioned in Zant, see 462 U. S., at 890-891, between Georgia (a non-weighing State) and Mississippi (a weighing State), see Clemons, supra, at 745. Likewise, Stringer specifically distinguishes between non-weighing States, in which “the fact that [the jury] also finds an.invalid aggravating factor does not infect the formal process of deciding whether death is an appropriate penalty,” 503 U. S., at 232, and weighing States, in which “constitutional harmless-error analysis or reweighing at the trial or appellate level” is required, ibid.
The fact that a sentencer’s consideration of an invalid eligibility factor in a non-weighing State may nonetheless amount to constitutional error explains Tuggle’s characterization of Zant as holding “that a death sentence supported by multiple aggravating circumstances need not always be set aside if one aggravator is found to be invalid,” 516 U. S., at 11 (emphasis added); cf. post, at 239 (Breyer, J., dissenting), as well as our related comment in Clemons that, “[i]n a [non-weighing] State like Georgia, . . . the invalidation of one aggravating circumstance does not necessarily require an appellate court to vacate a death sentence and remand to a jury,” 494 U. S., at 744-745 (emphasis added); cf. post, at 241 (Breyer, J., dissenting).
This very problem may have been present in Stringer v. Black, supra. There, although the Mississippi courts invalidated an aggravating circumstance — whether the murder was “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel,” Miss. Code Ann. § 99 — 19—101(5)(h) (1993 Cum. Supp.) — that was not one of the specified eligibility factors, see §97-3-19(2) (1994), we nonetheless treated Mississippi as a weighing State. Since, however, Mississippi law provided that the jury could not impose a death sentence unless it found the existence of at least one statutory aggravating factor, see §99-19-101(3)(b) (1993 Cum. Supp.), it could be argued thatfthe additional aggravating factors were converted into de facto eligibility factors.
There may be other distortions caused by the invalidated factor beyond the mere addition of an improper aggravating element. For example, what the jury was instructed to consider as an aggravating factor might have “actually ... militate[d] in favor of a lesser penalty,” Zant, supra, at 885. See supra, at 219.
This explains the footnote in Clemons v. Mississippi, supra, at 754, n. 5, on which Justice Breyer relies, see post, at 240. That footnote addressed petitioner’s argument that the Mississippi Supreme Court had arbitrarily refused to order jury resentencing, even though it had done so in an earlier case, Johnson v. State, 511 So. 2d 1333 (1987), rev’d, 486 U. S. 578 (1988), on remand, 547 So. 2d 59 (1989) (en banc). We distinguished the two cases, noting that in Johnson, “the jury was permitted to consider inadmissible evidence in determining the defendant’s sentence,” 494 U. S., at 754-755, n. 5, whereas in Clemons, “there is no serious suggestion that the State’s reliance on the [invalid] factor led to the introduction of any evidence that was not otherwise admissible in either the guilt or sentencing phases of the proceeding,” id., at 755, n. 5. The crux of this distinction is that the sentencer’s consideration of improper evidence is an error distinct from the one at issue here and in Clemons, to wit, the jury’s weighing in favor of death a factor that should not have been part of its calculus.
Justice Stevens argues that § 190.3(a) may have affected the jury’s deliberations in other ways, but we rejected each of these theories in Zant v. Stephens, 462 U. S. 862 (1983). The possibility that the jury would “counft] the nature of the crime twice,” post, at 226 (Stevens, J., dissenting), if it were instructed to consider both the facts of the crime and the eligibility circumstances was present in Zant. The jury there was told it could take into account all relevant circumstances, but also — much like the jury here — was instructed to consider “ ‘any of [the] statutory aggravating circumstances [1 e., eligibility factors] which you find are supported by the evidence.’” 462 U. S., at 866. Likewise, the jury in Zant might have “give[n] greater weight,” post, at 226 (Stevens, J., dissenting), to the facts underlying the eligibility circumstances, but we explicitly held that any such effect “cannot fairly be regarded as a constitutional defect in the sentencing process,” 462 U. S., at 889. See infra, at 224-225.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 petitioner was convicted by a Louisiana jury of possession of narcotics and was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 years. The Supreme Court of Louisiana set aside the conviction on the ground that it was based upon evidence seized without a warrant during an illegal search. 246 La. 1033, 169 So. 2d 89. Upon rehearing, however, that court affirmed the conviction by a divided vote. 246 La. 1053, 169 So. 2d 97. We grant the motion to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for certiorari and reverse the judgment.
Police officers arrested the petitioner near the intersection of Camp Street and Jackson Avenue in the City of New Orleans, after he had alighted from an automobile driven by another man. The officers then drove the petitioner to his home, more than two blocks away. They broke open the door and for several hours conducted an intensive search which finally yielded the narcotics equipment and single morphine tablet that constituted the basis of the petitioner’s subsequent conviction.
The Supreme Court of Louisiana found that the officers had probable cause to arrest the petitioner at the time they apprehended him, and the validity of his arrest is not here in issue. In the circumstances of this case, however, the subsequent search of the petitioner’s home cannot be regarded as incident to his arrest on a street corner more than two blocks away. A search “can be incident to an arrest only if it is substantially contemporaneous with the arrest and is confined to the immediate vicinity of the arrest.” Stoner v. California, 376 U. S. 483, 486. See also Preston v. United States, 376 U. S. 364.
Under the doctrine of Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, see also Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23, it was constitutional error to admit the fruits of this illegal search into evidence at the petitioner’s trial. Accordingly, the petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of Louisiana 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.
Justice SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner Edward McDonough alleges that respondent Youel Smith fabricated evidence and used it to pursue criminal charges against him. McDonough was acquitted, then sued Smith under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The courts below, concluding that the limitations period for McDonough's fabricated-evidence claim began to run when the evidence was used against him, determined that the claim was untimely. We hold that the limitations period did not begin to run until McDonough's acquittal, and therefore reverse.
I
This case arises out of an investigation into forged absentee ballots that were submitted in a primary election in Troy, New York, in 2009. McDonough, who processed the ballots in his capacity as a commissioner of the county board of elections, maintains that he was unaware that they had been forged. Smith was specially appointed to investigate and to prosecute the matter.
McDonough's complaint alleges that Smith then set about scapegoating McDonough (against whose family Smith harbored a political grudge), despite evidence that McDonough was innocent. Smith leaked to the press that McDonough was his primary target and pressured him to confess. When McDonough would not, Smith allegedly fabricated evidence in order to inculpate him. Specifically, McDonough alleges that Smith falsified affidavits, coached witnesses to lie, and orchestrated a suspect DNA analysis to link McDonough to relevant ballot envelopes.
Relying in part on this allegedly fabricated evidence, Smith secured a grand jury indictment against McDonough. McDonough was arrested, arraigned, and released (with restrictions on his travel) pending trial. Smith brought the case to trial a year later, in January 2012. He again presented the allegedly fabricated testimony during this trial, which lasted more than a month and ended in a mistrial. Smith then reprosecuted McDonough. The second trial also lasted over a month, and again, Smith elicited allegedly fabricated testimony. The second trial ended with McDonough's acquittal on all charges on December 21, 2012.
On December 18, 2015, just under three years after his acquittal, McDonough sued Smith and other defendants under § 1983 in the U. S. District Court for the Northern District of New York. Against Smith, McDonough asserted two different constitutional claims: one for fabrication of evidence, and one for malicious prosecution without probable cause. The District Court dismissed the malicious prosecution claim as barred by prosecutorial immunity, though timely. It dismissed the fabricated-evidence claim, however, as untimely.
McDonough appealed to the U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which affirmed. 898 F.3d 259 (2018). The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court's disposition of the malicious prosecution claim. As for the timeliness of the fabricated-evidence claim, because all agreed that the relevant limitations period is three years, id., at 265, the question was when that limitations period began to run: upon McDonough's acquittal, or at some point earlier. In essence, given the dates at issue, McDonough's claim was timely only if the limitations period began running at acquittal.
The Court of Appeals held that McDonough's fabricated-evidence claim accrued, and thus the limitations period began to run, "when (1) McDonough learned that the evidence was false and was used against him during the criminal proceedings; and (2) he suffered a loss of liberty as a result of that evidence." Ibid. This rule, in the Second Circuit's view, followed from its conclusion that a plaintiff has a complete fabricated-evidence claim as soon as he can show that the defendant's knowing use of the fabricated evidence caused him some deprivation of liberty. Id., at 266. Those events undisputedly had occurred by the time McDonough was arrested and stood trial. Ibid.
As the Second Circuit acknowledged, id., at 267, other Courts of Appeals have held that the statute of limitations for a fabricated-evidence claim does not begin to run until favorable termination of the challenged criminal proceedings. We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict, 586 U. S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 915, 202 L.Ed.2d 641 (2019), and now reverse.
II
The statute of limitations for a fabricated-evidence claim like McDonough's does not begin to run until the criminal proceedings against the defendant (i.e., the § 1983 plaintiff) have terminated in his favor. This conclusion follows both from the rule for the most natural common-law analogy (the tort of malicious prosecution) and from the practical considerations that have previously led this Court to defer accrual of claims that would otherwise constitute an untenable collateral attack on a criminal judgment.
A
The question here is when the statute of limitations began to run. Although courts look to state law for the length of the limitations period, the time at which a § 1983 claim accrues "is a question of federal law," "conforming in general to common-law tort principles." Wallace v. Kato, 549 U.S. 384, 388, 127 S.Ct. 1091, 166 L.Ed.2d 973 (2007). That time is presumptively "when the plaintiff has 'a complete and present cause of action,' " ibid., though the answer is not always so simple. See, e.g., id., at 388-391, and n. 3, 127 S.Ct. 1091 ; Dodd v. United States, 545 U.S. 353, 360, 125 S.Ct. 2478, 162 L.Ed.2d 343 (2005). Where, for example, a particular claim may not realistically be brought while a violation is ongoing, such a claim may accrue at a later date. See Wallace, 549 U.S. at 389, 127 S.Ct. 1091.
An accrual analysis begins with identifying " 'the specific constitutional right' " alleged to have been infringed. Manuel v. Joliet, 580 U. S. ----, ----, 137 S.Ct. 911, 920, 197 L.Ed.2d 312 (2017) (quoting Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271, 114 S.Ct. 807, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994) (plurality opinion)). Though McDonough's complaint does not ground his fabricated-evidence claim in a particular constitutional provision, the Second Circuit treated his claim as arising under the Due Process Clause. 898 F.3d at 266. McDonough's claim, this theory goes, seeks to vindicate a " 'right not to be deprived of liberty as a result of the fabrication of evidence by a government officer.' " Ibid. (quoting Zahrey v. Coffey, 221 F.3d 342, 349 (CA2 2000) ); see also, e.g., Napue v. Illinois, 360 U.S. 264, 269, 79 S.Ct. 1173, 3 L.Ed.2d 1217 (1959). We assume without deciding that the Second Circuit's articulations of the right at issue and its contours are sound, having not granted certiorari to resolve those separate questions. See Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 480, n. 2, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (accepting the lower courts' characterization of the relevant claims).
B
As noted above, this Court often decides accrual questions by referring to the common-law principles governing analogous torts. See Wallace, 549 U.S. at 388, 127 S.Ct. 1091 ; Heck, 512 U.S. at 483, 114 S.Ct. 2364. These "principles are meant to guide rather than to control the definition of § 1983 claims," such that the common law serves "'more as a source of inspired examples than of prefabricated components.' " Manuel, 580 U. S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 920.
Relying on our decision in Heck, McDonough analogizes his fabricated-evidence claim to the common-law tort of malicious prosecution, a type of claim that accrues only once the underlying criminal proceedings have resolved in the plaintiff's favor. 512 U.S. at 484, 114 S.Ct. 2364 ; Prosser & Keeton § 119, at 871, 874-875; Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 653, 658 (1976) ; 3 D. Dobbs, P. Hayden, & E. Bublick, Law of Torts §§ 586, 590, pp. 388-389, 402-404 (2d ed. 2011) (Dobbs). McDonough is correct that malicious prosecution is the most analogous common-law tort here.
Common-law malicious prosecution requires showing, in part, that a defendant instigated a criminal proceeding with improper purpose and without probable cause. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 653 ; see also Dobbs § 586, at 388-389; Prosser & Keeton § 119, at 871. The essentials of McDonough's claim are similar: His claim requires him to show that the criminal proceedings against him-and consequent deprivations of his liberty -were caused by Smith's malfeasance in fabricating evidence. At bottom, both claims challenge the integrity of criminal prosecutions undertaken "pursuant to legal process." See Heck, 512 U.S. at 484, 114 S.Ct. 2364.
We follow the analogy where it leads: McDonough could not bring his fabricated-evidence claim under § 1983 prior to favorable termination of his prosecution. As Heck explains, malicious prosecution's favorable-termination requirement is rooted in pragmatic concerns with avoiding parallel criminal and civil litigation over the same subject matter and the related possibility of conflicting civil and criminal judgments. See id., at 484-485, 114 S.Ct. 2364 ; see also Prosser & Keeton § 119, at 874; Dobbs § 589, at 402. The requirement likewise avoids allowing collateral attacks on criminal judgments through civil litigation. Heck, 512 U.S. at 484, 114 S.Ct. 2364. These concerns track "similar concerns for finality and consistency" that have motivated this Court to refrain from multiplying avenues for collateral attack on criminal judgments through civil tort vehicles such as § 1983. Id., at 485, 114 S.Ct. 2364 ; see also Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 490, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973) (noting the "strong policy requiring exhaustion of state remedies" in order "to avoid the unnecessary friction between the federal and state court systems"); Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37, 43, 91 S.Ct. 746, 27 L.Ed.2d 669 (1971) ("Since the beginning of this country's history Congress has, subject to few exceptions, manifested a desire to permit state courts to try state cases free from interference by federal courts"). Because a civil claim such as McDonough's, asserting that fabricated evidence was used to pursue a criminal judgment, implicates the same concerns, it makes sense to adopt the same rule.
Heck confirms the strength of this analogy. In Heck, a prisoner serving a 15-year sentence for manslaughter sought damages under § 1983 against state prosecutors and an investigator for alleged misconduct similar to that alleged here, including knowingly destroying exculpatory evidence and causing an illegal voice identification procedure to be employed at the prisoner's trial. 512 U.S. at 478-479, 114 S.Ct. 2364. The Court took as a given the lower courts' conclusion that those claims all effectively "challeng[ed] the legality of" the plaintiff's conviction. Id., at 480, n. 2, 114 S.Ct. 2364. Looking first to the common law, the Court observed that malicious prosecution "provide[d] the closest analogy to" such claims because, unlike other potentially analogous common-law claims, malicious prosecution "permits damages for confinement imposed pursuant to legal process." Id., at 484, 114 S.Ct. 2364.
Emphasizing the concerns with parallel litigation and conflicting judgments just discussed, see id., at 484-486, 114 S.Ct. 2364, the Court in Heck held that "in order to recover damages for allegedly unconstitutional conviction or imprisonment, or for other harm caused by actions whose unlawfulness would render a conviction or sentence invalid," a plaintiff in a § 1983 action first had to prove that his conviction had been invalidated in some way, id., at 486, 114 S.Ct. 2364. This favorable-termination requirement, the Court explained, applies whenever "a judgment in favor of the plaintiff would necessarily imply" that his prior conviction or sentence was invalid. Id., at 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364.
This case differs from Heck because the plaintiff in Heck had been convicted, while McDonough was acquitted. Although some claims do fall outside Heck's ambit when a conviction is merely "anticipated," Wallace, 549 U.S. at 393, 127 S.Ct. 1091, however, McDonough's claims are not of that kind, see infra, at 2159 - 2160. As articulated by the Court of Appeals, his claims challenge the validity of the criminal proceedings against him in essentially the same manner as the plaintiff in Heck challenged the validity of his conviction. And the pragmatic considerations discussed in Heck apply generally to civil suits within the domain of habeas corpus, not only to those that challenge convictions. See Preiser, 411 U.S. at 490-491, 93 S.Ct. 1827. The principles and reasoning of Heck thus point toward a corollary result here: There is not " 'a complete and present cause of action,' " Wallace, 549 U.S. at 388, 127 S.Ct. 1091, to bring a fabricated-evidence challenge to criminal proceedings while those criminal proceedings are ongoing. Only once the criminal proceeding has ended in the defendant's favor, or a resulting conviction has been invalidated within the meaning of Heck, see 512 U.S. at 486-487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, will the statute of limitations begin to run.
C
The soundness of this conclusion is reinforced by the consequences that would follow from the Second Circuit's approach, which would impose a ticking limitations clock on criminal defendants as soon as they become aware that fabricated evidence has been used against them. Such a rule would create practical problems in jurisdictions where prosecutions regularly last nearly as long as-or even longer than-the relevant civil limitations period. See Brief for Petitioner 53-55; Brief for Criminal Defense Organizations et al. as Amici Curiae 23-24. A significant number of criminal defendants could face an untenable choice between (1) letting their claims expire and (2) filing a civil suit against the very person who is in the midst of prosecuting them. The first option is obviously undesirable, but from a criminal defendant's perspective the latter course, too, is fraught with peril: He risks tipping his hand as to his defense strategy, undermining his privilege against self-incrimination, and taking on discovery obligations not required in the criminal context. See SEC v. Dresser Industries, Inc., 628 F.2d 1368, 1376 (CADC 1980) (en banc). Moreover, as noted above, the parallel civil litigation that would result if plaintiffs chose the second option would run counter to core principles of federalism, comity, consistency, and judicial economy. See supra, at 2156 - 2157.
Smith suggests that stays and ad hoc abstention are sufficient to avoid the problems of two-track litigation. Such workarounds are indeed available when claims falling outside Heck's scope nevertheless are initiated while a state criminal proceeding is pending, see Wallace, 549 U.S. at 393-394, 127 S.Ct. 1091 (noting the power of district courts to stay civil actions while criminal prosecutions proceed); Heck, 512 U.S. at 487-488, n. 8, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (noting possibility of abstention), but Smith's solution is poorly suited to the type of claim at issue here. When, as here, a plaintiff's claim "necessarily" questions the validity of a state proceeding, id., at 487, 114 S.Ct. 2364, there is no reason to put the onus to safeguard comity on district courts exercising case-by-case discretion-particularly at the foreseeable expense of potentially prejudicing litigants and cluttering dockets with dormant, unripe cases. Cf. Panetti v. Quarterman, 551 U.S. 930, 943, 127 S.Ct. 2842, 168 L.Ed.2d 662 (2007) (noting that a scheme requiring "conscientious defense attorneys" to file unripe suits "would add to the burden imposed on courts, applicants, and the States, with no clear advantage to any"). The accrual rule we adopt today, by contrast, respects the autonomy of state courts and avoids these costs to litigants and federal courts.
In deferring rather than inviting such suits, we adhere to familiar principles. The proper approach in our federal system generally is for a criminal defendant who believes that the criminal proceedings against him rest on knowingly fabricated evidence to defend himself at trial and, if necessary, then to attack any resulting conviction through collateral review proceedings. McDonough therefore had a complete and present cause of action for the loss of his liberty only once the criminal proceedings against him terminated in his favor.
III
Smith's counterarguments do not sway the result.
First, Smith argues that Heck is irrelevant to McDonough's claim, relying on this Court's opinion in Wallace. Wallace held that the limitations period begins to run on a § 1983 claim alleging an unlawful arrest under the Fourth Amendment as soon as the arrestee "becomes detained pursuant to legal process," not when he is ultimately released. 549 U.S. at 397, 127 S.Ct. 1091. The Court rejected the plaintiff's reliance on Heck, stating that the Heck rule comes "into play only when there exists 'a conviction or sentence that has not been... invalidated,' that is to say, an 'outstanding criminal judgment.' " Wallace, 549 U.S. at 393, 127 S.Ct. 1091. The Court thus declined to adopt the plaintiff's theory "that an action which would impugn an anticipated future conviction cannot be brought until that conviction occurs and is set aside," because doing so in the context of an action for false arrest would require courts and litigants "to speculate about whether a prosecution will be brought, whether it will result in conviction, and whether the pending civil action will impugn that verdict-all this at a time when it can hardly be known what evidence the prosecution has in its possession." Ibid. (citations omitted).
Smith is correct that Heck concerned a plaintiff serving a sentence for a still-valid conviction and that Wallace distinguished Heck on that basis, but Wallace did not displace the principles in Heck that resolve this case. A false-arrest claim, Wallace explained, has a life independent of an ongoing trial or putative future conviction-it attacks the arrest only to the extent it was without legal process, even if legal process later commences. See 549 U.S. at 389-390, 393, 127 S.Ct. 1091. That feature made the claim analogous to common-law false imprisonment. Id., at 389, 127 S.Ct. 1091. By contrast, a claim like McDonough's centers on evidence used to secure an indictment and at a criminal trial, so it does not require "speculat[ion] about whether a prosecution will be brought." Id., at 393, 127 S.Ct. 1091. It directly challenges-and thus necessarily threatens to impugn-the prosecution itself. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-487, 114 S.Ct. 2364.
Second, Smith notes (1) that a fabricated-evidence claim in the Second Circuit (unlike a malicious prosecution claim) can exist even if there is probable cause and (2) that McDonough was acquitted. In other words, McDonough theoretically could have been prosecuted without the fabricated evidence, and he was not convicted even with it. Because a violation thus could exist no matter its effect on the outcome, Smith reasons, "the date on which that outcome occurred is irrelevant." Brief for Respondent 26.
Smith is correct in one sense. One could imagine a fabricated-evidence claim that does not allege that the violation's consequence was a liberty deprivation occasioned by the criminal proceedings themselves. See n. 2, supra. To be sure, the argument for adopting a favorable-termination requirement would be weaker in that context. That is not, however, the nature of McDonough's claim.
As already explained, McDonough's claim remains most analogous to a claim of common-law malicious prosecution, even if the two are not identical. See supra, at 2156 - 2157. Heck explains why favorable termination is both relevant and required for a claim analogous to malicious prosecution that would impugn a conviction, and that rationale extends to an ongoing prosecution as well: The alternative would impermissibly risk parallel litigation and conflicting judgments. See supra, at 2156 - 2157. If the date of the favorable termination was relevant in Heck, it is relevant here.
It does not change the result, meanwhile, that McDonough suffered harm prior to his acquittal. The Court has never suggested that the date on which a constitutional injury first occurs is the only date from which a limitations period may run. Cf. Wallace, 549 U.S. at 389-391, and n. 3, 127 S.Ct. 1091 (explaining that the statute of limitations for false-arrest claims does not begin running when the initial arrest takes place). To the contrary, the injury caused by a classic malicious prosecution likewise first occurs as soon as legal process is brought to bear on a defendant, yet favorable termination remains the accrual date. See Heck, 512 U.S. at 484, 114 S.Ct. 2364.
Third and finally, Smith argues that the advantages of his rule outweigh its disadvantages as a matter of policy. In his view, the Second Circuit's approach would provide more predictable guidance, while the favorable-termination approach fosters perverse incentives for prosecutors (who may become reluctant to offer favorable resolutions) and risks foreclosing meritorious claims (for example, where an outcome is not clearly "favorable"). These arguments are unconvincing. We agree that clear accrual rules are valuable but fail to see how assessing when proceedings terminated favorably will be, on balance, more burdensome than assessing when a criminal defendant "learned that the evidence was false and was used against him" and deprived him of liberty as a result. 898 F.3d at 265. And while the risk of foreclosing certain claims and the potential incentive effects that Smith identifies could be valid considerations in other contexts, they do not overcome the greater danger that plaintiffs will be deterred under Smith's theory from suing for redress of egregious misconduct, see supra, at 2158-nor do they override the guidance of the common law and precedent.
IV
The statute of limitations for McDonough's § 1983 claim alleging that he was prosecuted using fabricated evidence began to run when the criminal proceedings against him terminated in his favor-that is, when he was acquitted at the end of his second trial. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice THOMAS, with whom Justice KAGAN and Justice GORSUCH join, dissenting.
We granted certiorari to decide when "the statute of limitations for a Section 1983 claim based on fabrication of evidence in criminal proceedings begins to run." Pet. for Cert. i. McDonough, however, declined to take a definitive position on the "threshold inquiry in a [ 42 U.S.C.] § 1983 suit": " 'identify[ing] the specific constitutional right' at issue." Manuel v. Joliet, 580 U. S. ----, ----, 137 S.Ct. 911, 920, 197 L.Ed.2d 312 (2017) (quoting Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 271, 114 S.Ct. 807, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994) (plurality opinion)). Because it is only "[a]fter pinpointing that right" that courts can proceed to "determine the elements of, and rules associated with, an action seeking damages for its violation," Manuel, 580 U. S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 920, we should have dismissed this case as improvidently granted.
McDonough's failure to specify which constitutional right the respondent allegedly violated profoundly complicates our inquiry. McDonough argues that malicious prosecution is the common-law tort most analogous to his fabrication-of-evidence claim. But without " 'identify[ing] the specific constitutional right' at issue," we cannot adhere to the contours of that right when "applying, selecting among, or adjusting common-law approaches." Ibid. McDonough also contends that his suit is timely because he suffered a continuing constitutional violation, but this argument is similarly difficult to evaluate without identifying precisely what that violation was. Moreover, because the constitutional basis for McDonough's claim is unclear, we are unable to confirm that he has a constitutional claim at all. In my view, it would be both logical and prudent to address that antecedent question before addressing the statute of limitations for that claim.
McDonough also urges us to resolve the question presented by extending Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973), and Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 114 S.Ct. 2364, 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994). But the analysis under both cases depends on what facts a § 1983 plaintiff would need to prove to prevail on his claim. And McDonough declines to take a position on that issue as well. See Brief for Petitioner 19 ("The Court thus does not need to delve into what the elements of McDonough's constitutional claim are"); see also id., at 37-38, n. 11.
Further complicating this case, McDonough raised a malicious-prosecution claim alongside his fabrication-of-evidence claim. The District Court dismissed that claim on grounds of absolute immunity. McDonough has not fully explained the difference between that claim and his fabrication claim, which he insists is both analogous to the common-law tort of malicious prosecution and distinct from his dismissed malicious-prosecution claim. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 11-12; Reply Brief 3-4. Additionally, it appears that McDonough's fabrication claim could face dismissal on absolute-immunity grounds on remand. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 29-32.
The Court, while recognizing that it is critical to ascertain the basis for a § 1983 claim when deciding how to "handl[e]" it, ante, at 2155, n. 2, attempts to evade these issues by "assum[ing] without deciding that the Second Circuit's articulations of the right at issue and its contours are sound." Ante, at 2155. But because the parties have not accepted the Second Circuit's view that the claim sounds in procedural due process, that claim as "articulated by the Court of Appeals" might be different from the claim McDonough actually brought. Ante, at 2157 - 2158. The better course would be to dismiss this case as improvidently granted and await a case in which the threshold question of the basis of a "fabrication-of-evidence" claim is cleanly presented. Moreover, even if the Second Circuit were correct that McDonough asserts a violation of the Due Process Clause, it would be preferable for the Court to determine the claim's elements before deciding its statute of limitations.
* * *
McDonough asks the Court to bypass the antecedent question of the nature and elements of his claim and first determine its statute of limitations. We should have declined the invitation and dismissed the writ of certiorari as improvidently granted. I therefore respectfully dissent.
See Floyd v. Attorney General of Pa., 722 Fed.Appx. 112, 114 (CA3 2018) ; Mills v. Barnard, 869 F.3d 473, 484 (CA6 2017) ; Bradford v. Scherschligt, 803 F.3d 382, 388 (CA9 2015) ; Castellano v. Fragozo, 352 F.3d 939, 959-960 (CA5 2003) (en banc).
In accepting the Court of Appeals' treatment of McDonough's claim as one sounding in denial of due process, we express no view as to what other constitutional provisions (if any) might provide safeguards against the creation or use of fabricated evidence enforceable through a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. See Soldal v. Cook County, 506 U.S. 56, 70, 113 S.Ct. 538, 121 L.Ed.2d 450 (1992) ("Certain wrongs affect more than a single right and, accordingly, can implicate more than one of the Constitution's commands"). Moreover, because the Second Circuit understood McDonough's due process claim to allege a deprivation of liberty, we have no occasion to consider the proper handling of a fabricated-evidence claim founded on an allegation that the use of fabricated evidence was so egregious as to shock the conscience, see, e.g., County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 849, 118 S.Ct. 1708, 140 L.Ed.2d 1043 (1998), or caused harms exclusively to "interests other than the interest in freedom from physical restraint," Albright v. Oliver, 510 U.S. 266, 283, 114 S.Ct. 807, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment); see also, e.g., W. Keeton, D. Dobbs, R. Keeton, & D. Owen, Prosser and Keeton on Law of Torts § 119, p. 870 (5th ed. 1984) (Prosser & Keeton) ("[O]ne who is wrongfully prosecuted may suffer both in reputation and by confinement"). Accordingly, we do not address what the accrual rule would be for a claim rooted in other types of harm independent of a liberty deprivation, as no such claim is before us. See 898 F.3d 259, 266 (CA2 2018).
The Second Circuit borrowed the common-law elements of malicious prosecution to govern McDonough's distinct constitutional malicious prosecution claim, which is not before us. See 898 F.3d at 268, n. 10. This Court has not defined the elements of such a § 1983 claim, see Manuel v. Joliet, 580 U. S. ----, ---- - ----, 137 S.Ct. 911, 921-922, 197 L.Ed.2d 312 (2017), and this case provides no occasion to opine on what the elements of a constitutional malicious prosecution action under § 1983 are or how they may or may not differ from those of a fabricated-evidence claim. Similarly, while noting that only McDonough's malicious prosecution claim was barred on absolute-immunity grounds below, we make no statement on whether or how the doctrine of absolute immunity would apply to McDonough's fabricated-evidence claim. Any further consideration of that question is properly addressed by the Second Circuit on remand, subject to ordinary principles of waiver and forfeiture.
Though McDonough was not incarcerated pending trial, he was subject to restrictions on his ability to travel and other "'restraints not shared by the public generally,' " Justices of Boston Municipal Court v. Lydon, 466 U.S. 294, 301, 104 S.Ct. 1805, 80 L.Ed.2d 311 (1984), and as the case comes to this Court, it is undisputed that McDonough has pleaded a liberty deprivation. See 898 F.3d at 266.
Smith urges the Court to steer away from the comparison to malicious prosecution, noting that the Second Circuit treats malicious prosecution claims and fabricated-evidence claims as distinct. See id., at 268, and n. 12. But two constitutional claims may differ yet still both resemble malicious prosecution more than any other common-law tort; comparing constitutional and common-law torts is not a one-to-one matching exercise. See, e.g., Heck, 512 U.S. at 479, 484, 114 S.Ct. 2364 (analogizing malicious prosecution to several distinct claims). Tellingly, Smith has not suggested an alternative common-law analogy. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 44-46.
Such considerations are why Congress has determined that a petition for writ of habeas corpus, not a § 1983 action, "is the appropriate remedy for state prisoners attacking the validity of the fact or length of their confinement," Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 490, 93 S.Ct. 1827, 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973), including confinement pending trial before any conviction has occurred, see id., at 491, 93 S.Ct. 1827 (citing Braden v. 30th Judicial Circuit Court of Ky., 410 U.S. 484, 93 S.Ct. 1123, 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973) ).
Because McDonough was not free to sue prior to his acquittal, we need not reach his alternative argument that his claim was timely because it alleged a continuing violation.
Heck itself suggested that a similar rule might allow at least some Fourth Amendment unlawful-search claims to proceed without a favorable termination. See 512 U.S. at 487, n. 7, 114 S.Ct. 2364.
As for Smith's suggestion that the fabricated evidence could not have caused any liberty deprivation where, as here, there could have been probable cause and there was in fact an acquittal, it suffices to reiterate that we assume the contours of the claim as defined by the Second Circuit, see supra, at 2155 - 2156, 2156 - 2157, and nn. 2, 4, and thus accept its undisputed conclusion that there was a sufficient liberty deprivation here, see 898 F.3d at 266 ; see also Garnett v. Undercover Officer C0039, 838 F.3d 265, 277 (CA2 2016) (explaining that "a further deprivation of liberty can result from the fabrication of evidence even if the initial arrest is lawful").
Because McDonough's acquittal was unquestionably a favorable termination, we have no occasion to address the broader range of ways a criminal prosecution (as opposed to a conviction) might end favorably to the accused. Cf. Heck, 512 U.S. at 486-487, 114 S.Ct. 2364. To the extent Smith argues that the law in this area should take account of prosecutors' broad discretion over such matters as the terms on which pleas will be offered or whether charges will be dropped, those arguments more properly bear
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | B | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to decide whether a federal court may apply a “heightened pleading standard” — more stringent than the usual pleading requirements of Rule 8(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — in civil rights cases alleging municipal liability under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983. We hold it may not.
We review here a decision granting a motion to dismiss, and therefore must accept as true all the factual allegations in the complaint. See United States v. Gaubert, 499 U. S. 315, 327 (1991). This action arose out of two separate incidents involving the execution of search warrants by local law enforcement officers-.. Each involved the forcible entry into a home based on the detection of odors associated with the manufacture of narcotics. One homeowner claimed that he was assaulted by the officers after they had entered; another claimed that the police had entered her home in her absence and killed her two dogs. Plaintiffs sued several local officials in their official capacity and the county and two municipal corporations that employed the police officers involved in the incidents, asserting that the police conduct had violated the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. The stated basis for municipal liability under Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U. S. 658 (1978), was the failure of these bodies to adequately train the police officers involved. See Canton v. Harris, 489 U. S. 378 (1989).
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Texas ordered the complaints dismissed because they failed to meet the “heightened pleading standard” required by the decisional law of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit. 755 F. Supp. 726 (1991). The Fifth Circuit, in turn, affirmed the judgment of dismissal, 954 F. 2d 1054 (1992), and we granted certiorari, 505 U. S. 1203 (1992), to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals concerning the applicability of a heightened pleading standard to § 1983 actions alleging municipal liability. Cf., e. g., Karim-Panahi v. Los Angeles Police Dept. 839 F. 2d 621, 624 (CA9 1988) (“[A] claim of municipal liability under section 1983 is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss even if the claim is based on nothing more than a bare allegation that the individual officers’ conduct conformed to official policy, custom, or practice”) (internal quotation marks omitted). We now reverse.
Respondents seek to defend the Fifth Circuit’s application of a more rigorous pleading standard on two grounds. First, respondents claim that municipalities’ freedom from respondeat superior liability, see Monell, supra, necessarily includes immunity from suit. In this sense, respondents assert, municipalities are no different from state or local officials sued in their individual capacity. Respondents reason that a more relaxed pleading requirement would subject municipalities to expensive and time-consuming discovery in every § 1983 case, eviscerating their immunity from suit and disrupting municipal functions.
This argument wrongly equates freedom from liability with immunity from suit. To be sure, we reaffirmed in Monell that “a municipality cannot be held liable under § 1983 on a respondeat superior theory.” 436 U. S., at 691. But, contrary to respondents’ assertions, this protection against liability does not encompass immunity from suit. Indeed, this argument is flatly contradicted by Monell and our later decisions involving municipal liability under § 1983. In Monell, we overruled Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167 (1961), insofar as it held that local governments were wholly immune from suit under § 1983, though we did reserve decision on whether municipalities are entitled to some form of limited immunity. 436 U. S., at 701. Yet, when we took that issue up again in Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 622, 650 (1980), we rejected a claim that municipalities should be afforded qualified immunity, much like that afforded individual officials, based on the good faith of their agents. These decisions make it quite clear that, unlike various government officials, municipalities do not enjoy immunity from suit — either absolute or qualified — under §1983. In short, a municipality can be sued under § 1983, but it cannot be held liable unless a municipal policy or custom caused the constitutional injury. We thus have no occasion to consider whether our qualified immunity jurisprudence would require a heightened pleading in cases involving individual government officials.
Second, respondents contend that the Fifth Circuit’s heightened pleading standard is not really that at all. See Brief for Respondents Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence and Coordination Unit et al. 9-10 (“[T]he Fifth Circuit’s so-called ‘heightened’ pleading requirement is a misnomer”). According to respondents, the degree of factual specificity required of a complaint by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure varies according to the complexity of the underlying substantive law. To establish municipal liability under §1983, respondents argue, a plaintiff must do more than plead a single instance of misconduct. This requirement, respondents insist, is consistent with a plaintiff’s Rule 11 obligation to make a reasonable prefiling inquiry into the facts.
But examination of the Fifth Circuit’s decision in this case makes it quite evident that the “heightened pleading standard” is just what it purports to be: a more demanding rule for pleading a complaint under § 1983 than for pleading other kinds of claims for relief. See 954 F. 2d, at 1057-1058. This rule was adopted by the Fifth Circuit in Elliott v. Perez, 751 F. 2d 1472 (1985), and described in this language:
“In cases against governmental officials involving the likely defense of immunity we require of trial judges that they demand that the plaintiff’s complaints state with factual detail and particularity the basis for the claim which necessarily includes why the defendant-official cannot successfully maintain the defense of immunity.” Id., at 1473.
In later cases, the Fifth Circuit extended this rule to complaints against municipal corporations asserting liability under § 1983. See, e. g., Palmer v. San Antonio, 810 F. 2d 514 (1987).
We think that it is impossible to square the “heightened pleading standard” applied by the Fifth Circuit in this case with the liberal system of “notice pleading” set up by the Federal Rules. Rule 8(a)(2) requires that a complaint include only “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” In Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41 (1957), we said in effect that the Rule meant what it said:
“[T]he Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not require a claimant to set out in detail the facts upon which he bases his claim. To the contrary, all the Rules require is ‘a short and plain statement of the claim’ that will give the defendant fair notice of what the plaintiff’s claim is and the grounds upon which it rests.” Id., at 47 (footnote omitted).
Rule 9(b) does impose a particularity requirement in two specific instances. It provides that “[i]n all averments of fraud or mistake, the circumstances constituting fraud or mistake shall be stated with particularity.” Thus, the Federal Rules do address in Rule 9(b) the question of the need for greater particularity in pleading certain actions, but do not include among the enumerated actions any reference to complaints alleging municipal liability under §1983. Expressio unius est exclusio alterius.
The phenomenon of litigation against municipal corporations based on claimed constitutional violations by their employees dates from our decision in Monell, supra, where we for the first time construed § 1983 to allow such municipal liability. Perhaps if Rules 8 and 9 were rewritten today, claims against municipalities under § 1983 might be subjected to the added specificity requirement of Rule 9(b). But that is a result which must be obtained by the process of amending the Federal Rules, and not by judicial interpretation. In the absence of such an amendment, federal courts and litigants must rely on summary judgment and control of discovery to weed out unmeritorious claims sooner rather than later.
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.
Respondents also argue that certain claims are barred by collateral estoppel. According to respondents, petitioners brought an unsuccessful civil rights action against two of the police officers who allegedly were involved in one of the incidents. Petitioners respond that the adverse ruling in this other litigation is currently on appeal and thus is not finál for collateral estoppel purposes. Because this issue was neither addressed by the Fifth Circuit nor included in the questions presented, we will not consider it.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
It appearing that petitioner Scott has been granted parole by the Kentucky Parole Board, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is hereby vacated, and the case is remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration of the question of mootness.
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 Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These appeals challenge the constitutionality of New York statutes that authorize police officers to enter a private residence without a warrant and with force, if necessary, to make a routine felony arrest.
The important constitutional question presented by this challenge has been expressly left open in a number of our prior opinions. In United States v. Watson, 423 U. S. 411, we upheld a warrantless “midday public arrest,” expressly noting that the case did not pose “the still unsettled question... 'whether and under what circumstances an officer may enter a suspect’s home to make a warrantless arrest.’ ” Id., at 418, n. 6. The question has been answered in different ways by other appellate courts. The Supreme Court of Florida rejected the constitutional attack, as did the New York Court of Appeals in this case. The courts of last resort in 10 other States, however, have held that unless special circumstances are present, warrantless arrests in the home are unconstitutional. Of the seven United States Courts of Appeals that have considered the question, five have expressed the opinion that such arrests are unconstitutional.
Last Term we noted probable jurisdiction of these appeals in order to address that question. 439 U. S. 1044. After hearing oral argument, we set the case for reargument this Term. 441 U. S. 930. We now reverse the New York Court of Appeals and hold that the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution, made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643; Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25, prohibits the police from making a warrantless and nonconsensua! entry into a suspect’s home in order to make a routine felony arrest.
We first state the facts of both cases in some detail and put to one side certain related questions that are not presented by these records. We then explain why the New York statutes are not consistent with the Fourth Amendment and why the reasons for upholding warrantless arrests in a public place do not apply to warrantless invasions of the privacy of the home.
I
On January 14, 1970, after two days of intensive investigation, New York detectives had assembled evidence sufficient to establish probable cause to believe that Theodore Payton had murdered the manager of a gas station two days earlier. At about 7:30 a. m. on January 15, six officers went to Pay-ton’s apartment in the Bronx, intending to arrest him. They had not obtained a warrant. Although light and music emanated from the apartment, there was no response to their knock on the metal door. They summoned emergency assistance and, about 30 minutes later, used crowbars to break open the door and enter the apartment. No one was there. In plain view, however, was a 30-caliber shell casing that was seized and later admitted into evidence at Payton’s murder trial.
In due course Payton surrendered to the police, was indicted for murder, and moved to suppress the evidence taken from his apartment. The trial judge held that the warrantless and forcible entry was authorized by the New York Code of Criminal Procedure, and that the evidence in plain view was properly seized. He found that exigent circumstances justified the officers’ failure to announce their purpose before entering the apartment as required by the statute. He had no occasion, however, to decide whether those circumstances also would have justified the failure to obtain a warrant, because he concluded that the warrantless entry was adequately supported by the statute without regard to the circumstances. The Appellate Division, First Department, summarily affirmed.
On March 14, 1974, Obie Riddick was arrested for the commission of two armed robberies that had occurred in 1971. He had been identified by the victims in June 1973, and in January 1974 the police had learned his address. They did not obtain a warrant for his arrest. At about noon on March 14, a detective, accompanied by three other officers, knocked on the door of the Queens house where Riddick was living. When his young son opened the door, they could see Riddick sitting in bed covered by a sheet. They entered the house and placed him under arrest. Before permitting him to dress, they opened a chest of drawers two feet from the bed in search of weapons and found narcotics and related paraphernalia. Riddick was subsequently indicted on narcotics charges. At a suppression hearing, the trial judge held that the warrantless entry into his home was authorized by the revised New York statute, and that the search of the immediate area was reasonable under Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial of the suppression motion.
The New York Court of Appeals, in a single- opinion, affirmed the convictions of both Payton and Riddick. 45 N. Y. 2d 300, 380 N. E. 2d 224 (1978). The court recognized that the question whether and under what circumstances an officer may enter a suspect’s home to make a warrantless arrest had not been settled either by that court or by this Court. In answering that question, the majority of four judges relied primarily on its perception that there is a
“... substantial difference between the intrusion which attends an entry for the purpose of searching the premises and that which results from an entry for the purpose of making an arrest, and [a] significant difference in the governmental interest in achieving the objective of the intrusion in the two instances.” Id., at 310, 380 N. E. 2d, at 228-229.
The majority supported its holding by noting the “apparent historical acceptance” of warrantless entries to make felony arrests, both in the English common law and in the practice of many American States.
Three members of the New York Court of Appeals dissented on this issue because they believed that the Constitution requires the police to obtain a “warrant to enter a home in order to arrest or seize a person, unless there are exigent circumstances.” Starting from the premise that, except in carefully circumscribed instances, “the Fourth Amendment forbids police entry into a private home to search for and seize an object without a warrant,” the dissenters reasoned that an arrest of the person involves an even greater invasion of privacy and should therefore be attended with at least as great a measure of constitutional protection. The dissenters noted “the existence of statutes and the American Law Institute imprimatur codifying the common-law rule authorizing warrantless arrests in private homes” and acknowledged that “the statutory authority of a police officer to make a warrant-less arrest in this State has been in effect for almost 100 years,” but concluded that “neither antiquity nor legislative unanimity can be determinative of the grave constitutional question presented” and “can never be a substitute for reasoned analysis.”
Before addressing the narrow question presented by these appeals, we put to one side other related problems that are not presented today. Although it is arguable that the war-rantless entry to effect Payton’s arrest might have been justified by exigent circumstances, none of the New York courts relied on any such justification. The Court of Appeals majority treated both Payton’s and Riddick’s cases as involving routine arrests in which there was ample time to obtain a warrant, and we will do the same. Accordingly, we have no occasion to consider the sort of emergency or dangerous situation, described in our cases as “exigent circumstances,” that would justify a warrantless entry into a home for the purpose of either arrest or search.
Nor do these cases raise any question concerning the authority of the police, without either a search or arrest warrant, to enter a third party’s home to arrest a suspect. The police broke into Payton’s apartment intending to arrest Payton, and they arrested Riddick in his own dwelling. We also note that in neither case is it argued that the police lacked probable cause to believe that the suspect was at home when they entered. Finally, in both cases we are dealing with entries into homes made without the consent of any occupant. In Payton, the police used crowbars to break down the door and in Riddick, although his 3-year-old son answered the door,' the police entered before Riddick had an opportunity either to object or to consent.
II
It is familiar history that indiscriminate searches and seizures conducted under the authority of “general warrants” were the immediate evils that motivated the framing and adoption of the Fourth Amendment. Indeed, as originally proposed in the House of Representatives, the draft contained only one clause, which directly imposed limitations on the issuance of warrants, but imposed no express restrictions on warrantless searches or seizures. As it was ultimately adopted, however, the Amendment contained two separate clauses, the first protecting the basic right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures and the second requiring that warrants be particular and supported by probable cause. The Amendment provides:
“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.’’
It is thus perfectly clear that the evil the Amendment was designed to prevent was broader than the abuse of a general warrant. Unreasonable searches or seizures conducted without any warrant at all are condemned by the plain language of the first clause of the Amendment. Almost a century ago the Court stated in resounding terms that the principles reflected in the Amendment “reached farther than the concrete form” of the specific cases that gave it birth, and “apply to all invasions on the part of the government and its employes of the sanctity of a man’s home and the privacies of life.” Boyd v. United States, 116 U. S. 616, 630. Without pausing to consider whether that broad language may require some qualification, it is sufficient to note that the warrantless arrest of a person is a species of seizure required by the Amendment to be reasonable. Beck v. Ohio, 379 U. S. 89. Cf. Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U. S. 648. Indeed, as Me. Justice Powell noted in his concurrence in United States v. Watson, the arrest of a person is “quintessential a seizure.” 423 U. S., at 428.
The simple language of the Amendment applies equally to seizures of persons and to seizures of property. Our analysis in this case may therefore properly commence with rules that have been well established in Fourth Amendment litigation involving tangible items. As the Court reiterated just a few years ago, the “physical entry of the home is the chief evil against which the wording of the Fourth Amendment is directed.” United States v. United States District Court, 407 U. S. 297, 313. And we have long adhered to the view that the warrant procedure minimizes the danger of needless intrusions of that sort.
It is a “basic principle of Fourth Amendment law” that searches and seizures inside a home without a warrant are presumptively unreasonable. Yet it is also well settled that objects such as weapons or contraband found in a public place may be seized by the police without a warrant; The seizure of property in plain view involves no invasion of privacy and is presumptively reasonable, assuming that there is probable cause to associate the property with criminal activity. The distinction between a warrantless seizure in an open area and such a seizure on private premises was plainly stated in G. M. Leasing Corp. v. United States, 429 U. S. 338, 354:
“It is one thing to seize without a warrant property resting in an open area or seizable by levy without an intrusion into privacy, and it is quite another thing to effect a warrantless seizure of property, even that owned by a corporation, situated on private premises to which access is not otherwise available for the seizing officer.”
As the late Judge Leventhai recognized, this distinction has equal force when the seizure of a person is involved. Writing on the constitutional issue now before us for the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit sitting en banc, Dorman v. United States, 140 U. S. App. D. C. 313, 435 F. 2d 385 (1970), Judge Leventhai first noted the settled rule that warrantless arrests in public places are valid. He immediately recognized, however, that
“[a] greater burden is placed... on officials who enter a home or dwelling without consent. Freedom from intrusion into the home or dwelling is the archetype of the privacy protection secured by the Fourth Amendment.” Id., at 317, 435 F. 2d, at 389. (Footnote omitted.)
His analysis of this question then focused on the long-settled premise that, absent exigent circumstances, a warrant-less entry to search for weapons or contraband is unconstitutional even when a felony has been committed and there is probable cause to believe that incriminating evidence will be found within. He reasoned that the constitutional protection afforded to the individual’s interest in the privacy of his own home is equally applicable to a warrantless entry for the purpose of arresting a resident of the house; for it is inherent in such an entry that a search for the suspect may be required before he can be apprehended. Judge Leventhal concluded that an entry to arrest and an entry to search for and to seize property implicate the same interest in preserving the privacy and the sanctity of the home, and justify the same level of constitutional protection.
This reasoning has been followed in other Circuits. Thus, the Second Circuit recently summarized its position:
“To be arrested in the home involves not only the invasion attendant to all arrests but also an invasion of the sanctity of the home. This is simply too substantial an invasion to allow without a warrant, at least in the absence of exigent circumstances, even when it is accomplished under statutory authority and when probable cause is clearly present.” United States v. Reed, 572 F. 2d 412, 423 (1978), cert. denied sub nom. Goldsmith v. United States, 439 U. S. 913.
We find this reasoning to be persuasive and in accord with this Court’s Fourth Amendment decisions.
The majority of the New York Court of Appeals, however, suggested that there is a substantial difference in the relative intrusiveness of an entry to search for property and an entry to search for a person. See n. 13, supra. It is true that the area that may legally be searched is broader when executing a search warrant than when executing an arrest warrant in the home. See Chimel v. California, 395 U. S. 752. This difference may be more theoretical than real, however, because the police may need to check the entire premises for safety reasons, and sometimes they ignore the restrictions on searches incident to arrest.
But the critical point is that any differences in the intrusiveness of entries to search and entries to arrest are merely ones of degree rather than kind. The two intrusions share this fundamental characteristic: the breach of the entrance to an individual’s home. The Fourth Amendment protects the individual’s privacy in a variety of settings. In none is the zone of privacy more clearly defined than when bounded by the unambiguous physical dimensions of an individual’s home — a zone that finds its roots in clear and specific constitutional terms: “The right of the people to be secure in their... houses... shall not be violated.” That language unequivocally establishes the proposition that “[a]t the very core [of the Fourth Amendment] stands the right of a man to retreat into his own home and there be free from unreasonable governmental intrusion.” Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505, 511. In terms that apply equally to seizures of property and to seizures of persons, the Fourth Amendment has drawn a firm line at the entrance to the house. Absent exigent circumstances, that threshold may not reasonably be crossed without a warrant.
Ill
Without contending that United States v. Watson, 423 U. S. 411, decided the question presented by these appeals, New York argues that the reasons that support the Watson holding require a similar result here. In Watson the Court relied on (a) the well-settled commonlaw rule that, a warrantless arrest in a public place is valid if the arresting officer had probable cause to believe the suspect is a felon; (b) the clear consensus among the States adhering to that well-settled common-law rule; and (c) the expression of the judgment of Congress that such an arrest is “reasonable.” We consider each of these reasons as it applies to a warrantless entry into a home for the purpose of making a routine felony arrest.
A
An examination of the common-law understanding of an officer’s authority to arrest sheds light on the obviously relevant, if not entirely dispositive, consideration of what the Framers of the Amendment might have thought to be reasonable. Initially, it should be noted that the common-law rules of arrest developed in legal contexts that substantially differ from the cases now before us. In these cases, which involve application of the exclusionary rule, the issue is whether certain evidence is admissible at trial. See Weeks v. United States, 232 U. S. 383. At common law, the question whether an arrest was authorized typically arose in civil damages actions for trespass or false arrest, in which a constable's authority to make the arrest was a defense. See, e. g., Leach v. Money, 19 How. St. Tr. 1001, 97 Eng. Rep. 1075 (K. B. 1765). Additionally, if an officer was killed while attempting to effect an arrest, the question whether the person resisting the arrest was guilty of murder or manslaughter turned on whether the officer was acting within the bounds of his authority. See M. Foster, Crown Law 308, 312 (1762). See also West v. Cabell, 153 U. S. 78, 85.
A study of the common law on the question whether a constable had the authority to make warrantless arrests in the home on mere suspicion of a felony — as distinguished from an officer’s right to arrest for a crime committed in his presence— reveals a surprising lack of judicial decisions and a deep divergence among scholars.
The most cited evidence of the common-law rule consists of an equivocal dictum in a case actually involving the sheriff’s authority to enter a home to effect service of civil process. In Semayne’s Case, 5 Co. Rep. 91a, 91b, 77 Eng. Rep. 194, 195-196 (K. B. 1603), the Court stated:
“In all cases when the King is party, the Sheriff (if the doors be not open) may break the party’s house, • either to arrest him, or to do other execution of the K.’s process, if otherwise he cannot enter. But before he breaks it, he ought to signify the cause of his coming, and to make request to open doors; and that appears well by the stat. of Westm. 1. c. 17. (which is but an affirmance of the common law) as hereafter appears, for the law without a default in the owner abhors the destruction or breaking of any house (which is for the habitation and safety of man) by which great damage and inconvenience might ensue to the party, when no default is in him; for perhaps he did not know of the process, of which, if he had notice, it is to be presumed that he would obey it, and that appears by the book in 18 E. 2. Execut. 252. where it is said, that the K.’s officer who comes to do execution, &c. may open the doors which are shut, and break them, if he cannot have the keys; which proves, that he ought first to demand them, 7 E. 3. 16.” (Footnotes omitted.)
This passage has been read by some as describing an entry without a warrant. The context strongly implies, however, that the court was describing the extent of authority in executing the King’s writ. This reading is confirmed by the phrase “either to arrest him, or to do other execution of the K.’s process” and by the further point that notice was necessary because the owner may “not know of the process.” In any event, the passage surely cannot be said unambiguously to endorse warrantless entries.
The cómmon-law commentators disagreed sharply on the subject. Three distinct views were expressed. Lord Coke, widely recognized by the American colonists “as the greatest authority of his time on the laws of England,” clearly viewed a warrantless entry for the purpose of arrest to be illegal. Bum, Foster, and Hawkins agreed, as did East and Russell, though the latter two qualified their opinions by stating that if an entry to arrest was made without a warrant, the officer was perhaps immune from liability for the trespass if the suspect was actually guilty. Blackstone, Chitty, and Stephen took the opposite view, that entry to arrest without a warrant was legal, though Stephen relied on Blackstone who, along with Chitty, in turn relied exclusively on Hale. But Hale’s view was not quite so unequivocally expressed. Further, Hale appears to rely solely on a statement in an early Yearbook, quoted in Burdett v. Abbot, 14 East 1, 155, 104 Eng. Rep. 501, 560 (K. B. 1811):
“ 'that for felony, or suspicion of felony, a man may break open the house to take the felon; for it is for the commonweal to take them.’ ”
Considering the diversity of views just described, however, it is clear that the statement was never deemed authoritative. Indeed, in Burdett, the statement was described as an “extrajudicial opinion.” Ibid
It is obvious that the common-law rule on warrantless home arrests was not as clear as the rule on arrests in public places. Indeed, particularly considering the prominence of Lord Coke, the weight of authority as it appeared to the Framers was to the effect that a warrant was required, or at the minimum that there were substantial risks in proceeding without one. The common-law sources display a sensitivity to privacy interests that could not have been lost on the Framers. The zealous and frequent repetition of the adage that a “man’s house is his castle,” made it abundantly clear that both in England and in the Colonies “the freedom of one’s house” was one of the most vital elements of English liberty.
Thus, our study of the relevant common law does not provide the same guidance that was present in Watson. Whereas the rule concerning the validity of an arrest in a public place was supported by cases erectly in point and by the unanimous views of the commentators, we have found no direct authority supporting forcible entries into a home to make a routine arrest and the weight of the scholarly opinion is somewhat to the contrary. Indeed, the absence of any 17th- or 18th-century English cases directly in point, together with the unequivocal endorsement of the tenet that “a man’s house is his castle,” strongly suggests that the prevailing practice was not to make such arrests except in hot pursuit or when authorized by a warrant. Cf. Agnello v. United States, 269 U. S. 20, 33. In all events, the issue is not one that can be said to have been definitively settled by the common law at the time the Fourth Amendment was adopted.
B
A majority of the States that have taken a position on the question permit warrantless entry into the home to arrest even in the absence of exigent circumstances. At this time, 24 States permit such warrantless entries; 15 States clearly prohibit them, though 3 States do so on federal constitutional grounds alone; and 11 States have apparently taken no position on the question
But these current figures reflect a significant decline during the last decade in the number of States permitting warrantless entries for arrest. Becent dicta in this Court raising questions about the practice, see n. 1, supra, and Federal Courts of Appeals’ decisions on point, see n. 4, supra, have led state courts to focus on the issue. Virtually all of the state courts that have had to confront the constitutional issue directly have held warrantless entries into the home to arrest to be invalid in the absence of exigent circumstances. See nn. 2, 3, supra. Three state courts have relied on Fourth Amendment grounds alone, while seven have squarely placed their decisions on both federal and state constitutional grounds. A number of other state courts, though not having had to confront the issue directly, have recognized the serious nature of the constitutional question. Apparently, only the Supreme Court of Florida and the New York Court of Appeals in this case have expressly upheld warrantless entries to arrest in the face of a constitutional challenge.
A longstanding, widespread practice is not immune from constitutional scrutiny. But neither is it to be lightly brushed aside. This is particularly so when the constitutional standard is as amorphous as the word “reasonable,” and when custom and contemporary norms necessarily. play such a large role in the constitutional analysis. In this case, although the weight of state-law authority is clear, there is by no means the kind of virtual unanimity on this question that was present in United States v. Watson, with regard to warrantless arrests in public places. See 423 U. S., at 422-423. Only 24 of the 50 States currently sanction warrant-less entries into the home to arrest, see nn. 46-48, supra, and there is an obvious declining trend. Further, the strength of the trend is greater than the numbers alone indicate. Seven state courts have recently held that warrantless home arrests violate their respective State Constitutions. See n. 3, supra. That is significant because by invoking a state constitutional provision, a state court immunizes its decision from review by this Court. This heightened degree of immutability underscores the depth of the principle underlying the result.
c
No congressional determination that warrantless entries into the home áre “reasonable” has been called to our attention. None of the federal statutes cited in the Watson opinion reflects any such legislative judgment. Thus, that support for the Watson holding finds no counterpart in this case.
See also United States v. Watson, 423 U. S., at 433 (Stewart, J., concurring); id., at 432-433 (Powell, J., concurring); Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103, 113, n. 13; Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 474481; Jones v. United States, 357 U. S. 493, 499-500. Cf. United States v. Santana, 427 U. S. 38.
See State v. Perez, 277 So. 2d 778 (1973), cert. denied, 414 U. S. 1064.
See State v. Cook, 115 Ariz. 188, 564 P. 2d 877 (1977) (resting on both state and federal constitutional provisions); People v. Ramey, 16 Cal. 3d 263, 545 P. 2d 1333 (1976), cert. denied, 429 U. S. 929 (state and federal); People v. Moreno, 176 Colo. 488, 491 P. 2d 575 (1971) (federal only); State v. Jones, 274 N. W. 2d 273 (Iowa 1979) (state and federal); State v. Platten, 225 Kan. 764, 594 P. 2d 201 (1979) (state and federal); Commonwealth v. Forde, 367 Mass. 798, 329 N. E. 2d 717 (1975) (federal only); State v. Olson, 287 Ore. 157, 598 P. 2d 670 (1979) (state and federal); Commonwealth v. Williams, 483 Pa. 293, 396 A. 2d 1177 (1978) (federal only); State v. McNeal, 251 S. E. 2d 484 (W. Va. 1978) (state and federal); Laasch v. State, 84 Wis. 2d 587, 267 N. W. 2d 278 (1978) (state and federal).
Compare United States v. Reed, 572 F. 2d 412 (CA2 1978), cert. denied sub nom. Goldsmith v. United States, 439 U. S. 913; United States v. Killebrew, 560 F. 2d 729 (CA6 1977); United States v. Shye, 492 F. 2d 886 (CA6 1974); United States v. Houle, 603 F. 2d 1297 (CA8 1979); United States v. Prescott, 581 F. 2d 1343 (CA9 1978); Dorman v. United States, 140 U. S. App. D. C. 313, 435 F. 2d 385 (1970), with United States v. Williams, 573 F. 2d 348 (CA5 1978); United States ex rel. Wright v. Woods, 432 F. 2d 1143 (CA7 1970), cert. denied, 401 U. S. 966. Three other Circuits have assumed without deciding that warrant-less home arrests are unconstitutional. United States v. Bradley, 455 F. 2d 1181 (CA1 1972); United States v. Davis, 461 E. 2d 1026 (CA3 1972); Vance v. North Carolina, 432 F. 2d 984 (CA4 1970). And one Circuit has upheld such an arrest without discussing the constitutional issue. Michael v. United States, 393 F. 2d 22 (CA10 1968).
A thorough search of the apartment resulted in the seizure of additional evidence tending to prove Payton’s guilt, but the prosecutor stipulated that the officers’ warrantless search of the apartment was illegal and that all the seized evidence ^except the shell casing should be suppressed.
“MR. JACOBS: There’s no question that the evidence that was found in bureau drawers and in the closet was illegally obtained. I’m perfectly willing to concede that, and I do so in my memorandum of law. There's no question about that.” App. 4.
“At the time in question, January 15, 1970, the law applicable to the police conduct related above was governed by the Code of Criminal Procedure. Section 177 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as applicable to this case recited: ‘A peace officer may, without a warrant, arrest a person... 3. When a felony has in fact been committed, and he has reasonable cause for believing the person to be arrested to have committed it.’ Section 178 of the Code of Criminal Procedure provided: ‘To make an arrest, as provided in the last section [177], the officer may break open an outer or inner door or window of a building, if, after notice of his office and purpose, he be refused admittance.’ ” 84 Misc. 2d 973, 974-975, 376 N. Y. S. 2d 779, 780 (Sup. Ct., Trial Term, N. Y. County, 1974).
“Although Detective Malfer knocked on the defendant’s door, it is not established that at this time he announced that his purpose was to arrest the defendant. Such a declaration of purpose is unnecessary when exigent circumstances are present (People v. Wojciechowski, 31 AD 2d 658; People v. Mcllwain, 28 AD 2d 711).
“ ‘Case law has made exceptions from the statute or common-law rules for exigent circumstances which may allow dispensation with the notice... It has also been held or suggested that notice is not required if there is reason to believe that it will allow an escape or increase unreasonably the physieal risk to the police or to innocent persons.’ (People v. Floyd, 26 NY 2d 558, 562.)
“The facts of this matter indicate that a grave offense had been committed; that the suspect was reasonably believed to be armed and could be a danger to the community; that a clear showing of probable cause existed and that there was strong reason to believe that the suspect was in the premises being entered and that he would escape if not swiftly apprehended. From this fact the court finds that exigent circumstances existed to justify noncompliance with section 178. The court holds, therefore, that the entry into defendant’s apartment was valid.” Id., at 975, 376 N. Y. S. 2d, at 780-781.
55 App. Div. 2d 859 (1976).
New York Crim. Proc. Law § 140.15 (4) (McKinney 1971) provides, with respect to arrest without a warrant:
“In order to effect such an arrest, a police officer may enter premises in which he reasonably believes such person to be present, under the same circumstances and in the same manner as would be authorized, by the provisions of subdivisions four and five of section 120.80, if he were attempting to make such arrest pursuant to a warrant of arrest.”
Section 120.80, governing execution of arrest warrants, provides in relevant part:
“4. In order to effect the arrest, the police officer may, under circumstances and in a manner prescribed in this subdivision, enter any premises in which he reasonably believes the defendant to be present. Before such entry, he must give, or make reasonable effort to give, notice of his authority and purpose to an occupant thereof, unless there,is reasonable cause to believe that the giving of such notice will:
“(a) Result in the defendant-escaping or attempting to escape; or
“(b) Endanger the life or safety of the officer, or another person; or
“(c) Result in the destruction, damaging or secretion of material evidence.
“5. If the officer is authorized to enter premises without giving notice of his authority and purpose, or if after giving such notice he is not admitted, he may enter such premises, and by a breaking if necessary.”
App. 63-66.
56 App. Div. 2d 937, 392 N. Y. S. 2d 848 (1977). One justice dissented on the ground that the officers’ failure to announce their authority and purpose before entering the house made the arrest illegal as a matter of state law.
45 N. Y. 2d, at 309-310, 380 N. E. 2d, at 228.
The majority continued:
“In the case of the search, unless appropriately limited by the terms of a warrant, the incursion on the householder’s domain normally will be both more extensive and more intensive and the resulting invasion of his privacy of greater magnitude than what might be expected to occur on an entry made for the purpose of effecting his arrest. A search by its nature contemplates a possibly thorough rummaging through possessions, with concurrent upheaval of the owner’s chosen or random placement of goods and articles and disclosure to the searchers of a myriad of personal items and details which he would expect to be free from scrutiny by uninvited eyes. The householder by the entry and search of his residence is stripped bare, in greater or lesser degree, of the privacy which normally surrounds him in his daily living, and, if he should be absent, to an extent of which he will be unaware.
“Entry for the purpose of arrest may be expected to be quite different. While the taking into custody of the person of the householder is unquestionably of grave import, there is no accompanying prying into the area
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether a municipal ordinance that makes it unlawful to interrupt a police officer in the performance of his or her duties is unconstitutionally overbroad under the First Amendment.
I — I
Appellee Raymond Wayne Hill is a lifelong resident of Houston, Texas. At the time this lawsuit began, he worked as a paralegal and as executive director of the Houston Human Rights League. A member of the board of the Gay Political Caucus, which he helped found in 1975, Hill was also affiliated with a Houston radio station, and had carried city and county press passes since 1975. He lived in Montrose, a “diverse and eclectic neighborhood” that is the center of gay political and social life in Houston. App. 26-27.
The incident that sparked this lawsuit occurred in the Mon-trose area on February 14, 1982. Hill observed a friend, Charles Hill, intentionally stopping traffic on a busy street, evidently to enable a vehicle to enter traffic. Two Houston police officers, one of whom was named Kelley, approached Charles and began speaking with him. According to the District Court, “shortly thereafter” Hill began shouting at the officers “in an admitted attempt to divert Kelley’s attention from Charles Hill.” App. to Juris. Statement B-2. Hill first shouted: “Why don’t you pick on somebody your own size? ” After Officer Kelley responded: “[A]re you interrupting me in my official capacity as a Houston police officer?” Hill then shouted: “Yes, why don’t you pick on somebody my size?” App. 40-41, 58, 71-74. Hill was arrested under Houston Code of Ordinances, §34-ll(a), for “wilfully or intentionally interrupting] a city policeman... by verbal challenge during an investigation.” App. 2. Charles Hill was not arrested. Hill was then acquitted after a nonjury trial in Municipal Court.
Code of Ordinances, City of Houston, Texas, §34-ll(a) (1984), reads:
“Sec. 34-11. Assaulting or interfering with policemen, “(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to assault, strike or in any manner oppose, molest, abuse or interrupt any policeman in the execution of his duty, or any person summoned to aid in making an arrest.”
Following his acquittal in the Charles Hill incident, Hill brought the suit in the Federal District Court for the Southern District of Texas, seeking (1) a declaratory judgment that §34-11(a) was unconstitutional both on its face and as it had been applied to him, (2) a permanent injunction against any attempt to enforce the ordinance, (3) an order expunging the records of his arrests under the ordinance, and (4) damages and attorney’s fees under 42 U. S. C. §§ 1983 and 1988.
At trial, Hill introduced records provided by the city regarding both the frequency with which arrests had been made for violation of the ordinance and the type of conduct with which those arrested had been charged. He also introduced evidence and testimony concerning the arrests of several reporters under the ordinance. Finally, Hill introduced evidence regarding his own experience with the ordinance, under which he has been arrested four times since 1975, but never convicted.
The District Court held that Hill’s evidence did not demonstrate that the ordinance had been unconstitutionally applied. The court also rejected Hill’s contention that the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague or overbroad on its face. The ordinance was not vague, the court stated, because:
“[t]he wording of the ordinance is sufficiently definite to put a person of reasonable intelligence on fair notice of what actions are forbidden. In particular, the Court finds that the use of words such as ‘interrupt’ are sufficiently clear by virtue of their commonly-understood, everyday definitions. Interrupt commonly means to cause one to cease, such as stopping someone in the middle of something. The Plaintiff, for example, clearly ‘interrupted’ the police officers regarding the Charles Hill incident.” App. to Juris. Statement B-8.
The court also held that the statute was not overbroad because “the ordinance does not, at least facially, proscribe speech or conduct which is protected by the First Amendment.” Id., at B-12.
A panel of the Court of Appeals reversed. 764 F. 2d 1156 (CA5 1985). The city’s suggestion for rehearing en banc was granted, and the Court of Appeals, by a vote of 8-7, upheld the judgment of the panel. 789 F. 2d 1103 (1986). The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court’s conclusion that the ordinance was not vague, and that it “plainly encom-passe[d] mere verbal as well as physical conduct.” Id., at 1109. Applying the standard established in Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601 (1973), however, the Court of Appeals concluded that the ordinance was substantially overbroad. It found that “[a] significant range of protected speech and expression is punishable and might be deterred by the literal wording of the statute.” 789 F. 2d, at 1110.
The Court of Appeals also reviewed the evidence of the unconstitutional application of the ordinance which Hill had introduced at trial. The court did not disturb the District Court’s ruling that the statute had not been unconstitutionally applied to Hill or to the reporters. It did. conclude, however, that other evidence not mentioned by the District Court revealed “a realistic danger of, and a substantial potential for, the unconstitutional application of the ordinance.” Ibid. This evidence showed that the ordinance “is officially regarded as penalizing the mere interruption of a policeman while in the line of duty,” id., at 1109, and has been employed to make arrests for, inter alia, “arguing,” “[t]alking,” “[i]n-terfering,” “[f]ailing to remain quiet,” “[r]efusing to remain silent,” “[vjerbal abuse,” “[c]ursing,” “[v]erbally yelling,” and “[t]alking loudly, [wjalking through scene.” Id., at 1113-1114.
The city appealed, claiming that the Court of Appeals erred in holding the ordinance facially overbroad and in not abstaining until the ordinance had been construed by the state courts. We noted probable jurisdiction, 479 U. S. 811 (1986), and now affirm.
hH HH
The elements of First Amendment overbreadth analysis are familiar. Only a statute that is substantially overbroad may be invalidated on its face. New York v. Ferber, 458 U. S. 747, 769 (1982); Broadrick v. Oklahoma, supra. “We have never held that a statute should be held invalid on its face merely because it is possible to conceive of a single impermissible application....” Id., at 630 (Brennan, J., dissenting). Instead, “[i]n a facial challenge to the overbreadth and vagueness of a law, a court’s first task is to determine whether the enactment reaches a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct.” Hoffman Estates v. The Flipside, Hoffman Estates, Inc., 455 U. S. 489, 494 (1982); Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U. S. 352, 359, n. 8 (1983). Criminal statutes must be scrutinized with particular care, e. g., Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 607, 515 (1948); those that make unlawful a substantial amount of constitutionally protected conduct may be held facially invalid even if they also have legitimate application. E. g., Kolender, supra, at 359, n. 8.
The city’s principal argument is that the ordinance does not inhibit the exposition of ideas, and that it bans “core criminal conduct” not protected by the First Amendment. Brief for Appellant 12. In its view, the application of the ordinance to Hill illustrates that the police employ it only to prohibit such conduct, and not “as a subterfuge to control or dissuade free expression.” Ibid. Since the ordinance is “content-neutral,” and since there is no evidence that the city has applied the ordinance to chill particular speakers or ideas, the city concludes that the ordinance is not substantially overbroad.
We disagree with the city’s characterization for several reasons. First, the enforceable portion of the ordinance deals not with core criminal conduct, but with speech. As the city has conceded, the language in the ordinance making it unlawful for any person to “assault” or “strike” a police officer is pre-empted by the Texas Penal Code. Reply Brief for Appellant 10. The city explains, ibid., that “any species of physical assault on a police officer is encompassed within the provisions [§§22.01, 22.02] of the Texas Penal Code,” and under § 1.08 of the Code, “[n]o governmental subdivision or agency may enact or enforce a law that makes any conduct covered by this code an offense subject to a criminal penalty.” Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1.08 (1974). See Knott v. State, 648 S. W. 2d 20 (Tex. App. 1983) (reversing conviction obtained under municipal ordinance pre-empted by state penal code). Accordingly, the enforceable portion of the ordinance makes it “unlawful for any person to... in any manner oppose, molest, abuse or interrupt any policeman in the execution of his duty,” and thereby prohibits verbal interruptions of police officers.
Second, contrary to the city’s contention, the First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism and challenge directed at police officers. “Speech is often provocative and challenging.... [But it] is nevertheless protected against censorship or punishment, unless shown likely to produce a clear and present danger of a serious substantive evil that rises far above public inconvenience, annoyance, or unrest.” Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1, 4 (1949). In Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U. S. 130 (1974), for example, the appellant was found to have yelled obscenities and threats at an officer who had asked appellant’s husband to produce his driver’s license. Appellant was convicted under a municipal ordinance that made it a crime “ Tor any person wantonly to curse or revile or to use obscene or opprobrious language toward or with reference to any member of the city police while in the actual performance of his duty.’” Id., at 132 (citation omitted). We vacated the conviction and invalidated the ordinance as facially overbroad. Critical to our decision was the fact that the ordinance “punishe[d] only spoken words” and was not limited in scope to fighting words that “‘by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace.’” Id., at 133, quoting Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518, 525 (1972); see also ibid. (Georgia breach-of-peace statute not limited to fighting words held facially invalid). Moreover, in a concurring opinion in Lewis, Justice Powell suggested that even the “fighting words” exception recognized in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942), might require a narrower application in cases involving words addressed to a police officer, because “a properly trained officer may reasonably be expected to ‘exercise a higher degree of restraint’ than the average citizen, and thus be less likely to respond belligerently to ‘fighting words.’” 415 U. S., at 135 (citation omitted).
The Houston ordinance is much more sweeping than the municipal ordinance struck down in Lewis. It is not limited to fighting words nor even to obscene or opprobrious language, but prohibits speech that “in any manner... interrupt[s]” an officer. The Constitution does not allow such speech to be made a crime. The freedom of individuals verbally to oppose or challenge police action without thereby risking arrest is one of the principal characteristics by which we distinguish a free nation from a police state.
The city argues, however, that even if the ordinance encompasses some protected speech, its sweeping nature is both inevitable and essential to maintain public order. The city recalls this Court’s observation in Smith v. Goguen, 415 U. S. 566, 581 (1974):
“There are areas of human conduct where, by the nature of the problems presented, legislatures simply cannot establish standards with great precision. Control of the broad range of disorderly conduct that may inhibit a policeman in the performance of his official duties may be one such area requiring as it does an on-the-spot assessment of the need to keep order.”
The city further suggests that its ordinance is comparable to the disorderly conduct statute upheld against a facial challenge in Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U. S. 104 (1972).
This Houston ordinance, however, is not narrowly tailored to prohibit only disorderly conduct or fighting words, and in no way resembles the law upheld in Colten. Although we appreciate the difficulties of drafting precise laws, we have repeatedly invalidated laws that provide the police with unfettered discretion to arrest individuals for words or conduct that annoy or offend them. As the Court observed over a century ago, “[i]t would certainly be dangerous if the legislature could set a net large enough to catch all possible offenders, and leave it to the courts to step inside and say who could be rightfully detained, and who should be set at large.” United States v. Reese, 92 U. S. 214, 221 (1876). In Lewis, Justice Powell elaborated the basis for our concern with such sweeping, dragnet laws:
“This ordinance, as construed by the Louisiana Supreme Court, confers on police a virtually unrestrained power to arrest and charge persons with a violation. Many arrests are made in ‘one-on-one’ situations where the only witnesses are the arresting officer and the person charged. All that is required for conviction is that the court accept the testimony of the officer that obscene or opprobrious language had been used toward him while in the performance of his duties....
“Contrary to the city’s argument, it is unlikely that limiting the ordinance’s application to genuine ‘fighting words’ would be incompatible with the full and adequate performance of an officer’s duties.... [I]t is usually unnecessary [to charge a person] with the less serious offense of addressing obscene words to the officer. The present type of ordinance tends to be invoked only where there is no other valid basis for arresting an objectionable or suspicious person. The opportunity for abuse, especially where a statute has received a virtually open-ended interpretation, is self-evident.
415 U. S., at 135-136, and n.
Houston’s ordinance criminalizes a substantial amount of constitutionally protected speech, and accords the police unconstitutional discretion in enforcement. The ordinance’s plain language is admittedly violated scores of times daily, App. 77, yet only some individuals — those chosen by the police in their unguided discretion — are arrested. Far from providing the “breathing space” that “First Amendment freedoms need... to survive,” NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 433 (1963), the ordinance is susceptible of regular application to protected expression. We conclude that the ordinance is substantially overbroad, and that the Court of Appeals did not err in holding it facially invalid.
H-n I — I h — I
The city has also urged us not to reach the merits of Hill s constitutional challenge, but rather to abstain for reasons related to those underlying our decision in Railroad Comm'n v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496 (1941). In its view, there are certain limiting constructions readily available to the state courts that would eliminate the ordinance’s overbreadth.
Abstention is, of course, the exception and not the rule, Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U. S. 800, 813 (1976), and we have been particularly reluctant to abstain in cases involving facial challenges based on the First Amendent. We have held that “abstention... is inappropriate for cases [where]... statutes are justifiably attacked on their face as abridging free expression.” Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479, 489-490 (1965). “In such case[s] to force the plaintiff who has commenced a federal action to suffer the delay of state-court proceedings might itself effect the impermissible chilling of the very constitutional right he seeks to protect.” Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S. 241, 252 (1967).
Even if this case did not involve a facial challenge under the First Amendment, we would find abstention inappropriate. In cases involving a facial challenge to a statute, the pivotal question in determining whether abstention is appropriate is whether the statute is “fairly subject to an interpretation which will render unnecessary or substantially modify the federal constitutional question.” Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U. S. 528, 534-535 (1965); see also Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U. S. 229, 236 (1984) (same). If the statute is not obviously susceptible of a limiting construction, then even if the statute has “never [been] interpreted by a state tribunal... it is the duty of the federal court to exercise its properly invoked jurisdiction.” Harman, supra, at 535; see, e. g., Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U. S. 433, 439 (1971) (“Where there is no ambiguity in the state statute, the federal court should not abstain but should proceed to decide the federal constitutional claim”); Zwickler v. Koota, supra, at 250-251, and n. 14 (citing cases).
This ordinance is not susceptible to a limiting construction because, as both courts below agreed, its language is plain and its meaning unambiguous. Its constitutionality cannot “turn upon a choice between one or several alternative meanings.” Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360, 378 (1964); cf. Babbitt v. Farm Workers, 442 U. S. 289, 308 (1979). Nor can the ordinance be limited by severing discrete unconstitutional subsections from the rest. For example, it cannot be limited to “core criminal conduct” such as physical assaults or fighting words because those applications are pre-empted by state law. See supra, at 460-461, and n. 10. The enforceable portion of this ordinance is a general prohibition of speech that “simply has no core” of constitutionally unprotected expression to which it might be limited. Smith v. Goguen, 415 U. S., at 578 (emphasis deleted). The city’s proposed constructions are insufficient, and it is doubtful that even “a remarkable job of plastic surgery upon the face of the ordinance” could save it. Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 153 (1969). In sum, “[s]ince ‘the naked question, uncomplicated by [ambiguous language], is whether the Act on its face is unconstitutional,’ Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U. S. 433, 439 (1971), abstention from federal jurisdiction is not required.” Hawaii Housing Authority, supra, at 237.
The city relies heavily on its claim that the state courts have not had an opportunity to construe the statute. Even if true, that factor would not in itself be controlling. As stated above, when a statute is not ambiguous, there is no need to abstain even if state courts have never interpreted the statute. Harman, supra, at 534. For example, we have declined to abstain from deciding a facial challenge to a state statute when the suit was filed in federal court just four days after the statute took effect. Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U. S. 491 (1985). But in any event, the city’s claim that state courts have not had an opportunity to construe the statute is misleading. Only the state appellate courts appear to have lacked this opportunity. It is undisputed that Houston’s Municipal Courts, which have been courts of record in Texas since 1976, have had numerous opportunities to narrow the scope of the ordinance. There is no evidence that they have done so. In fact, the city’s primary position throughout this litigation has been “to insis[t] on the validity of the ordinance as literally read.” 789 F. 2d, at 1107. We have long recognized that trial court interpretations, such as those given in jury instructions, constitute “a ruling on a question of state law that is as binding on us as though the precise words had been written into the ordinance.” Terminiello, 337 U. S., at 4. Thus, where municipal courts have regularly applied an unambiguous statute, there is certainly no need for a federal court to abstain until state appellate courts have an opportunity to construe it.
The possibility of certification does not change our analysis. The certification procedure is useful in reducing the substantial burdens of cost and delay that abstention places on litigants. Where there is an uncertain question of state law that would affect the resolution of the federal claim, and where delay and expense are the chief drawbacks to abstention, the availability of certification becomes an important factor in deciding whether to abstain. E. g., Bellotti v. Baird, 428 U. S. 132 (1976). Nevertheless, even where we have recognized the importance of certification in deciding whether to abstain, we have been careful to note that the availability of certification is not in itself sufficient to render abstention appropriate. Id., at 151. It would be manifestly inappropriate to certify a question in a case where, as here, there is no uncertain question of state law whose resolution might affect the pending federal claim. As we have demonstrated, supra, at 468-469, this ordinance is neither ambiguous nor obviously susceptible of a limiting construction. A federal court may not properly ask a state court if it would care in effect to rewrite a statute. We therefore see no need in this case to abstain pending certification.
> H-1
Today’s decision reflects the constitutional requirement that, in the face of verbal challenges to police action, officers and municipalities must respond with restraint. We are mindful that the preservation of liberty depends in part upon the maintenance of social order. Cf. Terminiello v. Chicago, supra, at 37 (dissenting opinion). But the First Amendment recognizes, wisely we think, that a certain amount of expressive disorder not only is inevitable in a society committed to individual freedom, but must itself be protected if that freedom would survive. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered.
Hill testified that his “motivation was to stop [the officers] from hitting Charles.” App. 37, 40. See n. 2, infra. He also explained: “I would rather that I get arrested than those whose careers can be damaged; I would rather that I get arrested than those whose families wouldn’t understand; I would rather that I get arrested than those who couldn’t spend a long time in jail. I am prepared to respond in any legal, nonaggressive or nonviolent way, to any illegal police activity, at any time, under any circumstances.” Id., at 29.
The District Court stated that Hill “shout[ed] abuses” at the officers, App. to Juris. Statement B-2 (emphasis added). As the Court of Appeals held, however, there is “no evidence to support the district court’s finding that Raymond [Hill] ‘shout[ed] abuses’ at Officer Kelley.” 789 F. 2d 1103, 1105 (CA5 1986). See App. 73-74 (testimony of Officer Kelley that Hill did not use “abusive” language).
The testimony of Hill and Kelley is consistent in other ways ignored by the District Court. Both agree, for example, that Charles attempted to leave after an initial conversation with the officers, and that Kelley then grabbed Charles by the arm, turned him around, and told him not to walk away. Id., at 14, 57. According to Hill, Charles, who “has a nervous tic,” then went “into these spasms,” which prompted one of the officers to “serea[m]” at Charles “Are you making fun of me? ” Id., at 14-15. Kelley stated that Charles was “twitching” in an “erratic and strange” manner, and that Kelley “didn’t know if [Charles] was about to have a seizure or if he was being insolent or what.” Id., at 56-57.
At this point, however, the testimony substantially diverges. Kelley states that Hill then “interrupted]” him with the verbal challenge quoted in text, and that a crowd was beginning to form. Id., at 57-58, 61, 68-69. Hill testified that both officers grabbed Charles, placed him up against a wall, and threatened to hit him with a large flashlight. Id., at 14. Only then, according to Hill, did he call out: “[T]he kid has done nothing wrong. If you want to pick on somebody, pick on me.” Id., at 16. We note the applicability of Justice Powell’s observation that there is a “possibility of abuse” where convictions under an ordinance frequently turn on the resolution of a “direct conflict of testimony as to ‘who said what.’ ” Lewis v. City of New Orleans, 415 U. S. 130, 135, n. (1974) (Powell, J., concurring in result). See infra, at 466.
A conviction under the ordinance is a misdemeanor punishable by a fine of not more than $200. App. to Juris. Statement B-l.
The facts of Hill’s other three arrests as found by the District Court are as follows. On August 31, 1975, Hill intentionally interrupted two Houston police officers as they made a traffic arrest. During the arrest, Hill wrote down license plate numbers, and then walked to within an arm’s length of one of the officers on the side nearest the officer’s revolver. The officer asked Hill to leave, but Hill instead moved closer. Hill was arrested, tried, and found not guilty.
In 1977, after observing vice-squad ears parked near a bookstore, Hill entered the store and announced on the public address system that police officers were present and that patrons should prepare to show their identification. The patrons promptly left the store, thereby frustrating the investigation. Hill was arrested for interfering with the investigation, but the case was subsequently dismissed.
Finally, on October 3, 1982, eight months after the lawsuit began, Hill was arrested for refusing to leave the immediate area of a car with an unknown and unconscious person inside. The arresting officers failed to appear in Municipal Court, however, so the charge against Hill was dismissed.
These charges are summarized in an appendix to the opinion of the Court of Appeals, 789 F. 2d, at 1113-1114. The court noted that “[appel-lee] offered evidence of over 200 arrests that had been made for violation of the ordinance between November 1981 and March 1982. Violations are apparently so frequent that the City uses a printed form to report charges.” Id., at 1107. The form, entitled “Complaint: Interrupting a Policeman,” contains the preprinted charge of “wilfully or intentionally interrupting] a city policeman” that is followed by a blank in which the officer fills in a description of the basis for the charge. Id., at 1108-1109. While noting that the majority of those arrested are charged with conduct that is “patently unlawful,” the Court of Appeals observed that “[i]n many instances... the malefactor is described [in the handwritten portion] as having done nothing more offensive to the public order than speaking or failing to remain silent.” Id., at 1109. Over a third of these arrests were never prosecuted. Id., at 1110.
The city also claims that the Court of Appeals engaged in improper factfinding. The city notes that the District Court found that the ordinance had not been unconstitutionally applied, and argues that the Court of Appeals erred in reviewing Hill’s evidence and concluding that it showed a potential for unconstitutional application. Such a conclusion was foreclosed, according to the city, by the “clearly erroneous” standard of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 52(a). Brief for Appellant 40.
This argument is without merit. An independent review of the record is appropriate where the activity in question is arguably protected by the Constitution. NAACP v. Claiborne Hardware Co., 458 U. S. 886, 915-916, n. 50 (1982). Moreover, the Court of Appeals accepted as “not challenged on appeal” the District Court’s finding that the ordinance had not been unconstitutionally applied to Hill or to the reporters, 789 F. 2d, at 1107, 1110. The disagreement between the lower courts was therefore limited to a question of law — whether the ordinance on its face was substantially overbroad. In concluding that the ordinance was overbroad, the Court of Appeals did not err in reviewing evidence ignored by the District Court concerning the application of the ordinance, and in concluding that this evidence demonstrated a significant potential for unconstitutional application of the ordinance.
The question whether the ordinance has been unconstitutionally applied to Hill is neither presented by this appeal nor essential to our decision, and we do not address it.
The city’s threshold argument that Hill lacks standing is without merit. The basis for the argument is the District Court’s finding that the ordinance has been constitutionally applied to Hill in the past. This finding is irrelevant, however, to the question of Hill’s standing to seek prospective relief. Hill has shown “a genuine threat of enforcement” of the ordinance against his future activities, Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U. S. 452, 475 (1974). Compare, e. g., n. 1, supra (testimony of Hill’s willingness to interrupt officers in the future), with Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U. S. 103 (1969) (intervening event rendered unlikely any future application of statute to appellee); see also App. to Juris. Statement B-3, n. 1 (District Court finding that Hill “is a gay rights activist who claims that the Houston police have ‘systematically’ harassed him ‘as the direct result’ of his sexual preferences”). Moreover, although we have never required that a plaintiff “undergo a criminal prosecution” to obtain standing to challenge the facial validity of a statute, Doe v. Bolton, 410 U. S. 179, 188 (1973), the fact that Hill has already been arrested four times under the ordinance lends compelling support to the threat of future enforcement. We therefore agree with the Court of Appeals that “Hill’s record of arrests under the ordinance and his adopted role as citizen provocateur” give Hill standing to challenge the facial validity of the ordinance. 789 F. 2d, at 1107. Cf. Ellis v. Dyson, 421 U. S. 426 (1975).
One who assaults or strikes either a police officer or “any person summoned to aid in making the arrest” may be arrested and prosecuted either under Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 22.01 (1974 and Supp. 1987), which renders unlawful any provocative contact with (or assault or threatened assault against) any person, or under Tex. Penal Code Ann. §22.02 (1974), which renders unlawful conduct causing bodily injury to a peace officer. These sections provide in pertinent part:
“Section 22.01. Assault.
“(a) A person commits an offense if the person:
“(1) intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly causes bodily injury to another including the person’s spouse; or
“(2) intentionally or knowingly threatens another with imminent bodily injury including the person’s spouse; or
“(3) intentionally or knowingly causes physical contact with another when the person knows or should reasonably believe that the other will regard the contact as offensive or provocative.”
“Section 22.02. Aggravated Assault.
“(a) A person commits an offense if he commits assault as defined in Section 22.01 of this code and he:
“(1) causes serious bodily injury to another;
“(2) causes bodily injury to a peace officer in the lawful discharge of official duty when he knows or has been informed the person is a peace officer; or
“(3) uses a deadly weapon.
“(b) The actor is presumed to have known the person assaulted was a peace officer if he was wearing a distinctive uniform indicating his employment as a peace officer.”
It is this portion of the ordinance to which Hill directed his constitutional challenge, see ¶¶ 6 and 27 of his complaint. Record 138, 144-146.
The Court of Appeals did not address the pre-emption issue; it assumed that the ordinance prohibited physical as well as verbal assaults, and still found the ordinance substantially overbroad. 789 F. 2d, at 1109. Because the city conceded pre-emption in this Court, see Reply Brief for Appellant 10, we need not address the question whether the ordinance, if not partially pre-empted, would be substantially overbroad.
To the extent the ordinance could be interpreted to ban fighting words, it is pre-empted by Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 1.08 (1974), which preempts municipal laws that prohibit conduct subject to penalty under the Code, see supra, at 460-461, and by § 42.01, the State’s comprehensive disorderly conduct provision. Subsection § 42.01(a)(1), which makes unlawful “abusive, indecent, profane or vulgar language” only if “by its very utterance [it] tends to incite an immediate breach of the peace,” prohibits the use of fighting words. The “practice commentary” in the annotated Code confirms that this section is designed to track the “fighting words” exception set forth in Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942). Tex. Penal Code Ann. § 42.01, pp. 124-125 (1974 and Supp. 1987).
Justice Powell suggests that our analysis of protected speech sweeps too broadly. But if some constitutionally unprotected speech must go unpunished, that is a price worth paying to preserve the vitality of the First Amendment. “ ‘[I]f absolute assurance of tranquility is required, we may as well forget about free speech. Under such a requirement, the only “free” speech would consist of platitudes. That kind of speech does not need constitutional protection.’” Spence v. Washington, 418 U. S. 405, 416 (1974) (Douglas, J., concurring) (citation omitted).
In any case, today’s decision does not leave municipalities powerless to punish physical obstruction of police action. For example, Justice Powell states that “a municipality constitutionally may punish an individual who chooses to stand near a police officer and persistently attempt to engage the officer in conversation while the officer is directing traffic at a busy intersection.” Post, at 479. We agree, however, that such conduct might constitutionally be punished under a properly tailored statute, such as a disorderly conduct statute that makes it unlawful to fail to disperse in response to a valid police order or to create a traffic hazard. E. g., Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U. S. 104 (1972). What a municipality may not do, however, and what Houston has done in this case, is 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: | 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 Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 174(a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U. S. C. § 174 (a)(1), allows a taxpayer to take as a deduction “experimental expenditures which are paid •or incurred by him during the taxable year in connection with his trade or business as expenses which are not chargeable to capital account.” Petitioner Edwin A. Snow (hereafter petitioner) was disallowed as a deduction his distributive share of the net operating loss of a partnership, Burns Investment Company, for the taxable year 1966. The United States Tax Court sustained the Commissioner, 58 T. C. 585. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, 482 F. 2d 1029 (1973). The case is here on a writ of certiorari because of an apparent conflict between that court and the Fourth Circuit in Cleveland v. Commissioner, 297 F. 2d 169 (1961).
Petitioner was a limited partner in Burns, having contributed $10,000 for a four-percent interest in Burns. The general partner was one Trott who had previously formed two other limited partnerships, one called Echo, to develop a telephone answering device and the other Courier, to develop an electronic tape recorder. Petitioner had become a-limited partner in each of these other partnerships.
Burns .wa^ formed to develop “a special purpose incinerator for the consumer and industrial markets.” Trott was the inventor and had conceived of this idea in 1964 and between then and 1966 had made a number of prototypes. His patent counsel had told him in 1965 that several features of the burner were in his view patentable but in 1966 advised him that the incinerator as a whole had not been sufficiently “reduced to practice” in order to develop it into a marketable product. At that point Trott formed Burris, petitioner putting up part of the capital. Thereafter various models of the burner were built and tested.
During 1966 Burns reported no sales of the incinerator or any other product but expectations were high; and Trott was giving about one-third of his time to the project, an outside engineering firm doing the shopwork.
Trott obtained a patent on the incinerator in 1970, and it is currently being produced and marketed under the name Trash-Away.
Section 174 was enacted in 1954 to dilute some of the conception of “ordinary and necessary” business expenses under § 162 (a) (then § 23 (a)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939) adumbrated by Mr. Justice Frankfurter in a concurring opinion in Deputy v. Du Pont, 308 U. S. 488, 499 (1940), where he said that the section in question (old § 23 (a)) “involves holding one’s self out to others as engaged in the selling of goods or services.” The words “trade or business” appear, however, in about .60 different sections of the 1954 Act. Those other sections are not helpful here because Congress wrote into.§ 174 (a)(1) “in connection with,” and § 162 (a) is more narrowly written than is § 174, allowing “a deduction” of “ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred ... in carrying on any trade or business.” That and other sections are not helpful here.
The legislative history makes fairly clear the reasons. Established firms with ongoing business had continuous programs of research quite unlike small or pioneering business enterprises. Mr. Reed of New York, Chairman of the House Committee on Ways and Means, made the point even more explicit when he addressed the House on the bill:
“Present law contains no statutory provision dealing expressly with the deduction of these expenses. The result has been confusion and uncertainty. Very often, under present law'small businesses which are developing new products and do not have est¿blished research departments are not allowed to deduct these expenses' despite the fact that them large and well-established competitors can obtain the deduction. . . . This, provision will greatly stimulate the' search for new products' and new inventions, upon which the fiiture economic and military strength of our Nation depends.' It will be particularly valuable to small and growing businesses.” (Emphasis added.)
Congress may at times in its wisdom discriminate tax-wise between various kinds of business, between old and oncoming businéss and the like. But we would defeat the congressional purpose somewhat to equalize the tax benefits of the ongoing companies and those that are upcoming and about to reach the market by perpetuating the discrimination created below and urged upon us here.
We read § 174 as did the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit in Cleveland “to encourage expenditure for research and experimentation.” 297 F. 2d, at 173. -That incentive is embedded in § 174 because of “in connection with,” making irrelevant whether petitioners-were rich or poor. -
We aré invited to explore the treatment of “hobby-losses” under §183. But that is far afield of the present inquiry for it is clear that in this case under § 174 the profit motive was the sole drive of the venture.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Both Echo and Courier claimed research and development expenses in 1965 and 1966; and they were not. challenged by the Commissioner, apparently because their products were in a more advanced stage of development and were available for sale or licensing.
Treasury Regulation § 1.174-2 (a) (2) provides: “The provisions of this .section apply not only to costs paid or incurred by the taxpayer for research or- experimentation undertaken directly by him but also to expenditures paid or incurred for research or experimentation carried on in his behalf by another person or organization (such as . . . [an] engineering company, or similar contractor). . . .”
Prior to 1970 Burns was incorporated and it produces and markets Trasli-Away, petitioner being its Chairman of the Board.
Saunders, “Trade or Business,” Its Meaning Under the Internal Revenue Code, U. So. Cal. 12th Inst. on Fed. Tax. 693 (1960).
Hearings on H. R. 8300 before the Senate Committee on Finance, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 1, p. 105.
100 Cong. Rec. 3425 (1954).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | L | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1959, petitioner was charged with kidnaping in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1201 (a). Since the indictment charged that the victim of the kidnaping was not liberated unharmed, petitioner faced a maximum penalty of death if the verdict of the jury should so recommend. Petitioner, represented by competent counsel throughout, first elected to plead not guilty. Apparently because the trial judge was unwilling to try the case without a jury, petitioner made no serious attempt to reduce the possibility of a death penalty by waiving a jury trial. Upon learning that his codefendant, who had confessed to the authorities, would plead guilty and be available to testify against him, petitioner changed his plea to guilty. His plea was accepted after the trial judge twice questioned him as to the voluntariness of his plea. Petitioner was sentenced to 50 years’ imprisonment, later reduced to 30.
In 1967, petitioner sought relief under 28 TJ. S. C. § 2255, claiming that his plea of guilty was not voluntarily given because § 1201 (a) operated to coerce his plea, because his counsel exerted impermissible pressure upon him, and because his plea was induced by representations with respect to reduction of sentence and clemency. It was also alleged that the trial judge had not fully complied with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
After a hearing, the District Court for the District of New Mexico denied relief. According to the District Court's findings, petitioner’s counsel did not put impermissible pressure on petitioner to plead guilty and no representations were made with respect to a reduced sentence or clemency. The court held that § 1201 (a) was constitutional and found that petitioner decided to plead guilty when he learned that his codefendant was going to plead guilty: petitioner pleaded guilty “by reason of other matters and not by reason of the statute” or because of any acts of the trial judge. The court concluded that “the plea was voluntarily and knowingly made.”
The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed, determining that the District Court’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and specifically approving the finding that petitioner’s plea of guilty was voluntary. 404 F. 2d 601 (1968). We granted certiorari, 395 U. S. 976 (1969), to consider the claim that the Court of Appeals was in error in not reaching a contrary result on the authority of this Court’s decision in United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570 (1968). We affirm.
I
In United States v. Jackson, supra, the defendants were indicted under § 1201 (a). The District Court dismissed the § 1201 (a) count of the indictment, holding the statute unconstitutional because it permitted imposition of the death sentence only upon a jury’s recommendation and thereby made the risk of death the price of a jury trial. This Court held the statute valid, except for the death penalty provision; with respect to the latter, the Court agreed with the trial court “that the death penalty provision . . . imposes an impermissible burden upon the exercise of a constitutional right . . . 390 U. S., at 572. The problem was to determine “whether the Constitution permits the establishment of such a death penalty, applicable only to those defendants who assert the right to contest their guilt before a jury.” 390 U. S., at 581. The inevitable effect of the provision was said to be to discourage assertion of the Fifth Amendment right not to plead guilty and to deter exercise of the Sixth Amendment right to demand a jury trial. Because the legitimate goal of limiting the death penalty to cases in which a jury recommends it could be achieved without penalizing those defendants who plead not guilty and elect a jury trial, the death penalty provision “needlessly penalize [d] the assertion of a constitutional right,” 390 U. S., at 583, and was therefore unconstitutional.
Since the “inevitable effect” of the death penalty provision of § 1201 (a) was said by the Court to be the needless encouragement of pleas of guilty and waivers of jury trial, Brady contends that Jackson requires the invalidation of every plea of guilty entered under that section, at least when the fear of death is shown to have been a factor in the plea. Petitioner, however, has read far too much into the Jackson opinion.
The Court made it clear in Jackson that it was not holding § 1201 (a) inherently coercive of guilty pleas: “the fact that the Federal Kidnaping Act tends to discourage defendants from insisting upon their innocence, and demanding trial by jury hardly implies that every defendant who enters a guilty plea to a charge under the Act does so involuntarily.” 390 U. S., at 583. Cited in support of this statement, 390 U. S., at 583 n. 25, was Laboy v. New Jersey, 266 F. Supp. 581 (D. C. N. J. 1967), where a plea of guilty (non vult) under a similar statute was sustained as voluntary in spite of the fact, as found by the District Court, that the defendant was greatly upset by the possibility of receiving the death penalty.
Moreover, the Court in Jackson rejected a suggestion that the death penalty provision of § 1201 (a) be saved by prohibiting in capital kidnaping cases all guilty pleas and jury waivers, “however clear [the defendants’] guilt and however strong their desire to acknowledge it in order to spare themselves and their families the spectacle and expense of protracted courtroom proceedings.” “[T]hat jury waivers and guilty pleas may occasionally be rejected” was no ground for automatically rejecting all guilty pleas under the statute, for such a rule “would rob the criminal process of much of its flexibility.” 390 U. S., at 584.
Plainly, it seems to us, Jackson ruled neither that all pleas of guilty encouraged by the fear of a possible death sentence are involuntary pleas nor that such encouraged pleas are invalid whether involuntary or not. Jackson prohibits the imposition of the death penalty under § 1201 (a), but that decision neither fashioned a new standard for judging the validity of guilty pleas nor mandated a new application of the test theretofore fashioned by courts and since reiterated that guilty pleas are valid if both “voluntary” and “intelligent.” See Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238, 242 (1969).
That a guilty plea is a grave and solemn act to be accepted only with care and discernment has long been recognized. Central to the plea and the foundation for entering judgment against the defendant is the defendant’s admission in open court that he committed the acts charged in the indictment. He thus stands as a witness against himself and he is shielded by the Fifth Amendment from being compelled to do so — hence the minimum requirement that his plea be the voluntary expression of his own choice. But the plea is more than an admission of past conduct; it is the defendant’s consent that judgment of conviction may be entered without a trial — a waiver of his right to trial before a jury or a judge. Waivers of constitutional rights not only must be voluntary but must be knowing, intelligent acts done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and likely consequences. On neither score was Brady’s plea of guilty invalid.
II
The trial judge in 1959 found the plea voluntary-before accepting it; the District Court in 1968, after an evidentiary hearing, found that the plea was voluntarily made; the Court of Appeals specifically approved the finding of voluntariness. We see no reason on this record to disturb the judgment of those courts. Petitioner, advised by competent counsel, tendered his plea after his codefendant, who had already given a confession, determined to plead guilty and became available to testify against petitioner. It was this development that the District Court found to have triggered Brady’s guilty plea.
The voluntariness of Brady’s plea can be determined only by considering all of the relevant circumstances surrounding it. Cf. Haynes v. Washington, 373 U. S. 503, 513 (1963); Leyra v. Denno, 347 U. S. 556, 558 (1954). One of these circumstances was the possibility of a heavier sentence following a guilty verdict after a trial. It may be that Brady, faced with a strong case against him and recognizing that his chances for acquittal were slight, preferred to plead guilty and thus limit the penalty to life imprisonment rather than to elect a jury trial which could result in a death penalty. But even if we assume that Brady would not have pleaded guilty except for the death penalty provision of § 1201(a), this assumption merely identifies the penalty provision as a “but for” cause of his plea. That the statute caused the plea in this sense does not necessarily prove that the plea was coerced and invalid as an involuntary act.
The State to some degree encourages pleas of guilty at every important step in the criminal process. For some people, their breach of a State’s law is alone sufficient reason for surrendering themselves and accepting punishment. For others, apprehension and charge, both threatening acts by the Government, jar them into admitting their guilt. In still other cases, the post-indictment accumulation of evidence may convince the defendant and his counsel that a trial is not worth the agony and expense to the defendant and his family. All these pleas of guilty are valid in spite of the State’s responsibility for some of the factors motivating the pleas; the pleas are no more improperly compelled than is the decision by a defendant at the close of the State’s evidence at trial that he must take the stand or face certain conviction.
Of course, the agents of the State may not produce a plea by actual or threatened physical harm or by mental coercion overbearing the will of the defendant. But nothing of the sort is claimed in this case; nor is there evidence that Brady was so gripped by fear of the death penalty or hope of leniency that he did not or could not, with the help of counsel, rationally weigh the advantages of going to trial against the advantages of pleading guilty. Brady’s claim is of a different sort: that it violates the Fifth Amendment to influence or encourage a guilty plea by opportunity or promise of leniency and that a guilty plea is coerced and invalid if influenced by the fear of a possibly higher penalty for the crime charged if a conviction is obtained after the State is put to its proof.
Insofar as the voluntariness of his plea is concerned, there is little to differentiate Brady from (1) the defendant, in a jurisdiction where the judge and jury have the same range of sentencing power, who pleads guilty because his lawyer advises him that the judge will very probably be more lenient than the jury; (2) the defendant, in a jurisdiction where the judge alone has sentencing power, who is advised by counsel that the judge is normally more lenient with defendants who plead guilty than with those who go to trial; (3) the defendant who is permitted by prosecutor and judge to plead guilty to a lesser offense included in the offense charged; and (4) the defendant who pleads guilty to certain counts with the understanding that other charges will be dropped. In each of these situations, as in Brady’s case, the defendant might never plead guilty absent the possibility or certainty that the plea will result in a lesser penalty than the sentence that could be imposed after a trial and a verdict of guilty., We decline to hold, however, that a guilty plea is compelled and invalid under the Fifth Amendment whenever motivated by the defendant’s desire to accept the certainty or probability of a lesser penalty rather than face a wider range of possibilities extending from acquittal to conviction and a higher penalty authorized by law for the crime charged.
The issue we deal with is inherent in the criminal law and its administration because guilty pleas are not constitutionally forbidden, because the criminal law characteristically extends to judge or jury a range of choice in setting the sentence in individual cases, and because both the State and the defendant often find it advantageous to preclude the possibility of the maximum penalty authorized by law. For a defendant who sees slight possibility of acquittal, the advantages of pleading guilty and limiting the probable penalty are obvious — his exposure is reduced, the correctional processes can begin immediately, and the practical burdens of a trial are eliminated. For the State there are also advantages — the more promptly imposed punishment after an admission of guilt may more effectively attain the objectives of punishment; and with the avoidance of trial, scarce judicial and prosecutorial resources are conserved for those cases in which there is a substantial issue of the defendant’s guilt or in which there is substantial doubt that the State can sustain its burden of proof. It is this mutuality of advantage that perhaps explains the fact that at present well over three-fourths of the criminal convictions in this country rest on pleas of guilty, a great many of them no doubt motivated at least in part by the hope or assurance of a lesser penalty than might be imposed if there were a guilty verdict after a trial to judge or jury.
Of course, that the prevalence of guilty pleas is explainable does not necessarily validate those pleas or the system which produces them. But we cannot hold that it is unconstitutional for the State to extend a benefit to a defendant who in turn extends a substantial benefit to the State and who demonstrates by his plea that he is ready and willing to admit his crime and to enter the correctional system in a frame of mind that affords hope for success in rehabilitation over a shorter period of time than might otherwise be necessary.
A contrary holding would require the States and Federal Government to forbid guilty pleas altogether, to provide a single invariable penalty for each crime defined by the statutes, or to place the sentencing, function in a separate authority having no knowledge of the manner in which the conviction in each case was obtained. In any event, it would be necessary to forbid prosecutors and judges to accept guilty pleas to selected counts, to lesser included offenses, or to reduced charges. The Fifth Amendment does not reach so far.
Bram v. United States, 168 U. S. 532 (1897), held that the admissibility of a confession depended upon whether it was compelled within the meaning of the Fifth Amendment. To be admissible, a confession must be “ ‘freN and voluntary: that is, must not be extracted by any sort of threats or violence, nor obtained by any direct or implied promises, however slight, nor by the exertion of any improper influence.’ ” 168 U. S., at 542-543. More recently, Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1 (1964), carried forward the Bram definition of compulsion in the course of holding applicable to the States the Fifth Amendment privilege against compelled self-incrimination.
Bram is not inconsistent with our holding that Brady’s plea was not compelled even though the law promised him a lesser maximum penalty if he did not go to trial. Bram dealt with a confession given by a defendant in custody, alone and unrepresented by counsel. In such circumstances, even a mild promise of leniency was deemed sufficient to bar the confession, not because the promise was an illegal act as such, but because defendants at such times are too sensitive to inducement and the possible impact on them too great to ignore and too difficult to assess. But Bram and its progeny did not hold that the possibly coercive impact of a promise of leniency could not be dissipated by the presence and advice of counsel, any more than Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966), held that the possibly coercive atmosphere of the police station could not be counteracted by the presence of counsel or other safeguards.
Brady’s situation bears no resemblance to Bram’s. Brady first pleaded not guilty; prior to changing his plea to guilty he was subjected to no threats or promises in face-to-face encounters with the authorities. He had competent counsel and full opportunity to assess the advantages and disadvantages of a trial as compared with those attending a plea of guilty; there was no hazard of an impulsive and improvident response to a seeming but unreal advantage. His plea of guilty was entered in open court and before a judge obviously sensitive to the requirements of the law with respect to guilty pleas. Brady’s plea, unlike Bram’s confession, was voluntary.
The standard as to the voluntariness of guilty pleas must be essentially that defined by Judge Tuttle of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit:
“ ‘[A] plea of guilty entered by one fully aware of the direct consequences, including the actual value of any commitments made to him by the court, prosecutor, or his own counsel, must stand unless induced by threats (or promises to discontinue improper harassment), misrepresentation (including unfulfilled or unfulfillable promises), or perhaps by promises that are by their nature improper as having no proper relationship to the prosecutor’s business (e. g. bribes).’ 242 F. 2d at page 115.”
Under this standard, a plea of guilty is not invalid merely because entered to avoid the possibility of a death penalty.
Ill
The record before us also supports the conclusion that Brady’s plea was intelligently made. He was advised by competent counsel, he was made aware of the nature of the charge against him, and there was nothing to indicate that he was incompetent or otherwise not in control of his mental faculties; once his confederate had pleaded guilty and became available to testify, he chose to plead guilty, perhaps to ensure that he would face no more than life imprisonment or a term of years. Brady was aware of precisely what he was doing when he admitted that he had kidnaped the victim and had not released her unharmed.
It is true that Brady’s counsel advised him that § 1201 (a) empowered the jury to impose the death penalty and that nine years later in United States v. Jackson, supra, the Court held that the jury had no such power as long as the judge could impose only a lesser penalty if trial was to the court or there was a plea of guilty. But these facts do not require us to set aside Brady’s conviction.
Often the decision to plead guilty is heavily influenced by the defendant’s appraisal of the prosecution’s case against him and by the apparent likelihood of securing leniency should a guilty plea be offered and accepted. Considerations like these frequently present imponderable questions for which there are no certain answers; judgments may be made that in the light of later events seem improvident, although they were perfectly sensible at the time. The rule that a plea must be intelligently made to be valid does not require that a plea be vulnerable to later attack if the defendant did not correctly assess every relevant factor entering into his decision. A defendant is not entitled to withdraw his plea merely because he discovers long after the plea has been accepted that his calculus misapprehended the quality of the State’s case or the likely penalties attached to alternative courses of action. More particularly, absent misrepresentation or other impermissible conduct by state agents, cf. Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U. S. 708 (1948), a voluntary plea of guilty intelligently made in the light of the then applicable law does not become vulnerable because later judicial decisions indicate that the plea rested on a faulty premise. A plea of guilty triggered by the expectations of a competently counseled defendant that the State will have a strong case against him is not subject to later attack because the defendant’s lawyer correctly advised him with respect to the then existing law as to possible penalties but later pronouncements of the courts, as in this case, hold that the maximum penalty for the crime in question was less than was reasonably assumed at the time the plea was entered.
The fact that Brady did not anticipate United States v. Jackson, supra, does not impugn the truth or reliability of his plea. We find no requirement in the Constitution that a defendant must be permitted to disown his solemn admissions in open court that he committed the act with which he is charged simply because it later develops that the State would have had a weaker case than the defendant had thought or that the maximum penalty then assumed applicable has been held inapplicable in subsequent judicial decisions.
This is not to say that guilty plea convictions hold no hazards for the innocent or that the methods of taking guilty pleas presently employed in this country are necessarily valid in all respects. This mode of conviction is no more foolproof than full trials to the court or to the jury. Accordingly, we take great precautions against unsound results, and we should continúe to do so, whether conviction is by plea or by trial. We would have serious doubts about this case if the encouragement of guilty pleas by offers of leniency substantially increased the likelihood that defendants, advised by competent counsel, would falsely condemn themselves. But our view is to the contrary and is based on our expectations that courts will satisfy themselves that pleas of guilty are voluntarily and intelligently made by competent defendants with adequate advice of counsel and that there is nothing to question the accuracy and reliability of the defendants’ admissions that they committed the crimes with which they are charged. In the case before us, nothing in the record impeaches Brady’s plea or suggests that his admissions in open court were anything but the truth.
Although Brady’s plea of guilty may well have been motivated in part by a desire to avoid a possible death penalty, we are convinced that his plea was voluntarily and intelligently made and we have no reason to doubt that his solemn admission of guilt was truthful.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black, while adhering to his belief that United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570, was wrongly decided, concurs in the judgment and in substantially all of the opinion in this case.
[For opinion of Mr. Justice Brennan, concurring in the result, see post, p. 799.]
“Whoever knowingly transports in interstate or foreign commerce, any person who has been unlarviully seized, confined, inveigled, decoyed, kidnaped, abducted, or carried away and held for ransom or reward or otherwise, except, in the case of a minor, by a parent thereof, shall be punished (1) by death if the kidnaped person has not been liberated unharmed, and if the verdict of the jury shall so recommend, or (2) by imprisonment for any term of years or for life, if the death penalty is not imposed.”
Eight days after petitioner pleaded guilty, he was brought before the court for sentencing. At that time, the court questioned petitioner for a second time about the voluntariness of his plea:
“THE COURT: . . . Having read the presentence report and the statement you made to the probation officer, I want to be certain that you know what you are doing and you did know when you entered a plea of guilty the other day. Do you want to let that plea of guilty stand, or do you want to withdraw it and plead not guilty?
“DEFENDANT BRADY: I want to let that plea stand, sir.
“THE COURT: You understand that in doing that you are admitting and confessing the truth of the charge contained in the indictment and that you enter a plea of guilty voluntarily, without persuasion, coercion of any kind? Is that right?
“DEFENDANT BRADY: Yes, your Honor.
“THE COURT: And you do do that?
“DEFENDANT BRADY: Yes, I do.
“THE COURT: You plead guilty to the charge?
“DEFENDANT BRADY: Yes, I do.” App. 29-30.
When petitioner pleaded guilty, Rule 11 read as follows:
“A defendant may plead not guilty, guilty or, with the consent of the court, nolo contendere. The court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty, and shall not accept the plea without first determining that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge. If a defendant refuses to plead or if the court refuses to accept a plea of guilty or if a defendant corporation fails to appear, the court shall enter a plea of not guilty."
Rule 11 was amended in 1966 and now reads as follows:
“A defendant may plead not guilty, guilty or, with the consent of the court, nolo contendere. The court may refuse to accept a plea of guilty, and shall not accept such plea or a plea of nolo contendere without first addressing the defendant personally and determining that the plea is made voluntarily with understanding of the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea. If a defendant refuses to plead or if the court refuses to accept a plea of guilty or if a defendant corporation fails to appear, the court shall enter a plea of not guilty. The court shall not enter a judgment upon a plea of guilty unless it is satisfied that there is a factual basis for the plea.”
In McCarthy v. United States, 394 U. S. 459 (1969), we held that a failure to comply with Rule 11 required that a defendant who had pleaded guilty be allowed to plead anew. In Halliday v. United States, 394 U. S. 831 (1969), we held that the McCarthy rule should apply only in cases where the guilty plea was accepted after April 2, 1969, the date of the McCarthy decision.
The requirement that a plea of guilty must be intelligent and voluntary to be valid has long been recognized. See nn. 5 and 6, infra. The new element added in Boykin was the requirement that the record must affirmatively disclose that a defendant who pleaded guilty entered his plea understandingly and voluntarily. This Court has not yet passed on the question of the retroactivity of this new requirement.
Machibroda v. United States, 368 U. S. 487, 493 (1962); Waley v. Johnston, 316 U. S. 101, 104 (1942); Walker v. Johnston, 312 U. S. 275, 286 (1941); Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227 (1940); Kercheval v. United States, 274 U. S. 220, 223 (1927).
See Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U. S. 1 (1966); Adams v. United States ex rel. McCann, 317 U. S. 269, 275 (1942); Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464 (1938); Patton v. United States, 281 U. S. 276, 312 (1930).
Since an intelligent assessment of the relative advantages of pleading guilty is frequently impossible without the assistance of an attorney, this Court has scrutinized with special care pleas of guilty entered by defendants without the assistance of counsel and without a valid waiver of the right to counsel. See Pennsylvania ex rel. Herman v. Claudy, 350 U. S. 116 (1956); Von Moltke v. Gillies, 332 U. S. 708 and 727 (1948) (opinions of Black and Frankfurter, JJ.); Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U. S. 471 (1945). Since Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335 (1963), it has been clear that a guilty plea to a felony charge entered without counsel and without a waiver of counsel is invalid. See White v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 59 (1963); Arsenault v. Massachusetts, 393 U. S. 5 (1968).
The importance of assuring that a defendant does not plead guilty except with a full understanding of the charges against him and the possible consequences of his plea was at the heart of our recent decisions in McCarthy v. United States, supra, and Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238 (1969). See nn. 3 and 4, supra.
Such a possibility seems to have been rejected by the District Court in the §2255 proceedings. That court found that “the plea of guilty was made by the petitioner by reason of other matters and not by reason of the statute . . . .”
We here make no reference to the situation where the prosecutor or judge, or both, deliberately employ their charging and sentencing powers to induce a particular defendant to tender a plea of guilty. In Brady’s case there is no claim that the prosecutor threatened prosecution on a charge not justified by the evidence or that the trial judge threatened Brady with a harsher sentence if convicted after trial in order to induce him to plead guilty.
For a more elaborate discussion of the factors that may justify a reduction in penalty upon a plea of guilty, see American Bar Association Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Pleas of Guilty § 1.8 and commentary, pp. 37-52 (Approved Draft 1968). of all
It has been estimated that about 90%, and perhaps 95%, of all criminal convictions are by pleas of guilty; between 70% and 85% of all felony convictions are estimated to be by guilty plea. D. Newman, Conviction, The Determination of Guilt or Innocence Without Trial 3 and n. 1 (1966).
Malloy v. Hogan, 378 U. S. 1, 7 (1964). See also Haynes v. Washington, 373 U. S. 503, 513 (1963); Lynumn v. Illinois, 372 U. S. 528 (1963); Wilson v. United States, 162 ü. S. 613, 622-623 (1896).
“The presence of counsel, in all the eases before us today, would be the adequate protective device necessary to make the process of police interrogation conform to the dictates of the privilege [against compelled self-incrimination]. His presence would insure that statements made in the government-established atmosphere are not the product of compulsion.” Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 466 (1966).
Shelton v. United States, 246 F. 2d 571, 572 n. 2 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1957) (en banc), rev’d on confession of error on other grounds, 356 U. S. 26 (1958).
Our conclusion in this regard seems to coincide with the conclusions of most of the lower federal courts that have considered whether a guilty plea to avoid a possible death penalty is involuntary. See United States ex rel. Brown v. LaVallee, 424 F. 2d 457 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1970); United States v. Thomas, 415 F. 2d 1216 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1969); Pindell v. United States, 296 F. Supp. 751 (D. C. Conn. 1969); McFarland v. United States, 284 F. Supp. 969 (D. C. Md. 1968), aff’d, No. 13,146 (C. A. 4th Cir., May 1, 1969), cert. denied, post, p. 1077; Laboy v. New Jersey, 266 F. Supp. 581 (D. C. N. J. 1967); Gilmore v. California, 364 F. 2d 916 (C. A. 9th Cir. 1966); Busby v. Holman, 356 F. 2d 75 (C. A. 5th Cir. 1966); Cooper v. Holman, 356 F. 2d 82 (C. A. 5th Cir.), cert. denied, 385 U. S. 855 (1966); Godlock v. Ross, 259 F. Supp. 659 (D. C. E. D. N. C. 1966); United States ex rel. Robinson v. Fay, 348 F. 2d 705 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1965), cert. denied, 382 U. S. 997 (1966); Overman v. United States, 281 F. 2d 497 (C. A. 6th Cir. 1960), cert. denied, 368 U. S. 993 (1962); Martin v. United States, 256 F. 2d 345 (C. A. 5th Cir.), cert. denied, 358 U. S. 921 (1958). But see Shaw v. United States, 299 F. Supp. 824 (D. C. S. D. Ga. 1969); Alford v. North Carolina, 405 F. 2d 340 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1968), prob. juris, noted, 394 U. S. 956 (1969), restored to calendar for reargument, post, p. 1060.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This case involves the process by which Ohio classifies prisoners for placement at its highest security prison, known as a “Supermax” facility. Supermax facilities are maximum-security prisons with highly restrictive conditions, designed to segregate the most dangerous prisoners from the general prison population. We must consider what process the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution requires Ohio to afford to inmates before assigning them to Supermax. We hold that the procedures Ohio has adopted provide sufficient procedural protection to comply with due process requirements.
I
The use of Supermax prisons has increased over the last 20 years, in part as a response to the rise in prison gangs and prison violence. See generally U. S. Dept, of Justice, National Institute of Corrections, C. Riveland, Supermax Prisons: Overview and General Considerations 1 (1999), http://www.nicic.org/pubs/1999/014937.pdf (as visited June 9, 2005, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file). About 30 States now operate Supermax prisons, in addition to the two somewhat comparable facilities operated by the Federal Government. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 2. In 1998, Ohio opened its only Supermax facility, the Ohio State Penitentiary (OSP), after a riot in one of its maximum-security prisons. OSP has the capacity to house up to 504 inmates in single-inmate cells and is designed to “ ‘separate the most predatory and dangerous prisoners from the rest of the . . . general [prison] population.’ ” See 189 F. Supp. 2d 719, 723 (ND Ohio 2002) (Austin I) (quoting deposition of R. Wilkinson, pp. 24-25).
Conditions at OSP are more restrictive than any other form of incarceration, in Ohio, including conditions on its death row or in its administrative control units. The latter are themselves a highly restrictive form of solitary confinement. See Austin I, supra, at 724-725, and n. 5 (citing Ohio Admin. Code §5120-9-13 (2001) (rescinded 2004)). In OSP almost every aspect of an inmate’s life is controlled and monitored. Inmates must remain in their cells, which measure 7 by 14 feet, for 23 hours per day. A light remains on in the cell at all times, though it is sometimes dimmed, and an inmate who attempts to shield the light to sleep is subject to further discipline. During the one hour per day that an inmate may leave his cell, access is limited to one of two indoor recreation cells.
Incarceration at OSP is synonymous with extreme isolation. In contrast to any other Ohio prison, including any segregation unit, OSP cells have solid metal doors with metal strips along their sides and bottoms which prevent conversation or communication with other inmates. All meals are taken alone in the inmate’s cell instead of in a common eating area. Opportunities for visitation are rare and in all events are conducted through glass walls. It is fair to say OSP inmates are deprived of almost any environmental or sensory stimuli and of almost all human contact.
Aside from the severity of the conditions, placement at OSP is for an indefinite period of time, limited only by an inmate’s sentence. For an inmate serving a life sentence, there is no indication how long he may be incarcerated at OSP once assigned there. Austin I, supra, at 740. Inmates otherwise eligible for parole lose their eligibility while incarcerated at OSP. 189 F. Supp. 2d, at 728.
Placement at OSP is determined in the following manner: Upon entering the prison system, all Ohio inmates are assigned a numerical security classification from level 1 through level 5, with 1 the lowest security risk and 5 the highest. See Brief for Petitioners 7. The initial security classification is based on numerous factors (e. g., the nature of the underlying offense, criminal history, or gang affiliation) but is subject to modification at any time during the inmate’s prison term if, for instance, he engages in misconduct or is deemed a security risk. Ibid. Level 5 inmates are placed in OSP, and levels 1 through 4 inmates are placed at lower security facilities throughout the State. Ibid.
Ohio concedes that when OSP first became operational, the procedures used to assign inmates to the facility were inconsistent and undefined. For a time, no official policy governing placement was in effect. See Austin I, supra, at 726-727. Haphazard placements were not uncommon, and some individuals who did not pose high-security risks were designated, nonetheless, for OSP. In an effort to establish guide-fines for the selection and classification of inmates suitable for OSP, Ohio issued Department of Rehabilitation and Correction Policy 111-07 (Aug. 31, 1998). This policy has been revised at various points but relevant here are two versions: the “Old Policy” and the “New Policy.” The Old Policy took effect on January 28, 1999, but problems with assignment appear to have persisted even under this written set of standards. 189 F. Supp. 2d, at 727-736. After forming a committee to study the matter and retaining a national expert in prison security, Ohio promulgated the New Policy in early 2002. The New Policy provided more guidance regarding the factors to be considered in placement decisions and afforded inmates more procedural protection against erroneous placement at OSP.
Although the record is not altogether clear regarding the precise manner in which the New Policy operates, we construe it based on the policy’s text, the accompanying forms, and the parties’ representations at oral argument and in their briefs. The New Policy appears to operate as follows: A classification review for OSP placement can occur either (1) upon entry into the prison system if the inmate was convicted of certain offenses, e. g., organized crime, or (2) during the term of incarceration if an inmate engages in specified conduct, e. g., leads a prison gang. App. 42-43. The review process begins when a prison official prepares a “Security Designation Long Form” (Long Form). Id., at 20. This three-page form details matters such as the inmate’s recent violence, escape attempts, gang affiliation, underlying offense, and other pertinent details. Id., at 20, 38-45.
A three-member Classification Committee (Committee) convenes to review the proposed classification and to hold a hearing. At least 48 hours before the hearing, the inmate is provided with written notice summarizing the conduct or offense triggering the review. Id., at 22, 58. At the time of notice, the inmate also has access to the Long Form, which details why the review was initiated. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 13-17. The inmate may attend the hearing, may “offer any pertinent information, explanation and/or objections to [OSP] placement,” and may submit a written statement. App. 22. He may not call witnesses.
If the Committee does not recommend OSP placement, the process terminates. Id., at 62, 65. See also Brief for Petitioners 9. If the Committee does recommend OSP placement, it documents the decision on a “Classification Committee Report” (CCR), setting forth “the nature of the threat the inmate presents and the committee’s reasons for the recommendation,” App. 64, as well as a summary of any information presented at the hearing, id., at 59-65. The Committee sends the completed CCR to the warden of the prison where the inmate is housed or, in the case of an inmate just entering the prison system, to another designated official. Id., at 23.
If, after reviewing the CCR, the warden (or the designated official) disagrees and concludes that OSP is inappropriate, the process terminates and the inmate is not placed in OSP. If the warden agrees, he indicates his approval on the CCR, provides his reasons, and forwards the annotated CCR to the Bureau of Classification (Bureau) for a final decision. Id., at 64. (The Bureau is a body of Ohio prison officials vested with final decisionmaking authority over all Ohio inmate assignments.) The annotated CCR is served upon the inmate, notifying him of the Committee’s and warden’s recommendations and reasons. Id., at 65. The inmate has 15 days to file any objections with the Bureau. Ibid.
After the 15-day period, the Bureau reviews the CCR and makes a final determination. If it concludes OSP placement is inappropriate, the process terminates. If the Bureau approves the warden’s recommendation, the inmate is transferred to OSP. The Bureau’s chief notes the reasons for the decision on the CCR, and the CCR is again provided to the inmate. Ibid.
Inmates assigned to OSP receive another review within 30 days of their arrival. That review is conducted by a designated OSP staff member, who examines the inmate’s file. Id., at 25. If the OSP staff member deems the inmate inappropriately placed, he prepares a written recommendation to the OSP warden that the inmate be transferred to a lower security institution. Brief for Petitioners 9; App. 25. If the OSP warden concurs, he forwards that transfer recommendation to the Bureau for appropriate action. If the inmate is deemed properly placed, he remains in OSP and his placement is reviewed on at least an annual basis according to the initial three-tier classification review process outlined above. Brief for Petitioners 9-10.
HH ► — I
This action began when a class of current and former OSP inmates brought suit under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against various Ohio prison officials. We refer to the class of plaintiff inmates, respondents here, collectively as “the inmates.” We refer to the prison officials, petitioners here, as “Ohio.”
The inmates’ complaint alleged that Ohio’s Old Policy, which was in effect at the time the suit was brought, violated due process. In addition the inmates brought a claim that certain conditions at OSP violated the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishments, but that claim was settled in the District Court. The extent to which the settlement resolved the practices that were the subject of the inmates’ Eighth Amendment claim is unclear but, in any event, that issue is not before us. The inmates’ suit sought declaratory and injunctive relief. On the eve of trial Ohio promulgated its New Policy and represented that it contained the procedures to be followed in the future. The District Court and Court of Appeals evaluated the adequacy of the New Policy, and it therefore forms the basis for our determination here.
After an 8-day trial with extensive evidence, including testimony from expert witnesses, the District Court made findings and conclusions and issued a detailed remedial order. First, relying on this Court’s decision in Sandin v. Conner, 515 U. S. 472 (1995), the District Court found that the inmates have a liberty interest in avoiding assignment to OSP. Austin I, 189 F. Supp. 2d, at 738-740. Second, the District Court found Ohio had denied the inmates due process by failing to afford a large number of them notice and an adequate opportunity to be heard before transfer; failing to give inmates sufficient notice of the grounds serving as the basis for their retention at OSP; and failing to give the inmates sufficient opportunity to understand the reasoning and evidence used to retain them at OSP. Id., at 749. Third, the District Court held that, although Ohio’s New Policy provided more procedural safeguards than its Old Policy, it was nonetheless inadequate to meet procedural due process requirements. Id., at 736, 750-754. In a separate order it directed extensive modifications to that policy. 204 F. Supp. 2d 1024 (ND Ohio 2002).
The modifications the District Court ordered to Ohio’s New Policy included both substantive and procedural reforms. The former narrowed the grounds that Ohio could consider in recommending assignment to OSP. For instance, possession of drugs in small amounts, according to the District Court, could not serve as the basis for an OSP assignment. Id., at 1028. The following are some of the procedural modifications the District Court ordered:
(1) Finding that the notice provisions of Ohio’s New Policy were inadequate, the District Court ordered Ohio to provide the inmates with an exhaustive list of grounds believed to justify placement at OSP and a summary of all evidence upon which the Committee would rely. Matters not so identified, the District Court ordered, could not be considered by the Committee. Id., at 1026.
(2) The District Court supplemented the inmate’s opportunity to appear before the Committee and to make an oral or written statement by ordering Ohio to allow inmates to present documentary evidence and call witnesses before the Committee, provided that doing so would not be unduly hazardous or burdensome. The District Court further ordered that Ohio must attempt to secure the participation of any witness housed within the prison system. Id., at 1026-1027.
(3) Finding the New Policy’s provision of a brief statement of reasons for a recommendation of OSP placement inadequate, the District Court ordered the Committee to summarize all evidence supporting its recommendation. Id., at 1027. Likewise, the District Court ordered the Bureau to prepare a “detailed and specific” statement “set[ting3 out all grounds” justifying OSP placement including “facts relied upon and reasoning used.” Ibid. The statement shall “not use conclusory,” “vague,” or “boilerplate language,” and must be delivered to the inmate within five days. Id., at 1027-1028.
(4) The District Court supplemented the New Policy's 30-day and annual review processes, ordering Ohio to notify the inmate twice per year both in writing and orally of his progress toward a security level reduction. Specifically, that notice must “advise the inmate what specific conduct is necessary for that prisoner to be reduced from Level 5 and the amount of time it will take before [Ohio] reduce[s] the inmate’s security level classification.” Id., at 1028.
Ohio appealed. First, it maintained that the inmates lacked a constitutionally protected liberty interest in avoiding placement at OSP. Second, it argued that, even assuming a liberty interest, its New Policy provides constitutionally adequate procedures and thus the District Court’s modifications were unnecessary. The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s conclusion that the inmates had a liberty interest in avoiding placement at OSP. 372 F. 3d 346, 356 (2004). The Court of Appeals also affirmed the District Court’s procedural modifications in their entirety. Id., at 359-360. Finally, it set aside the District Court’s far-reaching substantive modifications, concluding they exceeded the scope of the District Court’s authority. This last aspect of the Court of Appeals’ ruling is not the subject of review in this Court.
We granted certiorari to consider what process an inmate must be afforded under the Due Process Clause when he is considered for placement at OSP. 543 U. S. 1032 (2004). For reasons discussed below, we conclude that the inmates have a protected liberty interest in avoiding assignment at OSP. We further hold that the procedures set forth in the New Policy are sufficient to satisfy the Constitution’s requirements; it follows, then, that the procedural modifications ordered by the District Court and affirmed by the Court of Appeals were in error.
HH t-H KH
Withdrawing from the position taken in the Court of Appeals, Ohio in its briefs to this Court conceded that the inmates have a liberty interest in avoiding assignment at OSP. See Pet. for Cert, i; Brief for Petitioners i. The United States, supporting Ohio as amicus curiae, disagrees with Ohio’s concession and argues that the inmates have no liberty interest in avoiding assignment to a prison facility with more restrictive conditions of confinement. See Brief for United States 10. At oral argument Ohio initially adhered to its earlier concession, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 5, but when pressed, the State backtracked. See id., at 6-7. We need reach the question of what process is due only if the inmates establish a constitutionally protected liberty interest, so it is appropriate to address this threshold question at the outset.
The Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause protects persons against deprivations of life, liberty, or property; and those who seek to invoke its procedural protection must establish that one of these interests is at stake. A liberty interest may arise from the Constitution itself, by reason of guarantees implicit in the word “liberty,” see, e. g., Vitek v. Jones, 445 U. S. 480, 498-494 (1980) (liberty interest in avoiding involuntary psychiatric treatment and transfer to mental institution), or it may arise from an expectation or interest created by state laws or policies, see, e. g., Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539, 556-558 (1974) (liberty interest in avoiding withdrawal of state-created system of good-time credits).
We have held that the Constitution itself does not give rise to a liberty interest in avoiding transfer to more adverse conditions of confinement. Meachum v. Fano, 427 U. S. 215, 225 (1976) (no liberty interest arising from Due Process Clause itself in transfer from low- to maximum-security prison because “[confinement in any of the State’s institutions is within the normal limits or range of custody which the conviction has authorized the State to impose”). We have also held, however, that a liberty interest in avoiding particular conditions of confinement may arise from state policies or regulations, subject to the important limitations set forth in Sandin v. Conner, 515 U. S. 472 (1995).
Sandin involved prisoners’ claims to procedural due process protection before placement in segregated confinement for 30 days, imposed as discipline for disruptive behavior. Sandin observed that some of our earlier cases, Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U. S. 460 (1983), in particular, had employed a methodology for identifying state-created liberty interests that emphasized “the language of a particular [prison] regulation” instead of “the nature of the deprivation.” Sandin, 515 U. S., at 481. In Sandin, we criticized this methodology as creating a disincentive for States to promulgate procedures for prison management, and as involving the federal courts in the day-to-day management of prisons. Id., at 482-483. For these reasons, we abrogated the methodology of parsing the language of particular regulations.
“[T]he search for a negative implication from mandatory language in prisoner regulations has strayed from the real concerns undergirding the liberty protected by the Due Process Clause. The time has come to return to the due process principles we believe were correctly established in and applied in Wolff and Meachum. Following Wolff, we recognize that States may under certain circumstances create liberty interests which are protected by the Due Process Clause. But these interests will generally be limited to freedom from restraint which, while not exceeding the sentence in such an unexpected manner as to give rise to protection by the Due Process Clause of its own force, nonetheless imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Id., at 483-484 (citations and footnote omitted).
After Sandin, it is clear that the touchstone of the inquiry into the existence of a protected, state-created liberty interest in avoiding restrictive conditions of confinement is not the language of regulations regarding those conditions but the nature of those conditions themselves “in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Id., at 484.
Applying this refined inquiry, Sandin found no liberty interest protecting against a 30-day assignment to segregated confinement because it did not “present a dramatic departure from the basic conditions of [the inmate’s] sentence.” Id., at 485. We noted, for example, that inmates in the general population experienced “significant amounts of ‘lockdown time’ ” and that the degree of confinement in disciplinary segregation was not excessive. Id., at 486. We did not find, moreover, the short duration of segregation to work a major disruption in the inmate’s environment. Ibid.
The Sandin standard requires us to determine if assignment to OSP “imposes atypical and significant hardship on the inmate in relation to the ordinary incidents of prison life.” Id., at 484. In Sandin’s wake the Courts of Appeals have not reached consistent conclusions for identifying the baseline from which to measure what is atypical and significant in any particular prison system. Compare, e.g., Beverati v. Smith, 120 F. 3d 500, 504 (CA4 1997), and Keenan v. Hall, 83 F. 3d 1083, 1089 (CA9 1996), with Hatch v. District of Columbia, 184 F. 3d 846, 847 (CADC 1999). See also Wagner v. Hanks, 128 F. 3d 1173, 1177 (CA7 1997). This divergence indicates the difficulty of locating the appropriate baseline, an issue that was not explored at length in the briefs. We need not resolve the issue here, however, for we are satisfied that assignment to OSP imposes an atypical and significant hardship under any plausible baseline.
For an inmate placed in OSP, almost all human contact is prohibited, even to the point that conversation is not permitted from cell to cell; the light, though it may be dimmed, is on for 24 hours; exercise is for 1 hour per day, but only in a small indoor room. Save perhaps for the especially severe limitations on all human contact, these conditions likely would apply to most solitary confinement facilities, but here there are two added components. First is the duration. Unlike the 30-day placement in Sandin, placement at OSP is indefinite and, after an initial 30-day review, is reviewed just annually. Second is that placement disqualifies an otherwise eligible inmate for parole consideration. Austin I, 189 F. Supp. 2d, at 728. While any of these conditions standing alone might not be sufficient to create a liberty interest, taken together they impose an atypical and significant hardship within the correctional context. It follows that respondents have a liberty interest in avoiding assignment to OSP. Sandin, supra, at 483.
OSP’s harsh conditions may well be necessary and appropriate in light of the danger that high-risk inmates pose both to prison officials and to other prisoners. See infra, at 227. That necessity, however, does not diminish our conclusion that the conditions give rise to a liberty interest in their avoidance.
IV
A liberty interest having been established, we turn to the question of what process is due an inmate whom Ohio seeks to place in OSP. Because the requirements of due process are “flexible and eal[l] for such procedural protections as the particular situation demands,” Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 481 (1972), we generally have declined to establish rigid rules and instead have embraced a framework to evaluate the sufficiency of particular procedures. The framework, established in Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319 (1976), requires consideration of three distinct factors:
“First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government's interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” Id., at 335.
The Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s procedural modifications under the assumption that Sandin altered the first Mathews factor. It reasoned that, “[i]n this first factor, Sandin affects the due process balance: because only those conditions that constitute ‘atypical and significant hardships’ give rise to liberty interests, those interests will necessarily be of a weight requiring greater due process protection.” 372 F. 3d, at 358-359. This proposition does not follow from Sandin. Sandin concerned only whether a state-created liberty interest existed so as to trigger Mathews balancing at all. Having found no liberty interest to be at stake, Sandin had no occasion to consider whether the private interest was weighty vis-á-vis the remaining Mathews factors.
Applying the three factors set forth in Mathews, we find Ohio’s New Policy provides a sufficient level of process. We first consider the significance of the inmate’s interest in avoiding erroneous placement at OSP. Prisoners held in lawful confinement have their liberty curtailed by definition, so the procedural protections to which they are entitled are more limited than in cases where the right at stake is the right to be free from confinement at all. See, e. g., Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103 (1975); Wolff, 418 U. S. 539. The private interest at stake here, while more than minimal, must be evaluated, nonetheless, within the context of the prison system and its attendant curtailment of liberties.
The second factor addresses the risk of an erroneous placement under the procedures in place, and the probable value, if any, of additional or alternative procedural safeguards. The New Policy provides that an inmate must receive notice of the factual basis leading to consideration for OSP placement and a fair opportunity for rebuttal. Our procedural due process cases have consistently observed that these are among the most important procedural mechanisms for purposes of avoiding erroneous deprivations. See Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal and Correctional Complex, 442 U. S. 1, 15 (1979); Cleveland Bd. of Ed. v. Loudermill, 470 U. S. 532, 543 (1985); Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U. S. 67, 80 (1972) (“For more than a century the central meaning of procedural due process has been clear: ‘Parties whose rights are to be affected are entitled to be heard; and in order that they may enjoy that right they must first be notified’ ” (quoting Baldwin v. Hale, 1 Wall. 223, 233 (1864))). Requiring officials to provide a brief summary of the factual basis for the classification review and allowing the inmate a rebuttal opportunity safeguards against the inmate’s being mistaken for another or singled out for insufficient reason. In addition to having the opportunity to be heard at the Committee stage, Ohio also invites the inmate to submit objections prior to the final level of review. This second opportunity further reduces the possibility of an erroneous deprivation.
Although a subsequent reviewer may overturn an affirmative recommendation for OSP placement, the reverse is not true; if one reviewer declines to recommend OSP placement, the process terminates. This avoids one of the problems apparently present under the Old Policy, where, even if two levels of reviewers recommended against placement, a later reviewer could overturn their recommendation without explanation.
If the recommendation is OSP placement, Ohio requires that the decisionmaker provide a short statement of reasons. This requirement guards against arbitrary decisionmaking while also providing the inmate a basis for objection before the next decisionmaker or in a subsequent classification review. The statement also serves as a guide for future behavior. See Greenholtz, supra, at 16.
As we have noted, Ohio provides multiple levels of review for any decision recommending OSP placement, with power to overturn the recommendation at each level. In addition to these safeguards, Ohio further reduces the risk of erroneous placement by providing for a placement review within 30 days of an inmate’s initial assignment to OSP.
The third Mathews factor addresses the State’s interest. In the context of prison management, and in the specific circumstances of this case, this interest is a dominant consideration. Ohio has responsibility for imprisoning nearly 44,000 inmates. Austin I, 189 P. Supp. 2d, at 727. The State’s first obligation must be to ensure the safety of guards and prison personnel, the public, and the prisoners themselves. See Hewitt, 459 U. S., at 473.
Prison security, imperiled by the brutal reality of prison gangs, provides the backdrop of the State’s interest. Clandestine, organized, fueled by race-based hostility, and committed to fear and violence as a means of disciplining their own members and their rivals, gangs seek nothing less than to control prison life and to extend their power outside prison walls. See Brief for State of California et al. as Amici Curiae 6. Murder of an inmate, a guard, or one of their family members on the outside is a common form of gang discipline and control, as well as a condition for membership in some gangs. See, e. g., United States v. Santiago, 46 P. 3d 885, 888 (CA9 1995); United States v. Silverstein, 732 F. 2d 1338, 1341 (CA7 1984). Testifying against, or otherwise informing on, gang activities can invite one’s own death sentence. It is worth noting in this regard that for prison gang members serving life sentences, some without the possibility of parole, the deterrent effects of ordinary criminal punishment may be substantially diminished. See id., at 1343 (“[T]o many inmates of Marion’s Control Unit the price of murder must not be high and to some it must be close to zero”).
The problem of scarce resources is another component of the State’s interest. The cost of keeping a single prisoner in one of Ohio’s ordinary maximum-security prisons is $34,167 per year, and the cost to maintain each inmate at OSP is $49,007 per year. See Austin I, supra, at 734, n. 17. We can assume that Ohio, or any other penal system, faced with costs like these will find it difficult to fund more effective education and vocational assistance programs to improve the lives of the prisoners. It follows that courts must give substantial deference to prison management decisions before mandating additional expenditures for elaborate procedural safeguards when correctional officials conclude that a prisoner has engaged in disruptive behavior.
The State’s interest must be understood against this background. Were Ohio to allow an inmate to call witnesses or provide other attributes of an adversary hearing before ordering transfer to OSP, both the State’s immediate objective of controlling the prisoner and its greater objective of controlling the prison could, be defeated. This problem, moreover, is not alleviated by providing an exemption for witnesses who pose a hazard, for nothing in the record indicates simple mechanisms exist to determine when witnesses may be called without fear of reprisal. The danger to witnesses, and the difficulty in obtaining their cooperation, make the probable value of an adversary-type hearing doubtful in comparison to its obvious costs.
A balance of the Mathews factors yields the conclusion that Ohio’s New Policy is adequate to safeguard an inmate’s liberty interest in not being assigned to OSP. Ohio is not, for example, attempting to remove an inmate from free society for a specific parole violation, see, e. g., Morrissey, 408 U. S., at 481, or to revoke good-time credits for specific, serious misbehavior, see, e. g., Wolff, 418 U. S., at 539, where more formal, adversary-type procedures might be useful. Where the inquiry draws more on the experience of prison administrators, and where the State’s interest implicates the safety of other inmates and prison personnel, the informal, nonadversary procedures set forth in Greenholtz, 442 U. S. 1, and Hewitt v. Helms, supra, provide the appropriate model. Greenholtz, supra, at 16 (level of process due for inmates being considered for release on parole includes opportunity to be heard and notice of any adverse decision); Hewitt, supra, at 473-476 (level of process due for inmates being considered for transfer to administrative segregation includes some notice of charges and an opportunity to be heard). Although Sandin abrogated Greenholtz’s and Hewitt’s methodology for establishing the liberty interest, these cases remain instructive for their discussion of the appropriate level of procedural safeguards. Ohio’s New Policy provides informal, nonadversary procedures comparable to those we upheld in Greenholtz and Hewitt, and no further procedural modifications are necessary in order to satisfy due process under the Mathews test. Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals should have ordered the New Policy altered.
The effect of the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, in particular 18 U. S. C. § 3626(a)(1)(A), in this case has not been discussed at any length in the briefs. In view of our disposition it is unnecessary to address its application here.
Prolonged confinement in Supermax may be the State’s only option for the control of some inmates, and claims alleging violation of the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition of cruel and unusual punishments were resolved, or withdrawn, by settlement in an early phase of this case. Here, any claim of excessive punishment in individual circumstances is not before us.
The complaint challenged OSP assignments under the Old Policy, and the unwritten policies that preceded it, and alleged injuries resulting from those systems. Ohio conceded that assignments made under the Old Policy were, to say the least, imprecise. The District Court found constitutional violations had arisen under those earlier versions, and held that the New Policy would produce many of the same constitutional problems. Austin I, 189 F. Supp. 2d, at 749-754. We now hold that the New Policy as described in this opinion strikes a constitutionally permissible balance between the factors of the Mathews framework. If an inmate were to demonstrate that the New Policy did not in practice operate in this fashion, resulting in a cognizable injury, that could be the subject of an appropriate future challenge. On remand, the Court of Appeals, or the District Court, may consider in the first instance what, if any, prospective relief is still a necessary and appropriate remedy for due process violations under Ohio’s previous policies. Any such relief must, of course, satisfy the conditions set forth in 18 U. S. C. § 3626(a)(1)(A).
* * *
The Court of Appeals was correct to find the. inmates possess a liberty interest in avoiding assignment at OSP. The Court of Appeals was incorrect, however, to sustain the procedural modifications ordered by the District Court. The portion of the Court of Appeals’ opinion reversing the District Court’s substantive modifications was not the subject of review upon certiorari and is unaltered by our decision.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | D | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion of California to join the States of Colorado and Wyoming as parties to this cause is denied. The motion to join Utah and New Mexico as parties is granted only to the extent of their interest in Lower Basin waters.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Burton, and Mr. Justice Harlan would grant the motion.
The Chief Justice did not participate in this proceeding.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | K | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 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.
In this case, we consider the scope and constitutionality of a provision of the Amateur Sports Act of 1978, 36 U. S. C. §§371-396, that authorizes the United States Olympic Committee to prohibit certain commercial and promotional uses of the word “Olympic.”
I
Petitioner San Francisco Arts & Athletics, Inc. (SFAA), is a nonprofit California corporation. The SFAA originally sought to incorporate under the name “Golden Gate Olympic Association,” but was told by the California Department of Corporations that the word “Olympic” could not appear in a corporate title. App. 95. After its incorporation in 1981, the SFAA nevertheless began to promote the “Gay Olympic Games,” using those words on its letterheads and mailings and in local newspapers. Ibid. The games were to be a 9-day event to begin in August 1982, in San Francisco, California. The SFAA expected athletes from hundreds of cities in this country and from cities all over the world. Id., at 402. The Games were to open with a ceremony “which will rival the traditional Olympic Games.” Id., at 354. See id., at 402, 406, 425. A relay of over 2,000 runners would carry a torch from New York City across the country to Kezar Stadium in San Francisco. Id., at 98, 355, 357, 432. The final runner would enter the stadium with the “Gay Olympic Torch” and light the “Gay Olympic Flame.” Id., at 357. The ceremony would continue with the athletes marching in uniform into the stadium behind their respective city flags. Id., at 354, 357, 402, 404, 414. Competition was to occur in 18 different contests, with the winners receiving gold, silver, and bronze medals. Id., at 354-355, 359, 407, 410. To cover the cost of the planned Games, the SFAA sold T-shirts, buttons, bumper stickers, and other merchandise bearing the title “Gay Olympic Games.” Id., at 67, 94, 107, 113-114, 167, 360, 362, 427-428.
Section 110 of the Amateur Sports Act (Act), 92 Stat. 3048, 36 U. S. C. § 380, grants respondent United States Olympic Committee (USOC) the right to prohibit certain commercial and promotional uses of the word “Olympic” and various Olympic symbols. In late December 1981, the executive director of the USOC wrote to the SFAA, informing it of the existence of the Amateur Sports Act, and requesting that the SFAA immediately terminate use of the word “Olympic” in its description of the planned Games. The SFAA at first agreed to substitute the word “Athletic” for the word “Olympic,” but, one month later, resumed use of the term. The USOC became aware that the SFAA was still advertising its Games as “Olympic” through a newspaper article in May 1982. In August, the USOC brought suit in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of California to enjoin the SFAA’s use of the word “Olympic.” The District Court granted a temporary restraining order and then a preliminary injunction. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. After further proceedings, the District Court granted the USOC summary judgment and a permanent injunction.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court. 781 F. 2d 733 (1986). It found that the Act granted the USOC exclusive use of the word “Olympic” without requiring the USOC to prove that the unauthorized use was confusing and without regard to the defenses available to an entity sued for a trademark violation under the Lanham Act, 60 Stat. 427, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1051 et seq. It did not reach the SFAA’s contention that the USOC enforced its rights in a discriminatory manner, because the court found that the USOC is not a state actor bound by the constraints of the Constitution. The court also found that the USOC’s “property righ[t] [in the word ‘Olympic’ and its assodated symbols and slogans] can be protected without violating the First Amendment.” 781 F. 2d, at 737. The court denied the SFAA’s petition for rehearing en banc. Three judges dissented, finding that the panel’s interpretation of the Act raised serious First Amendment issues. 789 F. 2d 1319, 1326 (1986).
We granted certiorari, 479 U. S. 913 (1986), to review the issues of statutory and constitutional interpretation decided by the Court of Appeals. We now affirm.
II
The SFAA contends that the Court of Appeals erred in interpreting the Act as granting the USOC anything more than a normal trademark in the word “Olympic.” “[T]he ‘starting point in every case involving construction of a statute is the language itself.’” Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U. S. 36, 43 (1986) (quoting Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U. S. 723, 756 (1975) (Powell, J., concurring)). Section 110 of the Act provides:
“Without the consent of the [USOC], any person who uses for the purpose of trade, to induce the sale of any goods or services, or to promote any theatrical exhibition, athletic performance, or competition—
“(4) the words ‘Olympic’, ‘Olympiad’, ‘Citius Altius Fortius’, or any combination or simulation thereof tending to cause confusion, to cause mistake, to deceive, or to falsely suggest a connection with the [USOC] or any Olympic activity;
“shall be subject to suit in a civil action by the [USOC] for the remedies provided in the [Lanham] Act.” 36 U. S. C. § 380(a).
The SFAA argues that the clause “tending to cause confusion” is properly read to apply to the word “Olympic.” But because there is no comma after “thereof,” the more natural reading of the section is that “tending to cause confusion” modifies only “any combination or simulation thereof.” Nevertheless, we do not regard this language as conclusive. We therefore examine the legislative history of this section.
Before Congress passed § 110 of the Act, unauthorized use of the word “Olympic” was punishable criminally. The relevant statute, in force since 1950, did not require the use to be confusing. Instead, it made it a crime for:
“any person... other than [the USOC]... for the purpose of trade, theatrical exhibition, athletic performance, and competition or as an advertisement to induce the sale of any article whatsoever or attendance at any theatrical exhibition, athletic performance, and competition or for any business or charitable purpose to use... the words ‘Olympic’, ‘Olympiad’, or ‘Citius Altius Fortius’ or any combination of these words.” 64 Stat. 901, as amended, 36 U. S. C. §379 (1976 ed.) (emphasis added).
The House Judiciary Committee drafted the language of § 110 that was ultimately adopted. The Committee explained that the previous “criminal penalty has been found to be unworkable as it requires the proof of a criminal intent.” H. R. Rep. No. 95-1627, p. 15 (1978) (House Report). The changes from the criminal statute “were made in response to a letter from the Patent and Trademark Office of the Department of Commerce,” ibid., that the Committee appended to the end of its Report. This letter explained:
“Section 110(a)(4) makes actionable not only use of the words ‘Olympic’, ‘Olympiad’, ‘Citius Altius Fortius’, and any combination thereof, but also any simulation or confusingly similar derivation thereof tending to cause confusion, to cause mistake, to deceive, or to falsely suggest a connection with the [USOC] or any Olympic activity....
“Section 110 carries forward some prohibitions from the existing statute enacted in 1950 and adds some new prohibitions, e. g. words described in section (a)(1) tending to cause confusion, to cause mistake, or to deceive with respect to the [USOC] or any Olympic activity.” Id., at 38 (emphasis added).
This legislative history demonstrates that Congress intended to provide the USOC with exclusive control of the use of the word “Olympic” without regard to whether an unauthorized use of the word tends to cause confusion.
The SFAA further argues that the reference in §110 to Lanham Act remedies should be read as incorporating the traditional trademark defenses as well. See 15 U. S. C. § 1115(b). This argument ignores the clear language of the section. Also, this shorthand reference to remedies replaced an earlier draft’s specific list of remedies typically available for trademark infringement, e. g., injunctive relief, recovery of profits, damages, costs, and attorney’s fees. See Lanham Act §§ 34, 35, 15 U. S. C. §§ 1116, 1117. This list contained no reference to trademark defenses. 124 Cong. Rec. 12865, 12866 (1978) (proposed § 110(c)). Moreover, the USOC already held a trademark in the word “Olympic.” App. 378-382. Under the SFAA’s interpretation, the Act would be largely superfluous. In sum, the language and legislative history of § 110 indicate clearly that Congress intended to grant the USOC exclusive use of the word “Olympic” without regard to whether use of the word tends to cause confusion, and that § 110 does not incorporate defenses available under the Lanham Act.
III
This Court has recognized that “[n]ational protection of trademarks is desirable... because trademarks foster competition and the maintenance of quality by securing to the producer the benefits of good reputation.” Park ’N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc., 469 U. S. 189, 198 (1985). In the Lanham Act, 15 U. S. C. § 1051 et seq., Congress established a system for protecting such trademarks. Section 45 of the Lanham Act defines a trademark as “any word, name, symbol, or device or any combination thereof adopted and used by a manufacturer or merchant to identify and distinguish his goods, including a unique product, from those manufactured or sold by others.” 15 U. S. C. § 1127 (1982 ed., Supp. III). Under §32 of the Lanham Act, the owner of a trademark is protected from unauthorized uses that are “likely to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive.” § 1114(1)(a). Section 33 of the Lanham Act grants several statutory defenses to an alleged trademark infringer. § 1115.
The protection granted to the USOC’s use of the Olympic words and symbols differs from the normal trademark protection in two respects: the USOC need not prove that a contested use is likely to cause confusion, and an unauthorized user of the word does not have available the normal statutory defenses. The SFAA argues, in effect, that the differences between the Lanham Act and § 110 are of constitutional dimension. First, the SFAA contends that the word “Olympic” is a generic word that could not gain trademark protection under the Lanham Act. The SFAA argues that this prohibition is constitutionally required and thus that the First Amendment prohibits Congress from granting a trademark in the word “Olympic.” Second, the SFAA argues that the First Amendment prohibits Congress from granting exclusive use of a word absent a requirement that the authorized user prove that an unauthorized use is likely to cause confusion. We address these contentions in turn.
A
This Court has recognized that words are not always fungible, and that the suppression of particular words “run[s] a substantial risk of suppressing ideas in the process.” Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15, 26 (1971). The SFAA argues that this principle prohibits Congress from granting the USOC exclusive control of uses of the word “Olympic,” a word that the SFAA views as generic. Yet this recognition always has been balanced against the principle that when a word acquires value “as the result of organization and the expenditure of labor, skill, and money” by an entity, that entity constitutionally may obtain a limited property right in the word. International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U. S. 215, 239 (1918). See Trade-Mark Cases, 100 U. S. 82, 92 (1879).
There is no need in this case to decide whether Congress ever could grant a private entity exclusive use of a generic word. Congress reasonably could conclude that the commercial and promotional value of the word “Olympic” was the product of the USOC’s “own talents and energy, the end result of much time, effort, and expense.” Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Co., 433 U. S. 562, 575 (1977). The USOC, together with respondent International Olympic Committee (IOC), have used the word “Olympic” at least since 1896, when the modern Olympic Games began. App. 348. Baron Pierre de Coubertin of France, acting pursuant to a government commission, then proposed the revival of the ancient Olympic Games to promote international understanding. D. Chester, The Olympic Games Handbook 13 (1975). De Coubertin sought to identify the “spirit” of the ancient Olympic Games that had been corrupted by the influence of money and politics. See M. Finley & H. Pleket, The Olympic Games: The First Thousand Years 4 (1976). De Coubertin thus formed the IOC, that has established elaborate rules and procedures for the conduct of the modern Olympics. See Olympic Charter, Rules 26-69 (1985). In addition, these rules direct every national committee to protect the use of the Olympic flag, symbol, flame, and motto from unauthoruse. Id., Bye-laws to Rules 6 and 53. Under the IOC Charter, the USOC is the national Olympic committee for the United States with the sole authority to represent the United States at the Olympic Games. Pursuant to this authority, the USOC has used the Olympic words and symbols extensively in this country to fulfill its object under the Olympic Charter of “ensuring] the development and safeguarding of the Olympic Movement and sport.” Id., Rule 24.
The history of the origins and associations of the word “Olympic” demonstrates the meritlessness of the SFAA’s contention that Congress simply plucked a generic word out of the English vocabulary and granted its exclusive use to the USOC. Congress reasonably could find that since 1896, the word “Olympic” has acquired what in trademark law is known as a secondary meaning — it “has become distinctive of [the USOC’s] goods in commerce.” Lanham Act, § 2(f), 15 U. S. C. § 1052(f). See Park 'N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc., 469 U. S., at 194. The right to adopt and use such a word “to distinguish the goods or property [of] the person whose mark it is, to the exclusion of use by all other persons, has been long recognized.” Trade-Mark Cases, supra, at 92. Because Congress reasonably could conclude that the USOC has distinguished the word “Olympic” through its own efforts, Congress’ decision to grant the USOC a limited property right in the word “Olympic” falls within the scope of trademark law protections, and thus certainly within constitutional bounds.
B
Congress also acted reasonably when it concluded that the USOC should not be required to prove that an unauthorized use of the word “Olympic” is likely to confuse the public. To the extent that § 110 applies to uses “for the purpose of trade [or] to induce the sale of any goods or services,” 36 U. S. C. § 380(a), its application is to commercial speech. Commercial speech “receives a limited form of First Amendment protection.” Posadas de Puerto Rico Assoc. v. Tourism Company of Puerto Rico, 478 U. S. 328, 340 (1986); Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm’n of New York, 447 U. S. 557, 562-563 (1980). Section 110 also allows the USOC to prohibit the use of “Olympic” for promotion of theatrical and athletic events. Although many of these promotional uses will be commercial speech, some uses may go beyond the “strictly business” context. See Friedman v. Rogers, 440 U. S. 1, 11 (1979). In this case, the SFAA claims that its use of the word “Olympic” was intended to convey a political statement about the status of homosexuals in society. Thus, the SFAA claims that in this case § 110 suppresses political speech.
By prohibiting the use of one word for particular purposes, neither Congress nor the USOC has prohibited the SFAA from conveying its message. The SFAA held its athletic event in its planned format under the names “Gay Games I” and “Gay Games II” in 1982 and 1986, respectively. See n. 2, supra. Nor is it clear that § 110 restricts purely expressive uses of the word “Olympic.” Section 110 restricts only the manner in which the SFAA may convey its message. The restrictions on expressive speech properly are characterized as incidental to the primary congressional purpose of encouraging and rewarding the USOC’s activities. The appropriate inquiry is thus whether the incidental restrictions on First Amendment freedoms are greater than necessary to further a substantial governmental interest. United States v. O’Brien, 891 U. S. 367, 377 (1968).
One reason for Congress to grant the USOC exclusive control of the word “Olympic,” as with other trademarks, is to ensure that the USOC receives the benefit of its own efforts so that the USOC will have an incentive to continue to produce a “quality product,” that, in turn, benefits the public. See 1 J. McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 2:1, pp. 44-47 (1984). But in the special circumstance of the USOC, Congress has a broader public interest in promoting, through the activities of the USOC, the participation of amateur athletes from the United States in “the great four-yearly sport festival, the Olympic Games.” Olympic Charter, Rule 1 (1985). The USOC’s goal under the Olympic Charter, Rule 24(B), is to further the Olympic movement, that has as its aims: “to promote the development of those physical and moral qualities which are the basis of sport”; “to educate young people through sport in a spirit of better understanding between each other and of friendship, thereby helping to build a better and more peaceful world”; and “to spread the Olympic principles throughout the world, thereby creating international goodwill.”’ Id., Rule 1. See also id., Rule 11 (aims of the IOC). Congress’ interests in promoting the USOC’s activities include these purposes as well as those specifically enumerated in the USOC’s charter. Section 110 directly advances these governmental interests by supplying the USOC with the means to raise money to support the Olympics and encourages the USOC’s activities by ensuring that it will receive the benefits of its efforts.
The restrictions of § 110 are not broader than Congress reasonably could have determined to be necessary to further these interests. Section 110 primarily applies to all uses of the word “Olympic” to induce the sale of goods or services. Although the Lanham Act protects only against confusing uses, Congress’ judgment respecting a certain word is not so limited. Congress reasonably could conclude that most commercial uses of the Olympic words and symbols are likely to be confusing. It also could determine that unauthorized uses, even if not confusing, nevertheless may harm the USOC by lessening the distinctiveness and thus the commercial value of the marks. See Schechter, The Rational Basis of Trademark Protection, 40 Harv. L. Rev. 813, 825 (1927) (one injury to a trademark owner may be “the gradual whittling away or dispersion of the identity and hold upon the public mind of the mark or name” by nonconfusing uses).
In this case, the SFAA sought to sell T-shirts, buttons, bumper stickers, and other items, all emblazoned with the title “Gay Olympic Games.” The possibility for confusion as to sponsorship is obvious. Moreover, it is clear that the SFAA sought to exploit the “commercial magnetism,” see Mishawaka Rubber & Woolen Mfg. Co. v. S. S. Kresge Co., 316 U. S. 203, 205 (1942), of the word given value by the USOC. There is no question that this unauthorized use could undercut the USOC’s efforts to use, and sell the right to use, the word in the future, since much of the word’s value comes from its limited use. Such an adverse effect on the USOC’s activities is directly contrary to Congress’ interest. Even though this protection may exceed the traditional rights of a trademark owner in certain circumstances, the application of the Act to this commercial speech is not broader than necessary to protect the legitimate congressional interest and therefore does not violate the First Amendment.
Section 110 also extends to promotional uses of the word “Olympic,” even if the promotion is not to induce the sale of goods. Under § 110, the USOC may prohibit purely promotional uses of the word only when the promotion relates to an athletic or theatrical event. The USOC created the value of the word by using it in connection with an athletic event. Congress reasonably could find that use of the word by other entities to promote an athletic event would directly impinge on the USOC’s legitimate right of exclusive use. The SFAA’s proposed use of the word is an excellent example. The “Gay Olympic Games” were to take place over a 9-day period and were to be held in different locations around the world. They were to include a torch relay, a parade with uniformed athletes of both sexes divided by city, an “Olympic anthem” and “Olympic Committee,” and the award of gold, silver, and bronze medals, and were advertised under a logo of three overlapping rings. All of these features directly parallel the modern-day Olympics, not the Olympic Games that occurred in ancient Greece. The image the SFAA sought to invoke was exactly the image carefully cultivated by the USOC. The SFAA’s expressive use of the word cannot be divorced from the value the USOC’s efforts have given to it. The mere fact that the SFAA claims an expressive, as opposed to a purely commercial, purpose does not give it a First Amendment right to “appropriate] to itself the harvest of those who have sown.” International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U. S., at 239-240. The USOC’s right to prohibit use of the word “Olympic” in the promotion of athletic events is at the core of its legitimate property right.
IV
The SFAA argues that even if the exclusive use granted by § 110 does not violate the First Amendment, the USOC’s enforcement of that right is discriminatory in violation of the Fifth Amendment. The fundamental inquiry is whether the USOC is a governmental actor to whom the prohibitions of the Constitution apply. The USOC is a “private corporatio[n] established under Federal law.” 36 U. S. C. § 1101(46). In the Act, Congress granted the USOC a corporate charter, § 371, imposed certain requirements on the USOC, and provided for some USOC funding through exclusive use of the Olympic words and symbols, § 380, and through direct grants.
The fact that Congress granted it a corporate charter does not render the USOC a Government agent. All corporations act under charters granted by a government, usually by a State. They do not thereby lose their essentially private character. Even extensive regulation by the government does not transform the actions of the regulated entity into those of the government. See Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U. S. 345 (1974). Nor is the fact that Congress has granted the USOC exclusive use of the word “Olympic” dispositive. All enforceable rights in trademarks are created by some governmental act, usually pursuant to a statute or the common law. The actions of the trademark owners nevertheless remain private. Moreover, the intent on the part of Congress to help the USOC obtain funding does not change the analysis. The Government may subsidize private entities without assuming constitutional responsibility for their actions. Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U. S. 991, 1011 (1982); Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, 457 U. S. 830, 840 (1982).
This Court also has found action to be governmental action when the challenged entity performs functions that have been “‘traditionally the exclusive prerogative’” of the Federal Government. Id., at 842 (quoting Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., supra, at 353; quoted in Blum v. Yaretsky, supra, at 1011) (emphasis added by the Rendell-Baker Court). Certainly the activities performed by the USOC serve a national interest, as its objects and purposes of incorporation indicate. See n. 17, supra. The fact “[t]hat a private entity performs a function which serves the public does not make its acts [governmental] action.” Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, supra, at 842. The Amateur Sports Act was enacted “to correct the disorganization and the serious factional disputes that seemed to plague amateur sports in the United States.” House Report, at 8. See Oldfield v. Athletic Congress, 779 F. 2d 505 (CA9 1985) (citing S. Rep. No. 95-770, pp. 2-3 (1978)). The Act merely authorized the USOC to coordinate activities that always have been performed by private entities. Neither the conduct nor the coordination of amateur sports has been a traditional governmental function.
Most fundamentally, this Court has held that a government “normally can be held responsible for a private decision only when it has exercised coercive power or has provided such significant encouragement, either overt or covert, that the choice must in law be deemed to be that of the [government].” Blum v. Yaretsky, supra, at 1004; Rendell-Baker v. Kohn, supra, at 840. See Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, 436 U. S. 149, 166 (1978); Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., supra, at 357; Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U. S. 163, 173 (1972); Adickes v. S. H. Kress & Co., 398 U. S. 144, 170 (1970). The USOC’s choice of how to enforce its exclusive right to use the word “Olympic” simply is not a governmental decision. There is no evidence that the Federal Government coerced or encouraged the USOC in the exercise of its right. At most, the Federal Government, by failing to supervise the USOC’s use of its rights, can be said to exercise “[m]ere approval of or acquiescence in the initiatives” of the USOC. Blum v. Yaretsky, 457 U. S., at 1004-1005. This is not enough to make the USOC’s actions those of the Government. Ibid. See Flagg Bros., Inc. v. Brooks, supra, at 164-165; Jackson v. Metropolitan Edison Co., 419 U. S., at 357. Because the USOC is not a governmental actor, the SFAA’s claim that the USOC has enforced its rights in a discriminatory manner must fail.
V
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit.
It is so ordered.
The SFAA’s president, Dr. Thomas F. Waddell, is also a petitioner.
The 1982 athletic event ultimately was held under the name “Gay Games I.” App. 473. A total of 1,300 men and women from 12 countries, 27 States, and 179 cities participated. Id., at 475. The “Gay Games II” were held in 1986 with approximately 3,400 athletes participating from 17 countries. Brief for Respondents 8. The 1990 “Gay Games” are scheduled to occur in Vancouver, B. C. Ibid.
The International Olympic Committee is also a respondent.
Section 110 of the Act, as set forth in 36 U. S. C. § 380, provides:
“Without the consent of the [USOC], any person who uses for the purpose of trade, to induce the sale of any goods or services, or to promote any theatrical exhibition, athletic performance, or competition—
“(1) the symbol of the International Olympic Committee, consisting of 5 interlocking rings;
“(2) the emblem of the [USOC], consisting of an escutcheon having a blue chief and vertically extending red and white bars on the base with 5 interlocking rings displayed on the chief;
“(3) any trademark, trade name, sign, symbol, or insignia falsely representing association with, or authorization by, the International Olympic Committee or the [USOC]; or
“(4) the words ‘Olympic’, ‘Olympiad’, ‘Citius Altius Fortius’, or any combination or simulation thereof tending to cause confusion, to cause mistake, to deceive, or to falsely suggest a connection with the [USOC] or any Olympic activity;
“shall be subject to suit in a civil action by the [USOC] for the remedies provided in the Act of July 5, 1946 (60 Stat. 427; popularly known as the Trademark Act of 1946 [Lanham Act]) [15 U. S. C. § 1051 et seq.]. However, any person who actually used the emblem in subsection (a)(2) of this section, or the words, or any combination thereof, in subsection (a)(4) of this section for any lawful purpose prior to September 21, 1950, shall not be prohibited by this section from continuing such lawful use for the same purpose and for the same goods or services. In addition, any person who actually used, or whose assignor actually used, any other trademark, trade name, sign, symbol, or insignia described in subsections (a)(3) and (4) of this section for any lawful purpose prior to September 21, 1950 shall not be prohibited by this section from continuing such lawful use for the same purpose and for the same goods or services.
“(b) The [USOC] may authorize contributors and suppliers of goods or services to use the trade name of the [USOC] as well as any trademark, symbol, insignia, or emblem of the International Olympic Committee or of the [USOC] in advertising that the contributions, goods, or services were donated, supplied, or furnished to or for the use of, approved, selected, or used by the [USOC] or United States Olympic or Pan-American team or team members.
“(c) The [USOC] shall have exclusive right to use the name ‘United States Olympic Committee’; the symbol described in subsection (a)(1) of this section; the emblem described in subsection (a)(2) of this section; and the words ‘Olympic’, ‘Olympiad’, ‘Citius Altius Fortius’ or any combination thereof subject to the preexisting rights described in subsection (a) of this section.”
Specifically, the SFAA argues that the USOC should not be able to prohibit its use of the word “Olympic” because its use “is descriptive of and used fairly and in good faith only to describe to users the goods or services.” 15 U. S. C. § 1115(b)(4).
The user may, however, raise traditional equitable defenses, such as laches. See Brief for Respondents 20, n. 17.
A common descriptive name of a product or service is generic. Because a generic name by definition does not distinguish the identity of a particular product, it cannot be registered as a trademark under-the Lanham Act. See §§ 2, 14(c), 15 U. S. C. §§ 1052, 1064(e). See also 1 J. McCarthy, Trademarks and Unfair Competition § 12:1, p. 520 (1984).
This grant by statute of exclusive use of distinctive words and symbols by Congress is not unique. Violation of some of these statutes may result in criminal penalties. See, e. g., 18 U. S. C. § 705 (veterans’ organizations); § 706 (American National Red Cross); § 707 (4-H Club); § 711 (“Smokey Bear”); § 711a (“Woodsy Owl”). See also FTC v. A. P. W. Paper Co., 328 U. S. 193 (1946) (reviewing application of Red Cross statute). Others, like the USOC statute, provide for civil enforcement. See, e. g., 36 U. S. C. § 18c (Daughters of the American Revolution); § 27 (Boy Scouts); § 36 (Girl Scouts); § 1086 (Little League Baseball); § 3305 (1982 ed., Supp. III) (American National Theater and Academy).
The ancient Olympic Games were held from 776 B.C. until A.D. 393, when they were abolished by the Roman Emperor Theodosius I. The Olympic Games were the most important in a “circuit” of sporting festivals. The “circuit” also included the Pythian Games at Delphi, the Nemean Games at Nemea, and the Isthmian Games at Corinth. As these sporting festivals grew in importance, athletes turned from amateurs to true professionals, training all year and receiving substantial gifts and money from individuals and from their home cities. See M. Finley & H. Pleket, The Olympic Games: The First Thousand Years 68-82 (1976); 25 Encyc. Brit. 198 (15th ed. 1984).
The Olympic flag was presented by Baron De Coubertin at the Congress of Paris in 1914. It has a white background with five interlocking rings in the center. The rings, in the colors blue, yellow, black, green, and red, in that order, “symbolize the union of the five continents and the meeting of athletes from all over the world at the Olympic Games in a spirit of fair and frank competition and good friendship, the ideal preached by Baron de Coubertin.” Olympic Charter, Rule 6 (1985). The Olympic rings alone are the Olympic symbol. Ibid. The Olympic flame is formally lit in Olympia under the auspices of the IOC. The Olympic motto is “Citius, Altius, Fortius,” meaning “Faster, Higher, Stronger,” and “expresses the aspirations of the Olympic Movement.” Ibid. The motto originated at an international conference on the principles of amateurism in sports organized by De Coubertin and held
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 granted certiorari to consider whether a police officer may, consistent with the Fourth Amendment, accompany an arrested person into his residence and seize contraband discovered there in plain view.
I
On the evening of January 21, 1978, Officer Daugherty of the Washington State University police department observed Carl Overdahl, a student at the University, leave a student dormitory carrying a half-gallon bottle of gin. Because Washington law forbids possession of alcoholic beverages by persons under 21, Wash. Rev. Code §66.44.270 (1981), and Overdahl appeared to be under age, the officer stopped him and asked for identification. Overdahl said that his identification was in his dormitory room and asked if the officer would wait while he went to retrieve it. The officer answered that under the circumstances he would have to accompany Overdahl, to which Overdahl replied “OK.”
Overdahl’s room was approximately 11 by 17 feet and located on the 11th floor of the dormitory. Respondent Chris-man, Overdahl’s roommate, was in the room when the officer and Overdahl entered. The officer remained in the open doorway, leaning against the doorjamb while watching Chris-man and Overdahl. He observed that Chrisman, who was in the process of placing a small box in the room’s medicine cabinet, became nervous at the sight of an officer.
Within 30 to 45 seconds after Overdahl entered the room, the officer noticed seeds and a small pipe lying on a desk 8 to 10 feet from where he was standing. From his training and experience, the officer believed the seeds were marihuana and the pipe was of a type used to smoke marihuana. He entered the room and examined the pipe and seeds, confirming that the seeds were marihuana and observing that the pipe smelled of marihuana.
The officer informed Overdahl and Chrisman of their rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966); each acknowledged that he understood his rights and indicated that he was willing to waive them. Officer Daugherty then asked whether the students had any other drugs in the room. The respondent handed Daugherty the box he had been carrying earlier, which contained three small plastic bags filled with marihuana and $112 in cash. At that point, Officer Daugherty called by radio for a second officer; on his arrival, the two students were told that a search of the room would be necessary. The officers explained to Overdahl and Chris-man that they had an absolute right to insist that the officers first obtain a search warrant, but that they could voluntarily consent to the search. Following this explanation, which was given in considerable detail, the two students conferred in whispers for several minutes before announcing their consent; they also signed written forms consenting to the search of the room. The search yielded more marihuana and a quantity of lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), both controlled substances.
Respondent was charged with one count of possessing more than 40 grams of marihuana and one count of possessing LSD, both felonies under Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.401(c) (1976) (current version at Wash. Rev. Code § 69.50.401(d) (1981)). A pretrial motion to suppress the evidence seized in the room was denied; respondent was convicted of both counts. On appeal, the Washington Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, upholding the validity of the search. 24 Wash. App. 385, 600 P. 2d 1316 (1979).
The Supreme Court of Washington reversed. 94 Wash. 2d 711, 619 P. 2d 971 (1980). It held that, although Overdahl had been placed under lawful arrest and “there was nothing to prevent Officer Daugherty from accompanying Overdahl to his room,” the officer had no right to enter the room and either examine or seize contraband without a warrant. The court reasoned there was no indication that Overdahl might obtain a weapon or destroy evidence, and, with the officer blocking the only exit from the room, his presence inside the room was not necessary to prevent escape. Because the officer’s entry into the room and his observations of its interior were not justified by “exigent circumstances,” the seizure of the seeds and pipe were held not to fall within the plain-view exception to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. The court went on to hold that because the students’ consent to the subsequent search of the room was the fruit of the officer’s initial entry, the contraband found during that search should also have been suppressed.
Three justices dissented. They concluded it was reasonable for a police officer to keep an arrested person in sight at all times; accordingly, the officer had a legitimate reason for being in the place where he discovered the contraband, and was entitled, under the plain-view doctrine, to seize it.
We granted certiorari, 452 U. S. 959 (1981), and reverse.
l — i HH
A
The “plain view” exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement permits a law enforcement officer to seize what clearly is incriminating evidence or contraband when it is discovered in a place where the officer has a right to be. Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443 (1971); Harris v. United States, 390 U. S. 234 (1968). Here, the officer had placed Overdahl under lawful arrest, and therefore was authorized to accompany him to his room for the purpose of obtaining identification. The officer had a right to remain literally at Overdahl’s elbow at all times; nothing in the Fourth Amendment is to the contrary.
The central premise of the opinion of the Supreme Court of Washington is that Officer Daugherty was not entitled to accompany Overdahl from the public corridor of the dormitory into his room, absent a showing that such “intervention” was required by “exigent circumstances.” We disagree with this novel reading of the Fourth Amendment. The absence of an affirmative indication that an arrested person might have a weapon available or might attempt to escape does not diminish the arresting officer’s authority to maintain custody over the arrested person. See Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106, 109-110 (1977); United States v. Robinson, 414 U. S. 218, 234-236 (1973). Nor is that authority altered by the nature of the offense for which the arrest was made.
Every arrest must be presumed to present a risk of danger to the arresting officer. Cf. United States v. Robinson, supra, at 234, n. 5. There is no way for an officer to predict reliably how a particular subject will react to arrest or the degree of the potential danger. Moreover, the possibility that an arrested person will attempt to escape if not properly supervised is obvious. Although the Supreme Court of Washington found little likelihood that Overdahl could escape from his dormitory room, an arresting officer’s custodial authority over an arrested person does not depend upon a reviewing court’s after-the-fact assessment of the particular arrest situation. Cf. New York v. Belton, 453 U. S. 454, 458-460 (1981); United States v. Robinson, supra, at 235.
We hold, therefore, that it is not “unreasonable” under the Fourth Amendment for a police officer, as a matter of routine, to monitor the movements of an arrested person, as his judgment dictates, following the arrest. The officer’s need to ensure his own safety — as well as the integrity of the arrest — is compelling. Such surveillance is not an impermissible invasion of the privacy or personal liberty of an individual who has been arrested.
It follows that Officer Daugherty properly accompanied Overdahl into his room, and that his presence in the room was lawful. With restraint, the officer remained in the doorway momentarily, entering no farther than was necessary to keep the arrested person in his view. It was only by chance that, while in the doorway, the officer observed in plain view what he recognized to be contraband. Had he exercised his undoubted right to remain at Overdahl’s side, he might well have observed the contraband sooner.
B
Respondent nevertheless contends that the officer lacked authority to seize the contraband, even though in plain view, because he was “outside” the room at the time he made his observations. The Supreme Court of Washington noted that “[t]he record is in conflict as to whether Officer Daugherty stood in the doorway and then entered the room or whether, while in the doorway, he was in fact in the room.” 94 Wash. 2d, at 716, 619 P. 2d, at 974. It concluded, however, that it “need not... let the result be determined by such niceties,” and assumed for purposes of its decision that the officer “was in the room at the time he observed the seeds and pipe.” Ibid. We agree that on this record “such niceties” are not relevant. It is of no legal significance whether the officer was in the room, on the threshold, or in the hallway, since he had a right to be in any of these places as an incident of a valid arrest.
Respondent’s argument appears to be that, even if the officer could have stationed himself “inside” the room had he done so immediately upon Overdahl’s entry, his 30- to 45-sec-ond hesitation was fatal; and that having chosen to remain in the doorway, the officer was precluded from proceeding further to seize the contraband. We reject this contention. Respondent’s argument,, if accepted, would have the perverse effect of penalizing the officer for exercising more restraint than was required under the circumstances. Moreover, it ignores the fundamental premise that the Fourth Amendment protects only against unreasonable intrusions into an individual’s privacy. See Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967).
The “intrusion” in this case occurred when the officer, quite properly, followed Overdahl into a private area to a point from which he had unimpeded view of and access to the area’s contents and its occupants. His right to custodial control did not evaporate with his choice to hesitate briefly in the doorway rather than at some other vantage point inside the room. It cannot be gainsaid that the officer would have had unrestricted access to the room at the first indication that he was in danger, or that evidence might be destroyed — or even upon reassessment of the wisdom of permitting a distance between himself and Overdahl.
We therefore conclude that, regardless of where the officer was positioned with respect to the threshold, he did not abandon his right to be in the room whenever he considered it essential. Accordingly, he had the right to act as soon as he observed the seeds and pipe. This is a classic instance of incriminating evidence found in plain view when a police officer, for unrelated but entirely legitimate reasons, obtains lawful access to an individual’s area of privacy. The Fourth Amendment does not prohibit seizure of evidence of criminal conduct found in these circumstances.
f — I
Since the seizure of the marihuana and pipe was lawful, we have no difficulty concluding that this evidence and the contraband subsequently taken from respondent’s room were properly admitted at his trial. Respondent voluntarily produced three bags of marihuana after being informed of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). He then consented, in writing, to a search of the room, after being advised that his consent must be voluntary and that he had an absolute right to refuse consent and demand procurement of a search warrant. The seizure of the drugs pursuant to respondent’s valid consent did not violate the Fourth Amendment.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
In addition, University regulations prohibit possession of alcoholic beverages on University property. Tr. 4, 34. At the suppression hearing, Officer Daugherty testified that, because of these regulations, he would have stopped Overdahl without regard to his age. Id., at 6-7.
The opinion of the Supreme Court of Washington repeatedly refers to the Fourth Amendment and our cases construing it. The court did not, however, cite Art. I, § 7, of the Washington Constitution, which provides that “[n]o person shall be disturbed in his private affairs, or his home invaded, without authority of law. ” While respondent, relying on this latter provision, urges that we “treat the case as having been decided under the Washington State Constitution,” it is clear that the court did not rest its decision on an independent state ground.
The trial court found that it was Overdahl who proposed to retrieve the identification, and, after being informed that Officer Daugherty would have to accompany him, agreed to the officer’s presence. Respondent nevertheless claims that Overdahl was “coerced” to return to the room in violation of the Fifth Amendment, because he was in custody and had not yet been advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). He argues that since identification would serve as proof of Over-dahl’s age — an element of the offense for which he had been arrested — the officer could not ask him for this “incriminating” evidence without first advising him of his rights to counsel and to remain silent.
Assuming, arguendo, that Overdahl’s Fifth Amendment rights were violated in some fashion, this does not vitiate the legality of his arrest, nor does it undercut the officer’s right to maintain custody over an arrested person. The failure to give “Miranda warnings” might preclude introduction of incriminating statements made by Overdahl while in custody; but no such statements are even peripherally involved in this case. The act of going to the room was neither “incriminating” nor a “testimonial communication.” Cf. Fisher v. United States, 425 U. S. 391, 408-414 (1976).
Indeed, were the rule otherwise, it is doubtful that an arrested person would ever be permitted to return to his residence, no matter how legitimate the reason for doing so. Such a rule would impose far greater restrictions on the personal liberty of arrested individuals than those occasioned here.
The circumstances of this case distinguish it significantly from one in which an officer, who happens to pass by chance an open doorway to a residence, observes what he believes to be contraband inside. See, e. g., Payton v. New York, 445 U. S. 573, 585-589 (1980); Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 14-15 (1948).
In light of our disposition, we need not decide whether, as the Washington Court of Appeals held, the likelihood that the contraband would be destroyed constituted an “exigent circumstance” independently justifying the officer’s entry into the room.
We reject as frivolous the respondent’s contention that, on the facts presented here, Officer Daugherty was required to knock and announce his presence at the doorway prior to entering the room.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 in this case is whether a state prosecuting attorney is absolutely immune from liability for damages under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 for giving legal advice to the police and for participating in a probable-cause hearing. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit held that he is. 894 F. 2d 949 (1990). We affirm in part and reverse in part.
I
The relevant facts are not in dispute. On the evening of September 2, 1982, petitioner Cathy Burns called the Mun-cie, Indiana, police and reported that an unknown assailant had entered her house, knocked her unconscious, and shot and wounded her two sons while they slept. Two police officers, Paul Cox and Donald Scroggins, were assigned to investigate the incident. The officers came to view petitioner as their primary suspect, even though she passed a polygraph examination and a voice stress test, submitted exculpatory handwriting samples, and repeatedly denied shooting her sons.
Speculating that petitioner had multiple personalities, one of which was responsible for the shootings, the officers decided to interview petitioner under hypnosis. They became concerned, however, that hypnosis might be an unacceptable investigative technique, and therefore sought the advice of the Chief Deputy Prosecutor, respondent Richard Reed. Respondent told the officers that they could proceed with the hypnosis.
While under hypnosis, petitioner referred to the assailant as “Katie” and also referred to herself by that name. The officers interpreted that reference as supporting their multiple-personality theory. As a result, they detained petitioner at the police station and sought respondent’s advice about whether there was probable cause to arrest petitioner. After hearing about the statements that petitioner had made while under hypnosis, respondent told the officers that they “probably had probable cause” to arrest petitioner. See Tr. 108; see also id.., at 221. Based on that assurance, the officers placed petitioner under arrest.
The next day, respondent and Officer Scroggins appeared before a county court judge in a probable-cause hearing, seeking to obtain a warrant to search petitioner’s house and car. During that hearing, Scroggins testified, in response to respondent’s questioning, that petitioner had confessed to shooting her children. Neither the officer nor respondent informed the judge that the “confession” was obtained under hypnosis or that petitioner had otherwise consistently denied shooting her sons. On the basis of the misleading presentation, the judge issued a search warrant.
Petitioner was charged under Indiana law with attempted murder of her sons. Before trial, however, the trial judge granted petitioner’s motion to suppress the statements given under hypnosis. As a result, the prosecutor’s office dropped all charges against petitioner.
On January 31, 1985, petitioner filed an action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana against respondent, Officers Cox and Scroggins, and others. She alleged that the defendants were liable under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 for violating her rights under the Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution, and she sought compensatory and punitive damages. Petitioner reached a settlement with several of the defendants, and the case proceeded to trial against respondent. After petitioner presented her case, the District Court granted respondent a directed verdict, finding that respondent was absolutely immune from liability for his conduct.
Petitioner appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. That court affirmed. 894 F. 2d 949 (1990). It held that “a prosecutor should be afforded absolute immunity for giving legal advice to police officers about the legality of their prospective investigative conduct.” Id., at 956. In a brief footnote, the court also held that respondent was absolutely immune from liability for his role in the probable-cause hearing. Id., at 955, n. 6. Because the Courts of Appeals are divided regarding the scope of absolute prosecutorial immunity, we granted certiorari. 497 U. S. 1023 (1990).
I — I HH
Title 42 U. S. C. § 1983. is written in broad terms. It purports to subject “[e]very person” acting under color of state law to liability for depriving any other person in the United States of “rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws.” The Court has consistently recognized, however, that § 1983 was not meant “to abolish wholesale all common-law immunities.” Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547, 554 (1967). The section is to be read “in harmony with general principles of tort immunities and defenses rather than in derogation of them.” Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409, 418 (1976); see also Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367, 376 (1951). In addition, we have acknowledged that for some “special functions,” Butz v. Economou, 438 U. S. 478, 508 (1978), it is “‘better to leave unredressed the wrongs done by dishonest officers than to subject those who try to do their duty to the constant dread of retaliation.’” Imbler, supra, at 428 (quoting Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F. 2d 579, 581 (CA2 1949) (L. Hand, J.), cert. denied, 339 U. S. 949 (1950)).
Imbler, supra, was the first case in which the Court addressed the immunity of state prosecutors from suits under § 1983. Noting that prior immunity decisions were “predicated upon a considered inquiry into the immunity historically accorded the relevant official at common law and interests behind it,” the Court stated that the “liability of a state prosecutor under § 1983 must be determined in the same manner.” Id., at 421. The Court observed that at common law prosecutors were immune from suits for malicious prosecution and for defamation, and that this immunity extended to the knowing use of false testimony before the grand jury and at trial. Id., at 421-424, 426, and n. 23.
The interests supporting the common-law immunity were held to be equally applicable to suits under § 1983. That common-law immunity, like the common-law immunity for judges and grand jurors, was viewed as necessary to protect the judicial process. Id., at 422-423. Specifically, there was “concern that harassment by unfounded litigation would cause a deflection of the prosecutor’s energies from his public duties, and the possibility that he would shade his decisions instead of exercising the independence of judgment required by his public trust.” Id., at 423.
The Court in Imbler declined to accord prosecutors only qualified immunity because, among other things, suits against prosecutors for initiating and conducting prosecutions “could be expected with some frequency, for a defendant often will transform his resentment at being prosecuted into the ascription of improper and malicious actions to the State’s advocate,” id., at 425; lawsuits would divert prosecutors’ attention and energy away from their important duty of enforcing the criminal law, ibid.; prosecutors would have more difficulty than other officials in meeting the standards for qualified immunity, ibid.; and potential liability “would prevent the vigorous and fearless performance of the prosecutor’s duty that is essential to the proper functioning of the criminal justice system,” id., at 427-428. The Court also noted that there are other checks on prosecutorial misconduct, including the criminal law and professional discipline, id., at 429.
The Court therefore held that prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability under § 1983 for their conduct in “initiating a prosecution and in presenting the State’s case,” id., at 431, insofar as that conduct is “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process,” id., at 430. Each of the charges against the prosecutor in Imbler involved conduct having that association, including the alleged knowing use of false testimony at trial and the alleged deliberate suppression of exculpatory evidence. The Court expressly declined to decide whether absolute immunity extends to “those aspects of the prosecutor’s responsibility that cast him in the role of an administrator or investigative officer rather than that of an advocate.” Id., at 430-431. It was recognized, though, that “the duties of the prosecutor in his role as advocate for the State involve actions preliminary to the initiation of a prosecution and actions apart from the courtroom.” Id., at 431, n. 33.
Decisions in later cases are consistent with the functional approach to immunity employed in Imbler. See, e. g., Westfall v. Erwin, 484 U. S. 292, 296, n. 3 (1988); Forester v. White, 484 U. S. 219, 224 (1988); Malley v. Briggs, 475 U. S. 335, 342-343 (1986); Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511, 520-523 (1985); Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U. S. 325 (1983); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800 (1982); Butz v. Economou, 438 U. S. 478 (1978). These decisions have also emphasized that the official seeking absolute immunity bears the burden of showing that such immunity is justified for the function in question. Forrester, supra, at 224; Malley, supra, at 340; Harlow. supra, at 812; Blitz, supra, at 506. The presumption is that qualified rather than absolute immunity is sufficient to protect government officials in the exercise of their duties. We have been "quite sparing" in our recognition of absolute immunity, Forrester, supra, at 224, and have refused to extend it any "further than its justification would warrant." Harlow, supra, at 811.
III
We now consider whether the absolute prosecutorial immunity recognized in Imbler is applicable to (a) respondent's participation in a probable-cause hearing, which led to the issuance of a search warrant, and (b) i~espondent's legal advice to the police regarding the use of hypnosis and the existence of probable cause to arrest petitioner.
A
We address first respondent's appearance as a lawyer for the State in the probable-cause hearing, where he examined a witness and successfully supported the application for a search warrant. The decision in Imbler leads to the conclusion that respondent is absolutely immune from liability in a § 1983 suit for that conduct.
Initially, it is important to determine the precise claim that petitioner has made against respondent concerning respond~ ent's role in the search warrant hearing. An examination of petitioner's complaint, the decisions by both the District Court and the Seventh Circuit, and the questions presented in the petition for a writ of certiorari in this Court reveals that petitioner has challenged only respondent's participation in the hearing, and not his motivation in seeking the search warrant or his conduct outside of the courtroom relating to the warrant.
Petitioner's complaint alleged only the following with regard to respondent's role in the search warrant hearing:
"Acting in his official capacity , [respondent] facilitated the issuance of a search warrant when on September 22, 1982 he presented evidence to the Court with the full knowledge of the false testimony of the Defendant, DONALD SCROGGINS. On direct examination, Deputy Prosecutor Reed asked of police officer Donald Scrog-gins various questions and in doing so and in concert with other Defendants deliberately misled the Court into believing that the Plaintiff had confessed to the shooting of her children.” Complaint ¶9; see also id., ¶31.
Obviously, that claim concerns only respondent’s participation in the probable-cause hearing.
When directing a verdict for respondent after petitioner’s presentation of her case, the District Court continued to view petitioner’s search warrant claim as concerning only respondent’s participation in the hearing. The District Court stated:
“Finally, as to getting the search warrant, you can characterize the proceeding before the judge as testimony by [respondent]. And if he asked leading questions — and I think he did — why, of course, you can say that. But the fact is that it was a proceeding in court before a judge. No matter what the form of the question was, the person seeking the search warrant and doing the testifying was the police officer. And what [respondent] was doing was . . . his job as a deputy prosecuting attorney and presenting that evidence. Even though it was fragmentary and didn’t go far enough, he did it as a part of his official duties.” Tr. 221.
This interpretation is further confirmed by the Seventh Circuit’s summary of petitioner’s claims on appeal:
“The question before the court is whether a state prosecutor is absolutely immune from suit under § 1983 for his acts of giving legal advice to two police officers about their proposed investigative conduct, and for eliciting misleading testimony from one of the officers in a subsequent probable cause hearing.” 894 F. 2d, at 950 (emphasis added). See also id., at 955, n. 6.
Finally, the only “question presented” in the petition for a writ of certiorari that related to the search warrant hearing was limited to respondent’s conduct in the hearing:
“II. Is a deputy prosecutor entitled to absolute immunity when he seeks a search warrant in a probable cause hearing and intentionally fails to fully inform the court by failing to state that the arrested person made an alleged confession while under hypnosis and yet had persistently denied committing any crime before and after the hypnosis?” Pet. for Cert, i (emphasis added).
Therefore, like the courts below, we address only respondent’s participation in the search warrant hearing.
Petitioner’s challenge to respondent’s participation in the search warrant hearing is similar to the claim in Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U. S. 325 (1983). There, the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim was based on the allegation that a police officer had given perjured testimony at the plaintiff’s criminal trial. In holding that the officer was entitled to absolute immunity, we noted that witnesses were absolutely immune at common law from subsequent damages liability for their testimony in judicial proceedings “even if the witness knew the statements were false and made them with malice.” Id., at 332.
Like witnesses, prosecutors and other lawyers were absolutely immune from damages liability at common law for making false or defamatory statements in judicial proceedings (at least so long as the statements were related to the proceeding), and also for eliciting false and defamatory testimony from witnesses. See, e. g., Yaselli v. Goff, 12 F. 2d 396, 401-402 (CA2 1926), summarily aff’d, 275 U. S. 503 (1927); Youmans v. Smith, 153 N. Y. 214, 219-220, 47 N. E. 265, 266-267 (1897); Griffith v. Stinkard, 146 Ind. 117, 122, 44 N. E. 1001, 1002 (1896); Marsh v. Ellsworth, 50 N. Y. 309, 312-313 (1872); Jennings v. Paine, 4 Wis. 358 (1855); Hoar v. Wood, 44 Mass. 193, 197-198 (1841). See also King v. Skinner, Lofft 55, 56, 98 Eng. Rep. 529, 530 (K. B. 1772), where Lord Mansfield observed that “neither party, witness, counsel, jury, or Judge can be put to answer, civilly or criminally, for words spoken in office.”
This immunity extended to “any hearing before a tribunal which perform[ed] a judicial function.” W. Prosser, Law of Torts § 94, pp. 826-827 (1941); see also Veeder, Absolute Immunity in Defamation, 9 Colum. L. Rev. 463, 487-488 (1909). In Yaselli v. Goff, 275 U. S. 503 (1927), for example, this Court affirmed a decision by the Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in which that court had held that the common-law immunity extended to a prosecutor’s conduct before a grand jury. See also, e. g., Griffith, supra, at 122, 44 N. E., at 1002; Schultz v. Strauss, 127 Wis. 325, 106 N. W. 1066 (1906).
In addition to finding support in the common law, we believe that absolute immunity for a prosecutor’s actions in a probable-cause hearing is justified by the policy concerns articulated in Imbler. There, the Court held that a prosecutor is absolutely immune for initiating a prosecution and for presenting the State’s case. 424 U. S., at 431. The Court also observed that “the duties of the prosecutor in his role as advocate for the State involve actions preliminary to the initiation of a prosecution.” Id., at 431, n. 33.
The prosecutor’s actions at issue here — appearing before a judge and presenting evidence in support of a motion for a search warrant — clearly involve the prosecutor’s “role as advocate for the State,” rather than his role as “administrator or investigative officer,” the protection for which we reserved judgment in Imbler, see id., at 430-431, and n. 33. Moreover, since the issuance of a search warrant is unquestionably a judicial act, see Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 349, 363, n. 12 (1978), appearing at a probable-cause hearing is “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process.” Imbler, supra, at 430. It is also connected with the initiation and conduct of a prosecution, particularly where the hearing occurs after arrest, as was the case here.
As this and other cases indicate, pretrial court appearances by the prosecutor in support of taking criminal action against a suspect present a substantial likelihood of vexatious litigation that might have an untoward effect on the independence of the prosecutor. Therefore, absolute immunity for this function serves the policy of protecting the judicial process, which underlies much of the Court’s decision in Imbler. See, e. g., Forrester, 484 U. S., at 226; Briscoe, 460 U. S., at 334-335. Furthermore, the judicial process is available as a check on prosecutorial actions at a probable-cause hearing. “[T]he safeguards built into the judicial system tend to reduce the need for private damages actions as a means of controlling unconstitutional conduct.” Butz, 438 U. S., at 512. See also Mitchell, 472 U. S., at 522-523.
Accordingly, we hold that respondent’s appearance in court in support of an application for a search warrant and the presentation of evidence at that hearing are protected by absolute immunity.
B
Turning to respondent’s acts of providing legal advice to the police, we note first that neither respondent nor the court below has identified any historical or common-law support for extending absolute immunity to such actions by prosecutors. Indeed, the Court of Appeals stated that its “review of the historical or commonlaw basis for the immunity in question does not yield any direct support for the conclusion that a prosecutor’s immunity from suit extends to the act of giving legal advice to police officers.” 894 F. 2d, at 955.
The Court of Appeals did observe that Indiana common law purported to provide immunity “ ‘[w]henever duties of a judicial nature are imposed upon a public officer.’” Ibid. (quoting Griffith v. Slinkard, 146 Ind., at 121, 44 N. E., at 1002). The court then reasoned that giving legal advice is “of a judicial nature” because the prosecutor is, like a judge, called upon to render opinions concerning the legality of conduct. We do not believe, however, that advising the police in the investigative phase of a criminal case is so “intimately associated with the judicial phase of the criminal process,” Imbler, 424 U. S., at 430, that it qualifies for absolute immunity. Absent a tradition of immunity comparable to the common-law immunity from malicious prosecution, which formed the basis for the decision in Imbler, we have not been inclined to extend absolute immunity from liability under § 1983. See, e. g., Malley, 475 U. S., at 342.
The United States, as amicus curiae, argues that the absence of common-law support here should not be determinative because the office of public prosecutor was largely unknown at English common law, and prosecutors in the 18th and 19th centuries did not have an investigatory role, as they do today. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 20-21. We are not persuaded. First, it is American common law that is determinative, Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 644 (1987), and the office of public prosecutor ivas known to American common law. See Imbler, supra, at 421-424. Second, although “the precise contours of official immunity” need not mirror the immunity at common law, Anderson, supra, at 645, we look to the common law and other history for guidance because our role is “not to make a freewheeling policy choice,” but rather to discern Congress’ likely intent in enacting § 1983. Malley, supra, at 342. “We do not have a license to establish immunities from § 1983 actions in the interests of what we judge to be sound public policy.” Tower v. Glover, 467 U. S. 914, 922-923 (1984). Thus, for example, in Malley, supra, it was observed that “[s]ince the statute [§ 1983] on its face does not provide for any immunities, we would be going far to read into it an absolute immunity for conduct which was only accorded qualified immunity in 1871.” Id., at 342.
The next factor to be considered — risk of vexatious litigation — also does not support absolute immunity for giving legal advice. The Court of Appeals asserted that absolute immunity was justified because “a prosecutor’s risk of becoming entangled in litigation based on his or her role as a legal advisor to police officer is as likely as the risks associated with initiating and prosecuting a case.” 894 F. 2d, at 955-956. We disagree. In the first place, a suspect or defendant is not likely to be as aware of a prosecutor’s role in giving advice as a prosecutor’s role in initiating and conducting a prosecution. But even if a prosecutor’s role in giving advice to the police does carry with it some risk of burdensome litigation, the concern with litigation in our immunity cases is not merely a generalized concern with interference with an official’s duties, but rather is a concern with interference with the conduct closely related to the judicial process. Forrester, supra, at 226; Imbler, supra, at 430. Absolute immunity is designed to free the judicial process from the harassment and intimidation associated with litigation. For-rester, supra, at 226. That concern therefore justifies absolute prosecutorial immunity only for actions that are connected with the prosecutor’s role in judicial proceedings, not for every litigation-inducing conduct.
The Court of Appeals speculated that anything short of absolute immunity would discourage prosecutors from performing their “vital obligation” of giving legal advice to the police. 894 F. 2d, at 956. But the qualified immunity standard is today more protective of officials than it was at the time that Imbler was decided. “As the qualified immunity defense has evolved, it provides ample protection to all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law.” Malley, supra, at 341; see also Mitchell, 472 U. S., at 524. Although the absence of absolute immunity for the act of giving legal advice may cause prosecutors to consider their advice more carefully, “ ‘[w]here an official could be expected to know that his conduct would violate statutory or constitutional rights, he should be made to hesitate.’” Ibid, (quoting Harlow, 457 U. S., at 819). Indeed, it is incongruous to allow prosecutors to be absolutely immune from liability for giving advice to the police, but to allow police officers only qualified immunity for following the advice. Cf. Butz, 438 U. S., at 505-506. Ironically, it would mean that the police, who do not ordinarily hold law degrees, would be required to know the clearly established law, but prosecutors would not.
The United States argues that giving legal advice is related to a prosecutor’s roles in screening cases for prosecution and in safeguarding the fairness of the criminal judicial process. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 15-18. That argument, however, proves too much. Almost any action by a prosecutor, including his or her direct participation in purely investigative activity, could be said to be in some way related to the ultimate decision whether to prosecute, but we have never indicated that absolute immunity is that expansive. Rather, as in Imbler, we inquire whether the prosecutor’s actions are closely associated with the judicial process. Indeed, we implicitly rejected the United States’ argument in Mitchell, supra, where we held that the Attorney General was not absolutely immune from liability for authorizing a warrantless wiretap. Even though the wiretap was arguably related to a potential prosecution, we found that the Attorney General “was not acting in a prosecutorial capacity” and thus was not entitled to the immunity recognized in Imbler. Id., at 521.
As a final basis for allowing absolute immunity for legal advice, the Court of Appeals observed that there are several checks other than civil litigation to prevent abuses of authority by prosecutors. 894 F. 2d, at 956. Although we agree, we note that one of the most important checks, the judicial process, will not necessarily restrain out-of-court activities by a prosecutor that occur prior to the initiation of a prosecution, such as providing legal advice to the police. This is particularly true if a suspect is not eventually prosecuted. In those circumstances, the prosecutor’s action is not subjected to the “crucible of the judicial process.” Imbler, 424 U. S., at 440 (White, J., concurring in judgment).
In sum, we conclude that respondent has not met his burden of showing that the relevant factors justify an extension of absolute immunity to the prosecutorial function of giving legal advice to the police.
> > — f
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm in part and reverse m part the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered.
Following her arrest, petitioner was placed in the psychiatric ward of a state hospital for four months. During that time, she was discharged from her employment, and the State obtained temporary custody of her sons. The medical experts at the hospital eventually concluded that petitioner did not have multiple personalities, and she was released.
Since the decision in Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976), most Courts of Appeals have held that prosecutors are not entitled to absolute immunity for “investigative” or “administrative” acts. The courts, however, have differed in where they draw the line between protected and unprotected activities. For example, the courts are split on the issue of whether absolute immunity extends to the act of giving legal advice to the police. Compare Wolfenbarger v. Williams, 826 F. 2d 930, 937 (CA10 1987), with 894 F. 2d 949 (CA7 1990) (case below); Marx v. Gumbinner, 855 F. 2d 783, 790 (CA11 1988); Myers v. Morris, 810 F. 2d 1437, 1449-1451 (CA8), cert. denied, 484 U. S. 828 (1987).
Section 1983, which originated as § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, provides in full:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia.” Rev. Stat. S 1979, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1983.
The Court previously had affirmed a decision holding that federal prosecutors were absolutely immune from suits for malicious prosecution. See Yaselli v. Goff, 275 U. S. 503 (1927), summarily aff’g 12 F. 2d 396 (CA2 1926).
We are not persuaded by Justice Scalia’s attempt to read more into petitioner’s claims. See post, at 501-504. Although one snippet of respondent’s testimony at trial related to his decision to go to court to seek the warrant, see Tr. 145, we are not aware of anything in the record showing either that respondent expressly or impliedly consented to an amendment of petitioner’s claims or that petitioner sought to amend her complaint based on the evidence presented at trial. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 15(b). As a result, Justice Scalia’s argument that there was no common-law immunity for malicious procurement of a search warrant, post, at 504, is irrelevant. Cf. Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U. S. 325, 330-331, n. 9 (1983) (“The availability of a common-law action for false accusations of crime . . . is inapposite because petitioners present only the question of § 1983 liability for false testimony during a state-court criminal trial”).
There is widespread agreement among the Courts of Appeals that prosecutors are absolutely immune from liability under § 1983 for their conduct before grand juries. See, e. g., Buckley v. Fitzsimmons, 919 F. 2d 1230, 1243 (CA7 1990); Grant v. Hollenbach, 870 F. 2d 1135, 1139 (CA6 1989); Baez v. Hennessy, 853 F. 2d 73, 74-75 (CA2 1988); Morrison v. Baton Rouge, 761 F. 2d 242 (CA5 1985); Gray v. Bell, 229 U. S. App. D. C. 176, 188, and n. 37, 712 F. 2d 490, 502, and n. 37 (1983), cert. denied, 465 U. S. 1100 (1984).
The judge before whom the probable-cause hearing was held testified in the present case and described the procedure in her court for the issuance of search warrants. Her description is revealing as to the role of the prosecutor in connection with that judicial function:
“A. The general procedure is that the judge is presented with what we call an affidavit of probable cause. And in that affidavit are certain statements which are meant to apprise the Court of alleged facts in existence which would convince the Court that a search warrant should be issued.
“The other procedure is that a prosecutor or deputy prosecutor can ask the court for a closed-door hearing. And the courtroom is then locked in our county. -Witnesses are presented for the purpose of convincing the court that there exists what we call probable cause for the issuance of search warrants. There can be one or many witnesses.
“Q. Thank you, Judge. In each of those instances, is the information presented to the Court either in affidavit form or in the form of personal testimony, sworn testimony?
“A. It is.
“Q. And would you tell the jury who, under the procedures you have just described, has the sole and exclusive power to seek a search warrant or approve the seeking of a search warrant?
“THE WITNESS: Who has this power?
“MR. SUTHERLIN: Yes.
“A. It would be the prosecutor of the county or one of the deputies.
“Q. Is it possible for a police officer to go directly to your court or any court and obtain a search warrant?
“A. No.” Tr. 4-5.
In this case, of course, respondent appeared in court and presented testimony, and it is his conduct at that appearance that is the focus of the first issue in this case.
In Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800 (1982), we “completely reformulated qualified immunity,” Anderson, 483 U. S., at 645, replacing the common-law subjective standard with an objective standard that allows liability only where the official violates “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow, supra, at 818. This change was “specifically designed to ‘avoid excessive disruption of government and permit the resolution of many insubstantial claims on summary judgment,’ and we believe it sufficiently serves this goal.” Malley v. Briggs, 475 U. S. 335, 341 (1986); see also Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511, 524 (1985). Accordingly, it satisfies one of the principal concerns underlying our recognition of absolute immunity. See, e. g., Imbler, 424 U. S., at 419, n. 13.
Of course, in holding that respondent is not entitled to absolute immunity for rendering the legal advice in this case, we express no views about the underlying merits of petitioner’s claims against respondent.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented in this case is whether a municipal ordinance requiring advance notice to be given to the local police department by “[a]ny person desiring to canvass, solicit or call from house to house ... for a recognized charitable cause . . . or . . . political campaign or cause ... in writing, for identification only” violates the guarantees of freedom of speech and due process of law embodied in the Fourteenth Amendment.
(1)
The Borough of Oradell, N. J., has enacted two ordinances that together regulate most forms of door-to-door canvassing and solicitation. A broad ordinance, No. 573, requires all solicitors to obtain a permit from the borough clerk, by making a formal application, accompanied by a description and photograph of the applicant, the description and license number of any automobile to be used in soliciting, a driver’s license, and other data. The ordinance apparently requires that the chief of police approve issuance of the permit.
The ordinance at issue here, Ordinance No. 598A, is an amendment to this broader scheme, and imposes no permit requirement; it covers persons soliciting for “a recognized charitable cause, or any person desiring to canvass, solicit or call from house, to house for a Federal, State, County or Municipal political campaign or cause.” Ordinance No. 598A also applies to “representatives of Borough Civic Groups and Organizations and any veterans honorably discharged or released under honorable circumstances” from the Armed Forces. Those covered by this ordinance are required only to “notify the Police Department, in writing, for identification only.” Once given, the notice is “good for the duration of the campaign or cause.”
Appellants are Edward Hynes, a New Jersey state assemblyman whose district was redrawn in 1973 to include the Borough of Oradell, and three Oradell registered voters. They brought suit in the Superior Court of Bergen County, N. J., seeking a declaration that Ordinance No. 598A was unconstitutional and an injunction against its enforcement. Appellant Hynes alleged that he wished to campaign for re-election in Oradell. The other appellants alleged either that they wished to canvass door to door in the borough for political causes or that they wished to speak with candidates who campaigned in Oradell. Each appellant claimed that the ordinance would unconstitutionally restrict such activity.
The Superior Court held the ordinance invalid for three reasons. First, the court noted that it contained no penalty clause, and hence was unenforceable under New Jersey law; second, the court held that the ordinance was not related to its announced purpose — the prevention of crime — since it required only candidates and canvassers to register. Finally, the court concluded that the ordinance was vague and overbroad — unclear “as to what is, and what isn’t required” of those who wished to canvass for political causes. The Appellate Division of the Superior Court affirmed, reaching and accepting only the first ground for the trial court’s decision.
The Supreme Court of New Jersey reversed. 66 N. J. 376, 331 A. 2d 277 (1975). It noted that a penalty clause, enacted during the pendency of the appeal, cured the defect that had concerned the Appellate Division. Relying largely on a decision in a case dealing with a similar ordinance, Collingswood v. Ringgold, 66 N. J. 350, 331 A. 2d 262 (1975), appeal docketed, No. 74-1335, the court held that Ordinance No. 598A was a legitimate exercise of the borough’s police power, enacted to prevent crime and to reduce residents’ fears about strangers wandering door to door. The ordinance regulated conduct— door-to-door canvassing — as well as speech, and in doing so “it could hardly be more clear.” 66 N. J., at 380, 331 A. 2d, at 279. The ordinance, the court thought, imposed minimal requirements which did not offend free speech interests:
“It may be satisfied in writing, suggesting that resort may be had to the mails. It need be fulfilled only once for each campaign. There is no fee. The applicant does not have to obtain or carry a card or license. And perhaps most importantly, no discretion reposes in any municipal official to deny the privilege of calling door to door. The ordinance is plainly an identification device in its most basic form.” Ibid.
Two of the court’s seven members dissented. One justice thought the ordinance “plain silly” as a crime-prevention measure, for the reasons given by the trial court. Id., at 382, 331 A. 2d, at 280; another justice thought that the “ordinance has the potential to have a significant chilling effect on the exercise of first amendment rights and thus infringes on these rights.” Id., at 389, 331 A. 2d, at 284.
(2)
We are not without guideposts in considering appellants’ First Amendment challenge to Ordinance No. 598A. “Adjustment of the inevitable conflict between free speech and other interests is a problem as persistent as it is perplexing,” Niemotko v. Maryland, 340 U. S. 268, 275 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring in result), and this Court has in several cases reviewed attempts by municipalities to regulate activities like canvassing and soliciting. Regulation in this area “must be done, and the restriction applied, in such a manner as not to intrude upon the rights of free speech and free assembly,” Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, 540-541 (1945). But in these very cases the Court has consistently recognized a municipality’s power to protect its citizens from crime and undue annoyance by regulating soliciting and canvassing. A narrowly drawn ordinance, that does not vest in municipal officials the undefined power to determine what messages residents will hear, may serve these important interests without running afoul of the First Amendment.
In Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444 (1938), the Court held invalid an ordinance that prohibited the distribution of “literature of any kind . . . without first obtaining written permission from the City Manager,” id., at 447. The ordinance contained “no restriction in its application with respect to time or place,” and was “not limited to ways which might be regarded as inconsistent with the maintenance of public order or as involving disorderly conduct, the molestation of the inhabitants, or the misuse or littering of the streets.” Id., at 451.
A year later, in Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147 (1939), the Court held unconstitutional an Irvington, N. J., ordinance that dealt specifically with house-to-house canvassers and solicitors. The ordinance required them to obtain a permit, which would not issue if the chief of police decided that “the canvasser is not of good character or is canvassing for a project not free from fraud.” Id., at 158. Because the Court concluded that the canvasser’s “liberty to communicate with the residents of the town at their homes depends upon the exercise of the officer’s discretion,” id., at 164, the Court held the ordinance invalid. In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296 (1940), the Court held that a similar permit ordinance, as applied to prevent Jehovah’s Witnesses from soliciting door to door, infringed upon the right to free exercise of religion, guaranteed by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. And in Martin v. Struthers, 319 U. S. 141 (1943), the Court struck down a municipal ordinance that made it a crime for a solicitor or canvasser to knock on the front door of a resident’s home or ring the doorbell. See also Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U. S. 313 (1958).
In reaching these results, the Court acknowledged the valid and important interests these ordinances sought to serve. In Martin, supra, at 144, Mr. Justice Black writing for the Court stated:
“Ordinances of the sort now before us may be aimed at the protection of the householders from annoyance, including intrusion upon the hours of rest, and at the prevention of crime. Constant callers, whether selling pots or distributing leaflets, may lessen the peaceful enjoyment of a home as much as a neighborhood glue factory or railroad yard which zoning ordinances may prohibit. . . . In addition, burglars frequently pose as canvassers, either in order that they may have a pretense to discover whether a house is empty and hence ripe for burglary, or for the purpose of spying out the premises in order that they may return later. Crime prevention may thus be the purpose of regulatory ordinances.”
As Mr. Justice Black suggested, the lone housewife has no way of knowing whether the purposes of the putative solicitor are benign or malignant, and even an innocuous caller “may lessen the peaceful enjoyment of a home.” Ibid. In his view a municipality “can by identification devices” regulate canvassers in order to deter criminal conduct by persons “posing as canvassers,” id., at 148, relying on. the Court’s statement in Cantwell, supra, at 306:
“Without doubt a State may protect its citizens from fraudulent solicitation by requiring a stranger in the community, before permitting him publicly to solicit funds for any purpose, to establish his identity and his authority to act for the cause which he purports to represent.”
These opinions of the Court and the dissenting opinions found common ground as to the important municipal interests at stake. See Martin v. Struthers, supra, at 152 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting); id., at 154 (Reed, J., dissenting); Douglas v. Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157, 166 (1943) (Jackson, J., dissenting in Martin v. Struthers). Professor Zechariah Chafee articulated something of the householder's right to be let alone, saying:
“Of all the methods of spreading unpopular ideas, [house-to-house canvassing] seems the least entitled to extensive protection. The possibilities of persuasion are slight compared with the certainties of annoyance. Great as is the value of exposing citizens to novel views, home is one place where a man ought to be able to shut himself up in his own ideas if he desires.” Free Speech in the United States 406 (1954).
Professor Chafee went on to note: “[These cases] do not invalidate all ordinances that include within their scope . . . doorway dissemination of thought. Several sentences in the opinions state that ordinances suitably designed to take care of legitimate social interests are not void.” Id., at 407.
There is, of course, no absolute right under the Federal Constitution to enter on the private premises of another and knock on a door for any purpose, and the police power permits reasonable regulation for public safety. We cannot say, and indeed appellants do not argue, that door-to-door canvassing and solicitation are immune from regulation under the State’s police power, whether the purpose of the regulation is to protect from danger or to protect the peaceful enjoyment of the home. See Rowan v. Post Office Dept., 397 U. S. 728, 735-738 (1970).
(3)
There remains the question whether the challenged ordinance meets the test that in the First Amendment area “government may regulate . . . only with narrow specificity.” NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 433 (1963). As a matter of due process, “[n]o one may be required at peril of life, liberty or property to speculate as to the meaning of penal statutes. All are entitled to be informed as to what the State commands or forbids.” Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 453 (1939). The general test of vagueness applies with particular force in review of laws dealing with speech. “[S] tricter standards of permissible statutory vagueness may be applied to a statute having a potentially inhibiting effect on speech; a man may the less be required to act at his peril here, because the free dissemination of ideas may be the loser.” Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147, 151 (1959). See also Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 76-82 (1976); Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601, 611-612 (1973).
Notwithstanding the undoubted power of a municipality to enforce reasonable regulations to meet the needs recognized by the Court in the cases discussed, we conclude that Ordinance No. 598A must fall because in certain respects “men of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning.” Connally v. General Constr. Co., 269 U. S. 385, 391 (1926). Since we conclude that the ordinance is invalid because of vagueness, we need not reach the other arguments appellants advance.
First, the coverage of the ordinance is unclear; it does not explain, for example, whether a “recognized charitable cause” means one recognized by the Internal Revenue Service as tax exempt, one recognized by some community agency, or one approved by some municipal official. While it is fairly clear what the phrase “political campaign” comprehends, it is not clear what is meant by a “Federal, State, County or Municipal... cause.” Finally, it is not clear what groups fall into the class of “Borough Civic Groups and Organizations” that the ordinance also covers.
Second, the ordinance does not sufficiently specify what those within its reach must do in order to comply. The citizen is informed that before soliciting he must “notify the Police Department, in writing, for identification only.” But he is not told what must be set forth in the notice, or what the police will consider sufficient as “identification.” This is in marked contrast to Ordinance No. 573 which sets out specifically what is required of commercial solicitors; it is not clear that the provisions of Ordinance 573 extend to Ordinance 598A. See n. 1, supra. Ordinance No. 598A does not have comparable precision. The New Jersey Supreme Court construed the ordinance to permit one to send the required identification by mail; a canvasser who used the mail might well find — too late — that the identification he provided by mail was inadequate. In this respect, as well as with respect to the coverage of the ordinance, this law “may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning.” Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U. S. 104, 108 (1972). Nor does the ordinance “provide explicit standards for those who apply” it. Ibid. To the extent that these ambiguities and the failure to explain what “identification” is required give police the effective power to grant or deny permission to canvass for political causes, the ordinance suffers in its practical effect from the vice condemned in Lovell, Schneider, Cantwell, and Staub. See also Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156, 162 (1972); Coates v. City of Cincinnati, 402 U. S. 611, 614 (1971); Note, The Void-for-Vagueness Doctrine in the Supreme Court, 109 U. Pa. L. Rev. 67, 75-85 (1960).
The New Jersey Supreme Court undertook to give the ordinance a limiting construction by suggesting that since the identification requirement “may be satisfied in writing, . . . resort may be had to the mails,” 66 N. J., at 380, 331 A. 2d, at 279, but this construction of the ordinance does not explain either what the law covers or what it requires; for example, it provides no clue as to what is a “recognized charity”; nor is political “cause” defined. Cf. Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U. S. 104, 110-111 (1972); Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942); Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569 (1941). Even assuming that a more explicit limiting interpretation of the ordinance could remedy the flaws we have pointed out— a matter on which we intimate no view — we are without power to remedy the defects by giving the ordinance constitutionally precise content. Smith v. Goguen, 415 U. S. 566, 575 (1974).
Accordingly, the judgment is reversed, and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of New Jersey for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Ordinance No. 573 provides in relevant part:
“Section 1. Permit Required
“No person shall canvass or solicit or call from house to house in the Borough to sell or attempt to sell goods by sample or to take or attempt to take orders for the future delivery of goods, merchandise, wares, or any personal property of any nature whatsoever, or take or attempt to take orders for services to be furnished or performed in the future, without first having received a written permit therefor.
“Sections. Application for Permit: Contents Thereof
“a) Any person desiring a permit to canvass or solicit in the Borough shall file, on a form to be supplied by the Borough Clerk, an application with the Borough Clerk stating:
"(1) Name of applicant;
“(2) Permanent home address;
"(3) Name and address of employer or firm represented;
"(4) Place or places of residence of the applicant for the preceding three years;
“(5) Date on which he desires to commence canvassing or soliciting;
“(6) Nature of merchandise to be sold or offered for sale or the nature of the services to be furnished;
“(7) Whether or not the applicant has ever been convicted of a crime, misdemeanor, or violation of any ordinance concerning canvassing or soliciting, and if so, when, where and the nature of the offense;
“(8) Names of other communities in New Jersey in which applicant has worked as a solicitor or canvasser in the past 2 years.
“b) Said application shall also be accompanied by a letter or other written statement from the individual, firm or corporation employing the applicant, certifying that the applicant is authorized to act as the employer’s representative.
“c) No such application shall be filed more than 3 months prior to the time such canvassing or soliciting shall commence.
“Section 4- Investigation: Issuance of Permit
“The Borough Clerk shall give a copy of the application to the Chief of Police who shall cause such investigation to be made of the applicant’s business and moral character as he deems necessary for the protection of the public good. He shall use any information available in other New Jersey cities, towns or boroughs, where the applicant has canvassed or solicited within 2 years last past.
“Section 6. Penalty
“Any person, firm or corporation violating any provision of this ordinance shall, upon conviction thereof, be fined in an amount not exceeding $500.00 or be imprisoned in the County Jail for a period not exceeding ninety (90) days, or be both fined and imprisoned. Each day said violation is permitted or is permitted to continue, shall constitute a separate offense and shall be subject to a penalty hereunder.”
In Collingswood v. Ringgold, 66 N. J. 350, 331 A. 2d 262 (1975), appeal docketed, No. 74-1335, decided the same day as the ease reviewed here, the New Jersey Supreme Court held that an ordinance quite similar to Ordinance No. 573 was invalid insofar as it vested in the chief of police too much discretion in deciding whether or not to grant a canvassing permit. The court in Collingswood accordingly struck that provision of the ordinance, but let the remainder stand.
Ordinance No. 598A provides in relevant part:
“Whereas, The Borough of Oradell is primarily a one family residential town whose citizens are employed elsewhere, resulting in the wives of the wage earner being left alone during the day; and
“Whereas, because of the geographical location of most of the homes it is impossible to police all areas at the same time, resulting in a number of break and entries and larceny in the home; and
“Whereas, it is in the public interest and the public safety that persons not be permitted to call from house to house on the pretext of soliciting votes for a designated candidate or signatures for a nominating petition, or to solicit for a recognized charitable cause or borough activity, without such persons being first identified by the Police Department; and
“Whereas, the Mayor and Borough Council of The Borough of Oradell feel that it is in the public interest and for the protection of The Borough of Oradell that such persons be required to notify the Police Department for the purpose of identification.
“Now, therefore, be it ordained by the Borough Council of The Borough of Oradell, in the County of Bergen and State of New Jersey, that an ordinance entitled ‘An ordinance to regulate and prohibit canvassing and soliciting in The Borough of Oradell and establish fees and provide penalties for the violation thereof be amended and supplemented as follows:
“(1) That Section 1 be amended and supplemented by the addition of Section 1 (a) to be entitled ‘Exceptions to Permit' as hereinafter set forth:
“Section 1 (a): Exceptions to Permit
“Any person desiring to canvass, solicit or call from house to house in the Borough for a recognized charitable cause, or any person desiring to canvass, solicit or call from house to house for a Federal, State, County or Municipal political campaign or cause, shall be required to notify the Police Department, in writing, for identification only. Said notification shall be good for the duration of the campaign or cause. The provisions of this section shall also apply to representatives of Borough Civic Groups and Organizations and any veterans honorably discharged or released under honorable circumstances from active service in any branch of the Armed Forces of the United States. All other Sections of Ordinance No. 573, with the exception of the penalty clause designated as Section 7 [sic], shall not be applicable to such persons or groups as designated herein.
“(2) All ordinances or parts of ordinances inconsistent with this ordinance are hereby repealed."
The trial court’s opinion in this regard appears to ignore the provisions of Ordinance No. 573, which covers other forms of door-to-door solicitation, and to which Ordinance No. 598A is an amendment.
Appellants also argue that the ordinance bears no rational relationship to its announced purpose of crime prevention, that it is overbroad because it covers Oradell residents casually soliciting the votes of neighbors, and that it violates the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by infringing on the right to meet and discuss national candidates. We intimate no view as to these contentions.
The flaw we find in this ordinance is vagueness, not the over-breadth at issue in Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601 (1973), on which the dissent relies. Several appellants alleged that their right to receive information would be infringed because persons canvassing for political causes would be uncertain whether the ordinance covered them. In the circumstances of this case these allegations are enough to put in issue the precision or lack of precision with which the ordinance defines the categories of “causes” it covers.
The agency charged with enforcement, the police department, has not adopted any regulations that would give more precise meaning to the ordinance — if indeed it has the legal power to do so. Cf. Broadrick, 413 U. S., at 616-617; CSC v. Letter Carriers, 413 U. S. 548, 575 (1973); Law Students Research Council v. Wadmond, 401 U. S. 154, 162-163 (1971). The chief of police suggested in an affidavit that neither a photograph nor fingerprints are required, and that the canvasser must simply “let us know who he is.” To the extent that this explanation adds any specificity to the ordinance, it does not purport to be binding on the enforcement authorities. Cf. ibid. Nor has the ordinance a history of “less formalized custom and usage” that might remedy the vagueness problems. Parker v. Levy, 417 U. S. 733, 754 (1974).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 petitioners were employed as construction workers at a site in Kinston, North Carolina, for continuous periods of 20% months, 12% months, and 8% months, respectively, ending in the year 1953. Each of the petitioners maintained a permanent residence elsewhere in North Carolina. In reporting his adjusted gross income for 1953 each petitioner deducted amounts expended for board and lodging at Kinston during the period of employment there, and for transportation from Kinston to his permanent residence upon leaving that employment. These deductions were disallowed by the respondent. Ensuing Tax Court proceedings resulted in a decision in favor of the petitioners. 27 T. C. 149. The Court of Appeals reversed. 254 F. 2d 483. We granted certiorari, 356 U. S. 956, to consider certain questions as to the application of §23 (a)(1)(A) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 raised by the course of decisions in the lower courts since our decision in Commissioner v. Flowers, 326 U. S. 465. However, as the case has been presented to us we have found it inappropriate to consider such questions.
The issue is whether the amounts in question constituted allowable deductions under § 23 (a)(1)(A). Generally, a taxpayer is entitled to deduct unreimbursed travel expenses under this subsection only when they are required by “the exigencies of business.” Commissioner v. Flowers, supra. Application of this general rule would require affirmance of the judgment of the Court of Appeals in the present case.
To this rule, however, the Tax Court has engrafted an exception which allows a deduction for expenditures of the type made in this case when the taxpayer’s employment is “temporary” as contrasted with “indefinite” or “indeterminate.” Compare Schurer v. Commissioner, 3 T. C. 544; Leach v. Commissioner, 12 T. C. 20; Albert v. Commissioner, 13 T. C. 129, with Warren v. Commissioner, 13 T. C. 205; Whitaker v. Commissioner, 24 T. C. 750. The respondent does not in the present case challenge the validity of this exception to the general rule.
Resolution of this case as presented to us turns, therefore, upon a narrow question of fact — Was the petitioners’ employment “temporary” or “indefinite”? The Tax Court, stating that “each case must be decided upon the basis of its own facts and circumstances,” 27 T. C., at 157, found that their employment was temporary. The Court of Appeals, also recognizing that the question was “one of fact,” held that on the record the Tax Court’s finding of temporary employment was “clearly erroneous.” 254 F. 2d, at 487.
In reviewing the Tax Court’s factual determination, the Court of Appeals has made a fair assessment of the record. 26 U. S. C. (Supp. V) § 7482; Rule 52 (a), Fed. Rules Civ. Proc.; cf. Universal Camera Corp. v. Labor Board, 340 U. S. 474. That being so, this Court will not intervene. Federal Trade Commission v. Standard Oil Co., 355 U. S. 396, 400-401; Labor Board v. Pittsburgh S. S. Co., 340 U. S. 498, 502-503.
Affirmed.
Ҥ 23. DEDUCTIONS FROM GROSS INCOME.
“In computing net income there shall be allowed as deductions:
“(a) Expenses.
“(1) Trade or business expenses.
“(A) In general.
“All the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business, including .. . traveling expenses (including the entire amount expended for meals and lodging) while away from home in the pursuit of a trade or business; . . . .” 26 U. S. C. (1952 ed.) §23 (a)(1)(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: | L | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner sells a line of drugs containing, as a principal active ingredient, citrus bioflavonoid, which is an extract from fruit skins. The drugs are sold in capsules, syrup, and tablets. In the 1950’s new drug applications (NDA’s) were filed and became effective for seven of them; two, however, were sold without any NDA. In 1961 the Pood and Drug Administration (FDA) advised petitioner that two of the products, when distributed under the existing labels, were not new drugs. These drugs were recommended for a wide variety of ailments from bleeding, to hypertension, to ulcerative colitis. After the 1962 amendments to the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 1040, as amended, 76 Stat. 780, these products, together with a large number of other bioflavonoid products, were examined by FDA for drug effectiveness. The National Academy of Sciences-National Research Council (NAS-NRC) panels reviewed them. One panel on metabolic disorders concluded that the “use of these materials as hemostatic agents for capillary fragility is felt to be unjustifiable and not proved.” A panel on hematologic disorders found there was no proof that these products were efficacious for any medical use.
Based upon the NAS-NRC reports and its own evaluation, FDA gave notice of opportunity for hearing on its proposal to withdraw approvals of NDA's for all drugs containing these compounds, alone or in combination with other drugs. Petitioner thereupon brought suit in the District Court, asking for a declaratory judgment that its drugs are exempt from the efficacy requirements under § 107 (c)(4). The administrative proceedings went forward, FDA refusing a stay pending the judicial proceedings. Petitioner submitted no evidence of “adequate and well-controlled investigations” as required by § 505 (d) of the Act, 21 U. S. C. § 355 (d), to support its claims of effectiveness. The Commissioner made findings and withdrew petitioner’s NDA’s.
In the District Court petitioner contended that the drugs were exempt from regulation by reason of § 107 (c)(4) of the 1962 amendments, which provides:
“In the case of any drug which, on the day immediately preceding the enactment date, (A) was commercially used or sold in the United States, (B) was not a new drug as defined by section 201 (p) of the basic Act as then in force, and (C) was not covered by an effective application under section 505 of that Act, the amendments to section 201 (p) made by this Act shall not apply to such drug when intended solely for use under conditions prescribed, recommended, or suggested in labeling with respect to such drug on that day.”
The District Court found that two of the products had never been covered by effective NDA’s and that, while seven had been covered, their applications had later been withdrawn by petitioner. It found that the products were “safe” for use in treating abnormal capillary permeability and fragility. It therefore concluded that, as of the day the 1962 amendments became effective, petitioner’s products were not new drugs, were not covered by effective applications within the meaning of § 107 (c) (4), and hence were exempt from the effectiveness criterion added to the regulatory provisions of §§ 505 and 201 (p), 21 U. S. C. §§ 355 and 321 (p). In so ruling, the District Court necessarily determined that it, and not FDA, had jurisdiction to decide exemption questions.
The Court of Appeals agreed that the District Court alone had jurisdiction but reversed on the merits. 461 F. 2d 223. It held that none of petitioner’s bioflavonoid drugs were entitled to exemption under §107(c)(4). As to the seven for which NDA’s had been filed, it held that an applicant could not withdraw an NDA once it became effective. It concluded that even if the drugs were generally recognized as safe on the day preceding the effective date of the 1962 Act, they were “covered by an effective application” within the meaning of § 107 (c) (4) (C) and thus were not exempt from the 1962 amendments. As to the “me-too” drugs, those specific drugs for which petitioner had not filed an NDA, the Court of Appeals held that although the “me-too’s” of other manufacturers competing with petitioner’s bioflavonoids would be exempt, petitioner’s “me-too’s” were not exempt because the NDA’s covering the pioneer drugs prepared by petitioner covered all of its products similar in formula and labeling. While the Government agrees that petitioner’s “me-too” products should be accorded the same treatment as the “me-too’s” of other manufacturers who had never filed NDA’s, the parties are at odds on other issues.
The resolution of the questions presented turns essentially on the meaning of §107 (c)(4), quoted above. But as background for the problem of construction, references should be made to other 1962 amendments. Section 201 (p) was amended to redefine a “new drug” as one not generally recognized by experts as both safe and effective for use under the conditions prescribed or one that has not been used to a material extent and for a material time. Section 505 (a) was amended to require affirmative approval of FDA, where previously it had provided that an NDA would automatically become effective unless a contrary order were issued. Section 505 (d) was amended to require disapproval of an application if there is “a lack of substantial evidence that the drug will have the effect it purports or is represented to have.” Section 505 (e) was amended to require that any previous approval of an application be withdrawn whenever it appears from new information or otherwise that there is a lack of substantial evidence of the drug’s effectiveness.
There remained the problem of the application of the new drug efficacy provisions to drugs already on the market. Without transitional protection all drugs — except those marketed prior to the 1938 Act whose labeling had not been changed and which were exempt from the “new drug” provision of § 201 (p)- — would have been in violation of the amended Act unless generally recognized as effective. Even NDA’s which were outstanding would have become ineffective because FDA had not approved them under the new criteria. Section 107 (c) (2) of the amendments therefore provides that applications which were effective on the day before the enactment date of the 1962 amendments should be deemed “approved.” Section 107 (c)(2) thus eliminated the necessity to review and approve every application already on file.
Section 107 (c)(3) provides that drugs covered by NDA's already on file whose labeling remains unchanged are not affected by the amended provisions of § 505 (b) or by approvals or refusals under § 505 (d) insofar as the effectiveness of the drugs is concerned, so long as the application is not withdrawn or suspended under § 505 (e). It also provides that the new effectiveness requirement in the withdrawal provision would not apply until two years after the amendments were adopted, or until the NDA approval were withdrawn for reasons other than lack of the drug’s effectiveness, whichever came first. It seems apparent that by reason o'f § 107 (c) (3) the industry was assured it could continue to market previously approved NDA’s unless and until the NDA was withdrawn and that before such withdrawal they would be given a minimum of two years within which to submit “substantial evidence” to support the claims for their products.
Section 107 (c) (4) exempted drugs from the new effectiveness requirements so long as their composition and labeling remained unchanged. This exemption, however, applies only to a product that, on the day before the 1962 amendments became effective, (A) was used or sold commercially in the United States, (B) was generally recognized by the experts as safe; and (C) was not “covered” by an “effective” application.
The first question is, which “me-too” copies of an NDA drug are subject to the efficacy requirements to the same extent as the NDA product itself? Are only the “me-toos” of the same manufacturer “covered” by an effective application within the meaning of § 107 (c) (4) (C) and thus not exempt from § 201 (p) or are no “me-too’s” exempt whoever manufactures them? It seems clear that § 107 (c) was designed in general to make the new 1962 requirements applicable to drugs then on the market after a two-year grace period. Section 107 (c)(4) created an exception from this general policy. Senator Eastland explained these “transitional provisions/’ stating: “Established drugs which have never been required to go through new drug procedures will not be affected by the new effectiveness test insofar as their existing clauses are concerned.” It is true that an NDA covers a particular product or products that it names and that § 505 when applied to an NDA is personal to the manufacturer who files it. Section 505, in other words, addresses itself to drugs as individual products. But we agree with the Government that “any drug” when used in § 107 (c) (4) is used in the generic sense, which means that the “me-too’s,” whether products of the same or of different manufacturers “covered” by an “effective” NDA, are not exempt from the efficacy requirements of §201 (p). If that were not true, then, as the Court of Appeals said, the “me-too’s” of one manufacturer covered by an NDA of another manufacturer would be exempt from regulation, while the “me-too’s” of the manufacturer holding the NDA could be regulated. That seems to be a reading of § 107 (c) (4) that is discriminatory and needlessly so. For it is avoided by taking “any drug” in that subsection as a generic term. The transitional nature of § 107 (c) works in that direction. A reading to exclude all “me-too” drugs from the word “covered” as used in § 107 (c)(4) would create a hiatus in the regulatory scheme for which there seems to be no cogent reason. We find no persuasive reason to resolve the ambiguities in favor of the manufacturers so that pre-existing pioneer drugs would be subject to the new efficacy requirements but the “me-too’s” which often do equal service for them would escape the thrust of the 1962 amendments. That resolution of the ambiguities would largely leave pre-1962 drugs of unproved effectiveness untouched by the 1962 amendments and perpetuate a competitive contest in the marketing of ineffective pre-1962 drugs. FDA would, of course, have authority to pursue that category of drugs under the misbranding provisions of the Act. But that slow, cumbersome method is utterly unsuited to the need. We decline to attribute such a self-defeating purpose to the Congress. After all, the 1962 regulatory scheme proposes administrative control through an expert agency in lieu of the more cumbersome 1938 devices, as a result of which, “good medical practice is hampered, and the consumer is misled until, perhaps years later, the Government has gathered the necessary evidence to sustain its burden of proving the violation in court.”
Petitioner, focusing on prescription drugs, contends that the construction of § 107 (c) (4) urged by the Government would make the exemption meaningless. Prescription drugs, as FDA points out, are not likely to have come on the market subsequent to 1938 without being a “new drug” for some time. But the over-the-counter (OTC) drugs, known as the proprietaries, are often made up of old, established ingredients. Such products, coming on the market for the first time between 1938 and 1962, might never have been subject to new drug regulation. If so, they would be entitled to the exemption provided by § 107 (c)(4). Senator Kefauver, the main sponsor of the 1962 Act, deplored the absence in an earlier bill of the failure to submit proprietaries on the market to tests of efficacy. He said:
“Effectiveness, as well as safety, should apply to new proprietary drugs, but proprietaries now on the market are not to be subject under the present bill to the provisions requiring them, upon notice by the FOA [sic], to support their claims for effectiveness. I think they should be so required. That is a matter which can be remedied in conference or by other legislation.”
It can be inferred from this statement that prescription drugs on the market were to be subjected to the efficacy requirements. If the 1962 amendments are to be comprehensively meaningful, we decline to read § 107 (c) (4) so as to provide a loophole so that the manufacturers can go on marketing drugs previously subject to new drug regulation without demonstrating by the new statutory standards that they are effective as claimed.
The second question presented by this case is whether an applicant could have withdrawn or “deactivated” an NDA prior to the 1962 amendments so that its drug was no longer “covered by an effective application” and thus is now exempt from efficacy regulation by reason-of § 107 (c)(4). Petitioner in 1961 had stated in a letter to the Director of New Drug Branch of the Bureau of Medicine in FDA that “[i]t is our recollection that the C. V. P. class of products were no longer considered to be new drugs . . . .” Petitioner in 1961 also stopped filing supplemental information as required by regulation with regard to the products for which NDA’s had become effective. It claims that these acts were sufficient to withdraw the NDA’s and to bring its products within the exemption.
Initially, we repeat that the legislative history indicates that it was Congress’ purpose to exempt only those drugs that never had been subject to the new drug regulation. Quite obviously, any drug for which an NDA once had been effective does not fall within that category.
Congress rejected an approach that would have exempted from the efficacy requirements of the 1962 amendments all drugs then marketed which had become generally recognized as safe. It now would be irrational for us to construe § 107 (c) (4) of the amendments to exempt a drug merely because the manufacturer had taken some formal steps totally unrelated to the drug’s effectiveness to indicate that the drug was no longer a “new drug” under the pre-1962 standards. The result would be that some drugs for which an NDA had been filed would be subject to the efficacy requirements and some would not, even though one could not differentiate between the drugs on the grounds of effectiveness. For example, 43 NDA’s had been filed with respect to bioflavonoids and related compounds. There is no reason to believe that any product is more or less effective than another. According to the Solicitor General, the “state of activity, inactivity, or withdrawal” of the applications varied from one to the next when the 1962 amendments became effective. It would be totally inconsistent with the statutory scheme and the policy underlying the 1962 amendments, as well as patently unjust, to conclude that some manufacturers could continue to market their bioflavonoid products, but others could not. We cannot attribute such an intention to Congress and, accordingly, cannot agree with petitioner that its NDA’s had been withdrawn prior to 1962 so that its bioflavonoid products were no longer “covered by an effective application.”
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case. Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the decision of this case.
Unlike the situation in CIBA Corp. v. Weinberger, ante, p. 640, the order of the Commissioner withdrawing petitioner’s NDA’s had not become final prior to the District Court’s assuming jurisdiction. In fact, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed the Commissioner’s decision, 151 U. S. App. D. C. 284, 466 F. 2d 455; and the proceedings on remand are now pending before the Commission. Thus, petitioner was not barred from proceeding in the District Court. Cf. CIBA Corp. v. Weinberger, supra. Our decision today is not meant to indicate that the District Court, had it concluded that its jurisdiction was concurrent with that of FDA, would not have abused its discretion in refusing to stay this action pending the outcome of administrative proceedings. Cf. Weinberger v. Bentex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., ante, p. 645. The Court of Appeals below found it unnecessary to consider whether petitioner had failed to exhaust its administrative remedies. 461 F. 2d, at 226.
There lurks in the case a question whether a drug could have been unsafe prior to the 1962 amendments because it was ineffective in treating the conditions for which its use was recommended by the label. That question, however, was not presented in the petition for certiorari.
“The term 'new drug’ means—
“(1) Any drug (except a new animal drug or an animal feed bearing or containing a new animal drug) the composition of which is such that such drug is not generally recognized, among experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the safety and effectiveness of drugs, as safe and effective for use under the conditions prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling thereof, except that such a drug not so recognized shall not be deemed to be a 'new drug’ if at any time prior to the enactment of this chapter it was subject to the Food and Drugs Act of June 30, 1906, as amended, and if at such time its labeling contained the same representations concerning the conditions of its use; or
“(2) Any drug (except a new animal drug or an animal feed bearing or containing a new animal drug) the composition of which is such that such drug, as a result of investigations to determine its safety and effectiveness for use under such conditions, has become so recognized, but which has not, otherwise than in such investigations, been used to a material extent or for a material time under such conditions.” 21 U. S. C. §321 (p).
Section 505 (c) provides:
“Within one hundred and eighty days after the filing of an application under this subsection, or such additional period as may be agreed upon by the Secretary and the applicant, the Secretary shall either—
“(1) approve the application if he then finds that none of the grounds for denying approval specified in subsection (d) applies, or
“(2) give the applicant notice of an opportunity for a hearing before the Secretary under subsection (d) ... on the question whether such application is approvable. If the applicant elects to accept the opportunity for hearing by written request within thirty days after such notice, such hearing shall commence not more than ninety days after the expiration of such thirty days unless the Secretary and the applicant otherwise agree. Any such hearing shall thereafter be conducted on an expedited basis and the Secretary’s order thereon shall be issued within ninety days after the date fixed by the Secretary for filing final briefs.” 21 U. S. C. §355 (c).
That section provides:
“If the Secretary finds, after due notice to the applicant in accordance with subsection (c) . . . and giving him an opportunity for a hearing, in accordance with said subsection, that (1) the investigations, reports of which are required to be submitted to the Secretary pursuant to subsection (b) . . . , do not include adequate tests by all methods reasonably applicable to show whether or not such drug is safe for use under the conditions prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the proposed labeling thereof; (2) the results of such tests show that such drug is unsafe for use under such conditions or do not show that such drug is safe for use under such conditions; (3) the methods used in, and the facilities and controls used for, the manufacture, processing, and packing of such drug are inadequate to preserve its identity, strength, quality, and purity; (4) upon the basis of the information submitted to him as part of the application, or upon the basis of any other information before him with respect to such drug, he has insufficient information to determine whether such drug is safe for use under such conditions; or (5) evaluated on the basis of the information submitted to him as part of the application and any other information before him with respect to such drug, there is a lack of substantial evidence that the drug will have the effect it purports or is represented to have under the conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the proposed labeling thereof; or (6) based on a fair evaluation of all material facts, such labeling is false or misleading in any particular; he shall issue an order refusing to approve the application. If, after such notice and opportunity for hearing, the Secretary finds that clauses (1) through (6) do not apply, he shall issue an order approving the application. As used in this subsection and subsection (e) . . . , the term ‘substantial evidence’ means evidence consisting of adequate and well-controlled investigations, including clinical investigations, by experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the effectiveness of the drug involved, on the basis of which it could fairly and responsibly be concluded by such experts that the drug will have the effect it purports or is represented to have under the conditions of use prescribed, recommended, or suggested in the labeling or proposed labeling thereof.” 21 TJ. S. C. §355 (d).
108 Cong. Rec. 17366.
H. R. Rep. No. 2464, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 3.
Prescription drugs, as defined by § 503 (b), 21 U. S. C. § 353 (b), include any drug for human use which (A) is habit forming; (B) “because of its toxicity or other potentiality for harmful effect, or the method of its use, or the collateral measures necessary to its use, is not safe for use except under the supervision of a practitioner licensed by law to administer such drug”; or (C) is limited to prescription use in the application under § 505.
108 Cong. Rec. 17368.
See S. Rep. No. 1744, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 2, p. 8; H. R. Rep. No. 2464, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 12; H. R. Rep. No. 2526, 87th Cong., 2d Sess., 22-23; 108 Cong. Rec. 17366.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 United States District Court for the District of Columbia entered discovery orders directing the Vice President and other senior officials in the Executive Branch to produce information about a task force established to give advice and make policy recommendations to the President. This case requires us to consider the circumstances under which a court of appeals may exercise its power to issue a writ of mandamus to modify or dissolve the orders when, by virtue of their overbreadth, enforcement might interfere with the officials in the discharge of their duties and impinge upon the President’s constitutional prerogatives.
I
A few days after assuming office, President George W. Bush issued a memorandum establishing the National Energy Policy Development Group (NEPDG or Group). The Group was directed to “develo[p]... a national energy policy designed to help the private sector, and government at all levels, promote dependable, affordable, and environmentally sound production and distribution of energy for the future.” App. 156-157. The President assigned a number of agency heads and assistants — all employees of the Federal Government — to serve as members of the committee. He authorized the Vice President, as chairman of the Group, to invite “other officers of the Federal Government” to participate “as appropriate.” Id., at 157. Five months later, the NEPDG issued a final report and, according to the Government, terminated all operations.
Following publication of the report, respondents Judicial Watch, Inc., and the Sierra Club filed these separate actions, which were later consolidated in the District Court. Respondents alleged the NEPDG had failed to comply with the procedural and disclosure requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA or Act), 5 U. S. C. App. §2, p. 1.
FACA was enacted to monitor the “numerous committees, boards, commissions, councils, and similar groups [that] have been established to advise officers and agencies in the executive branch of the Federal Government,” § 2(a), and to prevent the “wasteful expenditure of public funds” that may result from their proliferation, Public Citizen v. Department of Justice, 491 U. S. 440, 453 (1989). Subject to specific exemptions, FACA imposes a variety of open-meeting and disclosure requirements on groups that meet the definition of an “advisory committee.” As relevant here, an “advisory committee” means
“any committee, board, commission, council, conference, panel, task force, or other similar group, or any subcommittee or other subgroup thereof..., which is—
“(B) established or utilized by the President,... except that [the definition] excludes (i) any committee that is composed wholly of full-time, or permanent part-time, officers, or employees of the Federal Government....” 5 U. S. C. App. §3(2), p. 2.
Respondents do not dispute the President appointed only Federal Government officials to the NEPDG. They agree that the NEPDG, as established by the President in his memorandum, was “composed wholly of full-time, or permanent part-time, officers or employees of the Federal Government.” Ibid. The complaint alleges, however, that “non-federal employees,” including “private lobbyists,” “regularly attended and fully participated in non-public meetings.” App. 21 (Judicial Watch Complaint ¶ 25). Relying on Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Clinton, 997 F. 2d 898 (CADC 1993) (AAPS), respondents contend that the regular participation of the non-Government individuals made them de facto members of the committee. According to the complaint, their “involvement and role are functionally indistinguishable from those of the other [formal] members.” Id., at 915. As a result, respondents argue, the NEPDG cannot benefit from the Act’s exemption under subsection B and is subject to FACA’s requirements.
Vice President Cheney, the NEPDG, the Government officials who served on the committee, and the alleged de facto members were named as defendants. The suit seeks declaratory relief and an injunction requiring them to produce all materials allegedly subject to FACA’s requirements.
All defendants moved to dismiss. The District Court granted the motion in part and denied it in part. The court acknowledged FACA does not create a private cause of action. On this basis, it dismissed respondents’ claims against the non-Government defendants. Because the NEPDG had been dissolved, it could not be sued as a defendant; and the claims against it were dismissed as well. The District Court held, however, that FACA’s substantive requirements could be enforced against the Vice President and other Government participants on the NEPDG under the Mandamus Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1361, and against the agency defendants under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. § 706. The District Court recognized the disclosure duty must be clear and nondiscretionary for mandamus to issue, and there must be, among other things, “final agency actions” for the APA to apply. According to the District Court, it was premature to decide these questions. It held only that respondents had alleged sufficient facts to keep the Vice President and the other defendants in the case..
The District Court deferred ruling on the Government’s contention that to disregard the exemption and apply FACA to the NEPDG would violate principles of separation of powers and interfere with the constitutional prerogatives of the President and the Vice President. Instead, the court allowed respondents to conduct a “tightly-reined” discovery to ascertain the NEPDG’s structure and membership, and thus to determine whether the de facto membership doctrine applies. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. National Energy Policy Dev. Group, 219 F. Supp. 2d 20, 54 (DC 2002). While acknowledging that discovery itself might raise serious constitutional questions, the District Court explained that the Government could assert executive privilege to protect sensitive materials from disclosure. In the District Court’s view, these “issues of executive privilege will be much more limited in scope than the broad constitutional challenge raised by the government.” Id., at 55. The District Court adopted this approach in an attempt to avoid constitutional questions, noting that if, after discovery, respondents have no evidentiary support for the allegations about the regular participation by lobbyists and industry executives on the NEPDG, the Government can prevail on statutory grounds. Furthermore, the District Court explained, even were it appropriate to address constitutional issues, some factual development is necessary to determine the extent of the alleged intrusion into the Executive’s constitutional authority. The court denied in part the motion to dismiss and ordered respondents to submit a discovery plan.
In due course the District Court approved respondents’ discovery plan, entered a series of orders allowing discovery to proceed, see CADC App. 238, 263, 364 (reproducing orders entered on Sept. 9, Oct. 17, and Nov. 1, 2002), and denied the Government’s motion for certification under 28 U. S. C. § 1292(b) with, respect to the discovery orders. Petitioners sought a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals to vacate the discovery orders, to direct the District Court to rule on the basis of the administrative record, and to dismiss the Vice President from the suit. The Vice President also filed a notice of appeal from the same orders. See Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541 (1949); United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S. 683 (1974).
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals dismissed the petition for a writ of mandamus and the Vice President’s attempted interlocutory appeal. In re Cheney, 334 F. 3d 1096 (CADC 2003). With respect to mandamus, the majority declined to issue the writ on the ground that alternative avenues of relief remained available. Citing United States v. Nixon, supra, the majority held that petitioners, to guard against intrusion into the President’s prerogatives, must first assert privilege. Under its reading of Nixon, moreover, privilege claims must be made “‘with particularity.’” 334 F. 3d, at 1104. In the majority’s view, if the District Court sustains the privilege, petitioners will be able to obtain all the relief they seek. If the District Court rejects the claim of executive privilege and creates “an imminent risk of disclosure of allegedly protected presidential communications,” “mandamus might well be appropriate to avoid letting ‘the cat... out of the bag.’ ” Id., at 1104-1105. “But so long as the separation of powers conflict that petitioners anticipate remains hypothetical,” the panel held, “we have no authority to exercise the extraordinary remedy of mandamus.” Id., at 1105. The majority acknowledged the scope of respondents’ requests is overly broad, because it seeks far more than the “limited items” to which respondents would be entitled if “the district court ultimately determines that the NEPDG is subject to FACA.” Id., at 1105-1106; id., at 1106 (“The requests to produce also go well beyond FACA’s requirements”); ibid. (“[Respondents’] discovery also goes well beyond what they need to prove”). It nonetheless agreed with the District Court that petitioners “ ‘shall bear the burden’ ” of invoking executive privilege and filing objections to the discovery orders with “‘detailed precision.’” Id., at 1105 (quoting Aug. 2, 2002, Order).
For similar reasons, the majority rejected the Vice President’s interlocutory appeal. In United States v. Nixon, the Court held that the President could appeal an interlocutory subpoena order without having “to place himself in the posture of disobeying an order of a court merely to trigger the procedural mechanism for review.” 418 U. S., at 691. The majority, however, found the case inapplicable because Vice President Cheney, unlike then-President Nixon, had not yet asserted privilege. In the majority’s view, the Vice President was not forced to choose between disclosure and suffering contempt for failure to obey a court order. The majority held that to require the Vice President to assert privilege does not create the unnecessary confrontation between two branches of Government described in Nixon.
Judge Randolph filed a dissenting opinion. In his view A APS’ de facto membership doctrine is mistaken, and the Constitution bars its application to the NEPDG. Allowing discovery to determine the applicability of the defacto membership doctrine, he concluded, is inappropriate. He would have issued the writ of mandamus directing dismissal of the complaints. 334 F. 3d, at 1119.
We granted certiorari. 540 U. S. 1088 (2003). We now vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the ease for further proceedings to reconsider the Government’s mandamus petition.
II
As a preliminary matter, we address respondents’ argument that the Government’s petition fór a writ of mandamus was jurisdictionally out of time or, alternatively, barred by the equitable doctrine of laches. According to respondents, because the Government’s basic argument was one of discovery immunity — that is, it need not invoke executive privilege or make particular objections to the discovery requests — the mandamus petition should have been filed with the Court of Appeals within 60 days after the District Court denied the Government’s motion to dismiss. Sée Fed. Rule App. Proc. 4(a)(1)(B) (“When the United States or its officer or agency is a party, the notice of appeal may be filed by any party within 60 days after the judgment or order appealed from is entered”). On this theory, the last day for making any filing to the Court of Appeals was September 9, 2002. The Government, however, did not file the mandamus petition and the notice of appeal until November 7, four months after the District Court issued the order that, under respondents’ view, commenced the time for appeal.
As even respondents acknowledge, however, Rule 4(a), by its plain terms, applies only to the filing of a notice of appeal. Brief for Respondent Sierra Club 23. Rule 4(a) is inapplicable to the Government’s mandamus petition under the All Writs Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1651. Because we vacate the Court of Appeals’ judgment and remand the case for further proceedings for the court to consider whether a writ of mandamus should have issued, we need not decide whether the Vice President also could have appealed the District Court’s orders under Nixon and the collateral order doctrine. We express no opinion on whether the Vice President’s notice of appeal was timely filed.
Respondents’ argument that the mandamus petition was barred by laches does not withstand scrutiny. Laches might bar a petition for a writ of mandamus if the petitioner “slept upon his rights..., and especially if the delay has been prejudicial to the [other party], or to the rights of other persons,” Chapman v. County of Douglas, 107 U. S. 348, 355 (1883). Here, the flurry of activity following the District Court’s denial of the motion to dismiss overcomes respondents’ argument that the Government neglected to assert its rights. The Government filed, among other papers, a motion for a protective order on September 3; a motion to stay pending appeal on October 21; and a motion for leave to appeal pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1292(b) on October 23. Even were we to agree that the baseline for measuring the timeliness of the Government’s mandamus petition was the District Court’s order denying the motion to dismiss, the Government’s active litigation posture was far from the neglect or delay that would make the application of laches appropriate.
We do not accept, furthermore, respondents’ argument that laches should apply because the motions filed by the Government following the District Court’s denial of its motion to dismiss amounted to little more than dilatory tactics to “delay and obstruct the proceedings.” Brief for Respondent Sierra Club 23. In light of the drastic nature of mandamus and our precedents holding that mandamus may not issue so long as alternative avenues of relief remain available, the Government cannot be faulted for attempting to resolve the dispute through less drastic means. The law does not put litigants in the impossible position of having to exhaust alternative remedies before petitioning for mandamus, on the one hand, and having to file the mandamus petition at the earliest possible moment to avoid laches, on the other. The petition was properly before the Court of Appeals for its consideration.
Ill
We now come to the central issue in the case — whether the Court of Appeals was correct to conclude it “ha[d] no authority to exercise the extraordinary remedy of mandamus,” 334 F. 3d, at 1105, on the ground that the Government could protect its rights by asserting executive privilege in the District Court.
The common-law writ of mandamus against a lower court is codified at 28 U. S. C. § 1651(a): “The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” This is a “drastic and extraordinary” remedy “reserved for really extraordinary causes.” Ex parte Fahey, 332 U. S. 258, 259-260 (1947). “The traditional use of the writ in aid of appellate jurisdiction both at common law and in the federal courts has been to confine [the court against which mandamus is sought] to a lawful exercise of its prescribed juris-’ diction.” Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn., 319 U. S. 21, 26 (1943). Although courts have not “confined themselves to an arbitrary and technical definition of ‘jurisdiction,’ ” Will v. United States, 389 U. S. 90, 95 (1967), “only exceptional circumstances amounting to a judicial ‘usurpation of power,’ ” ibid., or a “clear abuse of discretion,” Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, 346 U. S. 379, 383 (1953), “will justify the invocation of this extraordinary remedy,” Will, 389 U. S., at 95.
As the writ is one of “the most potent weapons in the judicial arsenal,” id., at 107, three conditions must be satisfied before it may issue. Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal, 426 U. S. 394, 403 (1976). First, “the party seeking issuance of the writ [must] have no other adequate means to attain the relief he desires,” ibid. — a condition designed to ensure that the writ will not be used as a substitute for the regular appeals process, Fahey, supra, at 260. Second, the petitioner must satisfy “‘the burden of showing that [his] right to issuance of the writ is “clear and indisputable.’”” Kerr, supra, at 403 (quoting Bankers Life & Casualty Co., supra, at 384). Third, even if the first two prerequisites have been met, the issuing court, in the exercise of its discretion, must be satisfied that the writ is appropriate under the circumstances. Kerr, supra, at 403 (citing Schlagenhauf v. Holder, 379 U.S. 104, 112, n. 8 (1964)). These hurdles, however demanding, are not insuperable. This Court has issued the writ to restrain a lower court when its actions would threaten the separation of powers by “embarrassing] the executive arm of the Government,” Ex parte Peru, 318 U. S. 578, 588 (1943), or result in the “intrusion by the federal judiciary on a delicate area of federal-state relations,” Will, supra, at 95 (citing Maryland v. Soper (No. 1), 270 U. S. 9 (1926)).
Were the Vice President not a party in the case, the argument that the Court of Appeals should have entertained an action in mandamus, notwithstanding the District Court’s denial of the motion for certification, might present different considerations. Here, however, the Vice President and his comembers on the NEPDG are the subjects of the discovery orders. The mandamus petition alleges that the orders threaten “substantial intrusions on the process by which those in closest operational proximity to the President advise the President.” App. 343. These facts and allegations remove this case from the category of ordinary discovery orders where interlocutory appellate review is unavailable, through mandamus or otherwise. It is well established that “a President’s communications and activities encompass a vastly wider range of sensitive material than would be true of any ‘ordinary individual.’” United States v. Nixon, 418 U. S., at 715. Chief Justice Marshall, sitting as a trial judge, recognized the unique position of the Executive Branch when he stated that “[i]n no case... would a court be required to proceed against the president as against an ordinary individual.” United States v. Burr, 25 F. Cas. 187, 192 (No. 14, 694) (CC Va. 1807). See also Clinton v. Jones, 520 U. S. 681, 698-699 (1997) (“We have, in short, long recognized the ‘unique position in the constitutional scheme’ that [the Office of the President] occupies” (quoting Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731, 749 (1982))); 520 U. S., at 710-724 (Breyer, J., concurring in judgment). As United States v. Nixon explained, these principles do not mean that the “President is above the law.” 418 U. S., at 715. Rather, they simply acknowledge that the public interest requires that a coequal, branch of Government “afford Presidential confidentiality the greatest protection consistent with the fair administration of justice,” ibid., and give recognition to the paramount necessity of protecting the Executive Branch from vexatious litigation that might distract it from the energetic performance of its constitutional duties.
These separation-of-powers considerations should inform a court of appeals’ evaluation of a mandamus petition involving the President or the Vice President. Accepted mandamus standards are broad enough to allow a court of appeals to prevent a lower court from interfering with a coequal branch’s ability to discharge its constitutional responsibilities. See Ex parte Peru, supra, at 587 (recognizing jurisdiction to issue the writ because “the action of the political arm of the Government taken within its appropriate sphere [must] be promptly recognized, and... delay and inconvenience of a prolonged litigation [must] be avoided by prompt termination of the proceedings in the district court”); see also Clinton v. Jones, supra, at 701 (“We have recognized that ‘[e]ven when a branch does not arrogate power to itself... the separation-of-powers doctrine requires that a branch not impair another in the performance of its constitutional duties’ ” (quoting Loving v. United States, 517 U. S. 748, 757 (1996))).
IV
The Court of Appeals dismissed these separation-of-powers concerns. Relying on United States v. Nixon, it held that even though respondents’ discovery requests are overbroad and “go well beyond FACA’s requirements,” the Vice President and his former colleagues on the NEPDG “ ‘shall bear the burden’ ” of invoking privilege with narrow specificity and objecting to the discovery requests with “ ‘detailed precision.’ ” 334 F. 3d, at 1105-1106. In its view, this result was required by Nixon’s rejection of an “absolute, unqualified Presidential privilege of immunity from judicial process under all circumstances.” 418 U. S., at 706. If Nixon refused to recognize broad claims of confidentiality where the President had asserted executive privilege, the majority reasoned, Nixon must have rejected, a fortiori, petitioners’ claim of discovery immunity where the privilege has not even been invoked. According to the majority, because the Executive Branch can invoke executive privilege to maintain the separation of powers, mandamus relief is premature.
This analysis, however, overlooks fundamental differences in the two cases. Nixon cannot bear the weight the Court of Appeals puts upon it. First, unlike this case, which concerns respondents’ requests for information for use in a civil suit, Nixon involves the proper balance between the Executive’s interest in the confidentiality of its communications and the “constitutional need for production of relevant evidence in a criminal proceeding.” Id., at 713. The Court’s decision was explicit that it was “not... concerned with the balance between the President’s generalized interest in confidentiality and the need for relevant evidence in civil litigation.... We address only the conflict between the President’s assertion of a generalized privilege of confidentiality and the constitutional need for relevant evidence in criminal trials.” Id., at 712, n. 19.
The distinction Nixon drew between criminal and civil proceedings is not just a matter of formalism. As the Court explained, the need for information in the criminal context is much weightier because “our historic[al] commitment to the rule of law... is nowhere more profoundly manifest than in our view that ‘the twofold aim [of criminal justice] is that guilt shall not escape or innocence suffer.’ ” Id., at 708-709 (quoting Berger v. United States, 295 U. S. 78, 88 (1935)). In light of the “fundamental”. and “comprehensive” need for “every man’s evidence” in the criminal justice system, 418 U. S., at 709, 710, not only must the Executive Branch first assert privilege to resist disclosure, but privilege claims that shield information from a grand jury proceeding or a criminal trial are not to be “expansively construed, for they are in derogation of the search for truth,” id., at 710. The need for information for use in civil cases, while far from negligible, does not share the urgency or significance of the criminal subpoena requests in Nixon. As Nixon recognized, the right to production of relevant evidence in civil proceedings does not have the same “constitutional dimensions.” Id., at 711.
The Court also observed in Nixon that a “primary constitutional duty of the Judicial Branch [is] to do justice in criminal prosecutions.” Id., at 707. Withholding materials from a tribunal in an ongoing criminal case when the information is necessary to the court in carrying out its tasks “conflict[s] with the function of the courts under Art. III.” Ibid. Such an impairment of the “essential functions of [another] branch,” ibid., is impermissible. Withholding the information in this case, however, does not hamper another branch’s ability to perform its “essential functions” in quite the same way. Ibid. The District Court ordered discovery here, not to remedy known statutory violations, but to ascertain whether FACA’s disclosure requirements even apply to the NEPDG in the first place. Even if FACA embodies important congressional objectives, the only consequence from respondents’ inability to obtain the discovery they seek is that it would be more difficult for private complainants to vindicate Congress’ policy objectives under FACA. And even if, for argument’s sake, the reasoning in Judge Randolph’s dissenting opinion in the end is rejected and FACA’s statutory objectives would be to some extent frustrated, it does not follow that a court’s Article III authority or Congress’ central Article I powers would be impaired. The situation here cannot, in fairness, be compared to Nixon, where a court’s ability to fulfill its constitutional responsibility to resolve cases and controversies within its jurisdiction hinges on the availability of certain indispensable information.
A party’s need for information is only one facet of the problem. An important factor weighing in the opposite direction is the burden imposed by the discovery orders. This is not a routine discovery dispute. The discovery requests are directed to the Vice President and other senior Government officials who served on the NEPDG to give advice and make recommendations to the President. The Executive Branch, at its highest level, is seeking the aid of the courts to protect its constitutional prerogatives. As we have already noted, special considerations control when the Executive Branch’s interests in maintaining the autonomy of its office and safeguarding the confidentiality of its communications are implicated. This Court has held, on more than one occasion, that “[t]he high respect that is owed to the office of the Chief Executive... is a matter that should inform the conduct of the entire proceeding, including the timing and scope of discovery,” Clinton, 520 U. S., at 707, and that the Executive’s “constitutional responsibilities and status [are] factors counseling judicial deference and restraint” in the conduct of litigation against it, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 753. Respondents’ reliance on cases that do not involve senior members of the Executive Branch, see, e. g., Kerr v. United States Dist. Court for Northern Dist. of Cal., 426 U. S. 394 (1976), is altogether misplaced.
Even when compared against United States v. Nixon’s criminal subpoenas, which did involve the President, the civil discovery here militates against respondents’ position. The observation in Nixon that production of confidential information would not disrupt the functioning of the Executive Branch cannot be applied in a mechanistic fashion to civil litigation. In the criminal justice system, there are various constraints, albeit imperfect, to filter out insubstantial legal claims. The decision to prosecute a criminal case, for example, is made by a publicly accountable prosecutor subject to budgetary considerations and under an ethical obligation, not only to win and zealously to advocate for his client but also to serve the cause of justice. The rigors of the penal system are alsp mitigated by the responsible exercise of prosecuto-rial discretion. In contrast, there are no analogous checks in the civil discovery process here. Although under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, sanctions are available, and private attorneys also owe an obligation of candor to the judicial tribunal, these safeguards have proved insufficient to discourage the filing of meritless claims against the Executive Branch. “In view of the visibility of” the Offices of the President and the Vice President and “the effect of [their] actions on countless people,” they are “easily identifiable target[s] for suits for civil damages.” Nixon v. Fitzgerald, supra, at 753.
Finally, the narrow subpoena orders in United States v. Nixon stand on an altogether different footing from the overly broad discovery requests approved by the District Court in this case. The criminal subpoenas in Nixon were required to satisfy exacting standards of “(1) relevancy; (2) admissibility; (3) specificity.” 418 U. S., at 700 (interpreting Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 17(c)). They were “not intended to provide a means of discovery.” 418 U. S., at 698. The burden of showing these standards were met, moreover, fell on the party requesting the information. Id., at 699 (“[I]n order to require production prior to trial, the moving party must show [that the applicable standards are met]”). In Nixon, the Court addressed the issue of executive privilege only after having satisfied itself that the special prosecutor had surmounted these demanding requirements. Id., at 698 (“If we sustained this [Rule 17(c)] challenge, there would be no occasion to reach the claim of privilege asserted with respect to the subpoenaed material”). The very specificity of the subpoena requests serves as an important safeguard against unnecessary intrusion into the operation of the Office of the President.
In contrast to Nixon's subpoena orders that “precisely identified” and “specific[ally]... enumerated” the relevant materials, id., at 688, and n. 5, the discovery requests here, as the panel majority acknowledged, ask for everything under the sky:
“1. All documents identifying or referring to any staff, personnel, contractors, consultants or employees of the Task Force.
“2. All documents establishing or referring to any Sub-Group.
“3. All documents identifying or referring to any staff, personnel, contractors, consultants or employees of any Sub-Group.
“4. All documents identifying or referring to any other persons participating in the preparation of the Report or in the activities of the Task Force or any Sub-Group.
“5. All documents concerning any communication relating to the activities of the Task Force, the activities of any Sub-Groups, or the preparation of the Report....
“6. All documents concerning any communication relating to the activities of the Task Force, the activities of Sub-Groups, or the preparation of the Report between any person... and [a list of agencies].” App. 220-221.
The preceding excerpt from respondents’ “First Request for Production of Documents,” id., at 215 (emphasis added), is only the beginning. Respondents’ “First Set of Interrogatories” are similarly unbounded in scope. Id., at 224. Givén the breadth of the discovery requests in this case compared to the narrow subpoena orders in United States v. Nixon, our precedent provides no support for the proposition that the Executive Branch “shall bear the burden” of invoking executive privilege with sufficient specificity and of making particularized objections. 334 F. 3d, at 1105. To be sure, Nixon held that the President cannot, through the assertion of a “broad [and] undifferentiated” need for confidentiality and the invocation of an “absolute, unqualified” executive privilege, withhold information in the face of subpoena orders. 418 U. S., at 706, 707. It did so, however, only after the party requesting the information — the special prosecutor — had satisfied his burden of showing the propriety of the requests. Here, as the Court of Appeals acknowledged, the discovery requests are anything but appropriate. They provide respondents all the disclosure to which they would be entitled in the event they prevail on the merits, and much more besides. In these circumstances, Nixon does not require -the Executive Branch to bear the onus of critiquing the unacceptable discovery requests line by line. Our precedents suggest just the opposite. See, e. g., Clinton v. Jones, 520 U. S. 681 (1997); id., at 705 (holding that the Judiciary may direct “appropriate process” to the Executive); Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 753.
The Government, however, did in fact object to the scope of discovery and asked the District Court to narrow it in some way. Its arguments were ignored. See App. 167, 181-183 (arguing “this case can be resolved far short of the wide-ranging inquiries plaintiffs have proposed” and suggesting alternatives to “limi[t]” discovery); id., at 232 (“Defendants object to the scope of plaintiffs’ discovery requests and to the undue burden imposed by them. The scope of plaintiffs’ requests is broader than that reasonably calculated to lead to admissible evidence”); id., at 232, n. 10 (“We state our general objections here for purposes of clarity for the record and to preclude any later argument that, by not including them here, those general objections have been waived”). In addition, the Government objected to the burden that would arise from the District Court’s insistence that the Vice President winnow the discovery orders by asserting specific claims of privilege and making more particular objections. Id., at 201 (Tr. of Status Hearing (Aug. 2, 2002)) (noting “concerns with disrupting the effective functioning of the presidency and the vice-presidency”); id., at-274 (“[C]ompliance with the order of the court imposes a burden on the Office of the Vice President. That is a real burden. If we had completed and done everything that Your Honor has asked us to do today that burden would be gone, but it would have been realized”). These arguments, too, were rejected. See id., at 327, 329 (Nov. 1, 2002, Order) (noting that the court had, “on numerous occasions,” rejected the Government’s assertion “that court orders requiring [it] to respond in any fashion to [the] discovery requests creates an ‘unconstitutional burden’ on the Executive Branch”).
Contrary to the District Court’s and the Court of Appeals’ conclusions, Nixon does not leave them the sole option of inviting the Executive Branch to invoke executive privilege while remaining otherwise powerless to modify a party’s overly broad discovery requests. Executive privilege is an extraordinary assertion of power “not to be lightly invoked.” United States v. Reynolds, 345 U. S. 1, 7 (1953). Once executive privilege is asserted, coequal branches of the Government are set on a collision course. The Judiciary is forced into the difficult task of balancing the need for information in a judicial proceeding and the Executive’s Article II prerogatives. This inquiry places courts in the awkward position of evaluating the Executive’s claims of confidentiality and autonomy, and pushes to the fore difficult questions of separation of powers and checks and balances. These “occasion[s] for constitutional confrontation between the two branches”.should be avoided whenever possible. United States v. Nixon, supra, at 692.
In recognition of these concerns, there is sound precedent in the District of Columbia itself for district courts to explore other avenues, short of forcing the Executive to invoke privilege, when they are asked to enforce against the Executive Branch unnecessarily broad subpoenas. In United States v. Poindexter, 727 F. Supp. 1501 (1989), defendant Poindexter, on trial for criminal charges, sought to have the District Court enforce subpoena orders against President Reagan to obtain allegedly exculpatory materials. The Executive considered the subpoenas “unreasonable and oppressive.” Id., at 1503. Rejecting defendant’s argument that the Executive must first assert executive privilege to narrow the subpoenas, the District Court agreed with the President that “it is undesirable as a matter of constitutional and public policy to compel a President to make his decision on privilege with respect to a large array of documents.” Ibid. The court decided to narrow, on its own, the scope of the subpoenas 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: | E | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice ROBERTS delivered the opinion of the Court.
Each time a customer pays for an item with a credit card, the merchant selling that item must pay a transaction fee to the credit card issuer. Some merchants balk at paying the fees and want to discourage the use of credit cards, or at least pass on the fees to customers who use them. One method of achieving those ends is through differential pricing-charging credit card users more than customers using cash. Merchants who wish to employ differential pricing may do so in two ways relevant here: impose a surcharge for the use of a credit card, or offer a discount for the use of cash. In N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 518, New York has banned the former practice. The question presented is whether § 518 regulates merchants' speech and-if so-whether the statute violates the First Amendment. We conclude that § 518 does regulate speech and remand for the Court of Appeals to determine in the first instance whether that regulation is unconstitutional.
I
A
When credit cards were first introduced, contracts between card issuers and merchants barred merchants from charging credit card users higher prices than cash customers. Congress put a partial stop to this practice in the 1974 amendments to the Truth in Lending Act (TILA). The amendments prohibited card issuers from contractually preventing merchants from giving discounts to customers who paid in cash. See § 306, 88 Stat. 1515. The law, however, said nothing about surcharges for the use of credit.
Two years later, Congress refined its dissimilar treatment of discounts and surcharges. First, the 1976 version of TILA barred merchants from imposing surcharges on customers who use credit cards. Act of Feb. 27, 1976, § 3(c)(1), 90 Stat. 197. Second, Congress added definitions of the two terms. A discount was "a reduction made from the regular price," while a surcharge was "any means of increasing the regular price to a cardholder which is not imposed upon customers paying by cash, check, or similar means." § 3(a), ibid.
In 1981, Congress further delineated the distinction between discounts and surcharges by defining "regular price." Where a merchant "tagged or posted" a single price, the regular price was that single price. Cash Discount Act, § 102(a), 95 Stat. 144. If no price was tagged or posted, or if a merchant employed a two-tag approach-posting one price for credit and another for cash-the regular price was whatever was charged to credit card users. Ibid. Because a surcharge was defined as an increase from the regular price, there could be no credit card surcharge where the regular price was the same as the amount charged to customers using credit cards. The effect of all this was that a merchant could violate the surcharge ban only by posting a single price and charging credit card users more than that posted price.
The federal surcharge ban was short lived. Congress allowed it to expire in 1984 and has not renewed the ban since. See § 201, ibid. The provision preventing credit card issuers from contractually barring discounts for cash, however, remained in place. With the lapse of the federal surcharge ban, several States, New York among them, immediately enacted their own surcharge bans. Passed in 1984, N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 518 adopted the operative language of the federal ban verbatim, providing that "[n]o seller in any sales transaction may impose a surcharge on a holder who elects to use a credit card in lieu of payment by cash, check, or similar means." N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Ann. § 518 (West 2012) ; see also 15 U.S.C. § 1666f(a)(2) (1982 ed.). Unlike the federal ban, the New York legislation included no definition of "surcharge."
In addition to these state legislative bans, credit card companies-though barred from prohibiting discounts for cash-included provisions in their contracts prohibiting merchants from imposing surcharges for credit card use. For most of its history, the New York law was essentially coextensive with these contractual prohibitions. In recent years, however, merchants have brought antitrust challenges to contractual no-surcharge provisions. Those suits have created uncertainty about the legal validity of such contractual surcharge bans. The result is that otherwise redundant legislative surcharge bans like § 518 have increasingly gained importance, and increasingly come under scrutiny.
B
Petitioners, five New York businesses and their owners, wish to impose surcharges on customers who use credit cards. Each time one of their customers pays with a credit card, these merchants must pay some transaction fee to the company that issued the credit card. The fee is generally two to three percent of the purchase price. Those fees add up, and the merchants allege that they pay tens of thousands of dollars every year to credit card companies. Rather than increase prices across the board to absorb those costs, the merchants want to pass the fees along only to their customers who choose to use credit cards. They also want to make clear that they are not the bad guys-that the credit card companies, not the merchants, are responsible for the higher prices. The merchants believe that surcharges for credit are more effective than discounts for cash in accomplishing these goals.
In 2013, after several major credit card issuers agreed to drop their contractual surcharge prohibitions, the merchants filed suit against the New York Attorney General and three New York District Attorneys to challenge § 518 -the only remaining obstacle to their charging surcharges for credit card use. As relevant here, they argued that the law violated the First Amendment by regulating how they communicated their prices, and that it was unconstitutionally vague because liability under the law "turn[ed] on the blurry difference" between surcharges and discounts. App. 39, Complaint ¶ 51.
The District Court ruled in favor of the merchants. It read the statute as "draw[ing a] line between prohibited'surcharges' and permissible 'discounts' based on words and labels, rather than economic realities." 975 F.Supp.2d 430, 444 (S.D.N.Y.2013). The court concluded that the law therefore regulated speech, and violated the First Amendment under this Court's commercial speech doctrine. In addition, because the law turned on the "virtually incomprehensible distinction between what a vendor can and cannot tell its customers," the District Court found that the law was unconstitutionally vague. Id., at 436.
The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit vacated the judgment of the District Court with instructions to dismiss the merchants' claims. It began by considering single-sticker pricing, where merchants post one price and would like to charge more to customers who pay by credit card. All the law did in this context, the Court of Appeals explained, was regulate a relationship between two prices-the sticker price and the price charged to a credit card user-by requiring that the two prices be equal. Relying on our precedent holding that price regulation alone regulates conduct, not speech, the Court of Appeals concluded that § 518 did not violate the First Amendment.
The court also considered other types of pricing regimes-for example, posting separate cash and credit prices. The Court of Appeals thought it "far from clear" that § 518 prohibited such pricing schemes. 808 F.3d 118, 137 (C.A.2 2015). The federal surcharge ban on which § 518 was modeled did not apply outside the single-sticker context, and the merchants had not clearly shown that § 518 had a "broader reach" than the federal law. Ibid. Deciding that petitioners' challenge in this regard "turn[ed] on an unsettled question of state law," the Court of Appeals abstained from reaching the merits of the constitutional question beyond the single-sticker context. Id., at 135 (citing Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 61 S.Ct. 643, 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941) ).
We granted certiorari. 579 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 30, 195 L.Ed.2d 902 (2016).
II
As a preliminary matter, we note that petitioners present us with a limited challenge. Observing that the merchants were not always particularly clear about the scope of their suit, the Court of Appeals deemed them to be bringing a facial attack on § 518 as well as a challenge to the application of the statute to two particular pricing regimes: single-sticker pricing and two-sticker pricing. Before us, however, the merchants have disclaimed a facial challenge, assuring us that theirs is an as-applied challenge only. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 4-5, 18.
There remains the question of what precise application of the law they seek to challenge. Although the merchants have presented a wide array of hypothetical pricing regimes, they have expressly identified only one pricing scheme that they seek to employ: posting a cash price and an additional credit card surcharge, expressed either as a percentage surcharge or a "dollars-and-cents" additional amount. See, e.g., App. 101-102, 104; Tr. of Oral Arg. 4-5, 18. Under this pricing approach, petitioner Expressions Hair Design might, for example, post a sign outside its salon reading "Haircuts $10 (we add a 3% surcharge if you pay by credit card)." Or, petitioner Brooklyn Farmacy & Soda Fountain might list one of the sundaes on its menu as costing "$10 (with a $0.30 surcharge for credit card users)." We take petitioners at their word and limit our review to the question whether § 518 is unconstitutional as applied to this particular pricing practice.
III
The next question is whether § 518 prohibits the pricing regime petitioners wish to employ. The Court of Appeals concluded that it does. The court read "surcharge" in § 518 to mean "an additional amount above the seller's regular price," and found it "basically self-evident" how § 518 applies to sellers who post a single sticker price: "the sticker price is the'regular' price, so sellers may not charge credit-card customers an additional amount above the sticker price that is not also charged to cash customers." 808 F.3d, at 128. Under this interpretation, signs of the kind that the merchants wish to post-"$10, with a $0.30 surcharge for credit card users"-violate § 518 because they identify one sticker price-$10-and indicate that credit card users are charged more than that amount.
"We generally accord great deference to the interpretation and application of state law by the courts of appeals."
Pembaur v. Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469, 484, n. 13, 106 S.Ct. 1292, 89 L.Ed.2d 452 (1986). This deference is warranted to "render unnecessary review of their decisions in this respect" and because lower federal courts "are better schooled in and more able to interpret the laws of their respective States." Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 500, 105 S.Ct. 2794, 86 L.Ed.2d 394 (1985) (quoting Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 73, n. 6, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975) ; internal quotation marks omitted). "[W]e surely have the authority to differ with the lower federal courts as to the meaning of a state statute," and have done so in instances where the lower court's construction was "clearly wrong" or "plain error." 472 U.S., at 500, and n. 9, 105 S.Ct. 2794 (internal quotation marks omitted). But that is not the case here. Section 518 does not define "surcharge," but the Court of Appeals looked to the ordinary meaning of the term: "a charge in excess of the usual or normal amount." 808 F.3d, at 127 (quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2299 (2002); internal quotation marks omitted). Where a seller posts a single sticker price, it is reasonable to treat that sticker price as the "usual or normal amount" and conclude, as the court below did, that a merchant imposes a surcharge when he charges a credit card user more than that sticker price. In short, we cannot dismiss the Court of Appeals' interpretation of § 518 as "clearly wrong." Accordingly, consistent with our customary practice, we follow that interpretation.
IV
Having concluded that § 518 bars the pricing regime petitioners wish to employ, we turn to their constitutional arguments: that the law unconstitutionally regulates speech and is impermissibly vague.
A
The Court of Appeals concluded that § 518 posed no First Amendment problem because the law regulated conduct, not speech. In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeals began with the premise that price controls regulate conduct alone. See 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484, 507, 116 S.Ct. 1495, 134 L.Ed.2d 711 (1996) (plurality opinion); id., at 524, 116 S.Ct. 1495 (THOMAS, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); id., at 530, 116 S.Ct. 1495 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment). Section 518 regulates the relationship between "(1) the seller's sticker price and (2) the price the seller charges to credit card customers," requiring that these two amounts be equal. 808 F.3d, at 131. A law regulating the relationship between two prices regulates speech no more than a law regulating a single price. The Court of Appeals concluded that § 518 was therefore simply a conduct regulation.
But § 518 is not like a typical price regulation. Such a regulation-for example, a law requiring all New York delis to charge $10 for their sandwiches-would simply regulate the amount that a store could collect. In other words, it would regulate the sandwich seller's conduct. To be sure, in order to actually collect that money, a store would likely have to put "$10" on its menus or have its employees tell customers that price. Those written or oral communications would be speech, and the law-by determining the amount charged-would indirectly dictate the content of that speech. But the law's effect on speech would be only incidental to its primary effect on conduct, and "it has never been deemed an abridgment of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed." Rumsfeld v. Forum for Academic and Institutional Rights, Inc., 547 U.S. 47, 62, 126 S.Ct. 1297, 164 L.Ed.2d 156 (2006) (quoting Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U.S. 490, 502, 69 S.Ct. 684, 93 L.Ed. 834 (1949) ; internal quotation marks omitted); see also Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552, 567, 131 S.Ct. 2653, 180 L.Ed.2d 544 (2011).
Section 518 is different. The law tells merchants nothing about the amount they are allowed to collect from a cash or credit card payer. Sellers are free to charge $10 for cash and $9.70, $10, $10.30, or any other amount for credit. What the law does regulate is how sellers may communicate their prices. A merchant who wants to charge $10 for cash and $10.30 for credit may not convey that price any way he pleases. He is not free to say "$10, with a 3% credit card surcharge" or "$10, plus $0.30 for credit" because both of those displays identify a single sticker price-$10-that is less than the amount credit card users will be charged. Instead, if the merchant wishes to post a single sticker price, he must display $10.30 as his sticker price. Accordingly, while we agree with the Court of Appeals that § 518 regulates a relationship between a sticker price and the price charged to credit card users, we cannot accept its conclusion that § 518 is nothing more than a mine-run price regulation. In regulating the communication of prices rather than prices themselves, § 518 regulates speech.
Because it concluded otherwise, the Court of Appeals had no occasion to conduct a further inquiry into whether § 518, as a speech regulation, survived First Amendment scrutiny. On that question, the parties dispute whether § 518 is a valid commercial speech regulation under Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980), and whether the law can be upheld as a valid disclosure requirement under Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626, 105 S.Ct. 2265, 85 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985).
"[W]e are a court of review, not of first view." Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 2120, 2131, 189 L.Ed.2d 37 (2014) (internal quotation marks omitted). Accordingly, we decline to consider those questions in the first instance. Instead, we remand for the Court of Appeals to analyze § 518 as a speech regulation.
B
Given the way the merchants have presented their case, their vagueness challenge gives us little pause. Before this Court, the only pricing practice they express an interest in employing is a single-sticker regime, listing one price and a separate surcharge amount. As we have explained, § 518 bars them from doing so. "[A] plaintiff whose speech is clearly proscribed cannot raise a successful vagueness claim." Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, 561 U.S. 1, 20, 130 S.Ct. 2705, 177 L.Ed.2d 355 (2010). Although the merchants argue that "no one can seem to put a finger on just how far the law sweeps," Brief for Petitioners 51, it is at least clear that § 518 proscribes their intended speech. Accordingly, the law is not vague as applied to them.
C
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice BREYER, concurring in the judgment.
I agree with the Court that New York's statute regulates speech. But that is because virtually all government regulation affects speech. Human relations take place through speech. And human relations include community activities of all kinds-commercial and otherwise.
When the government seeks to regulate those activities, it is often wiser not to try to distinguish between "speech" and "conduct." See R. Post, Democracy, Expertise, and Academic Freedom 3-4 (2012). Instead, we can, and normally do, simply ask whether, or how, a challenged statute, rule, or regulation affects an interest that the First Amendment protects. If, for example, a challenged government regulation negatively affects the processes through which political discourse or public opinion is formed or expressed (interests close to the First Amendment's protective core), courts normally scrutinize that regulation with great care. See, e.g., Boos v. Barry, 485 U.S. 312, 321, 108 S.Ct. 1157, 99 L.Ed.2d 333 (1988). If the challenged regulation restricts the "informational function" provided by truthful commercial speech, courts will apply a "lesser" (but still elevated) form of scrutiny. Central Hudson Gas & Elec. Corp. v. Public Serv. Comm'n of N.Y., 447 U.S. 557, 563-564, 100 S.Ct. 2343, 65 L.Ed.2d 341 (1980). If, however, a challenged regulation simply requires a commercial speaker to disclose "purely factual and uncontroversial information," courts will apply a more permissive standard of review. Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel of Supreme Court of Ohio, 471 U.S. 626, 651, 105 S.Ct. 2265, 85 L.Ed.2d 652 (1985). Because that kind of regulation normally has only a "minimal" effect on First Amendment interests, it normally need only be "reasonably related to the State's interest in preventing deception of consumers." Ibid. Courts apply a similarly permissive standard of review to "regulatory legislation affecting ordinary commercial transactions." United States v. Carolene Products Co., 304 U.S. 144, 152, 58 S.Ct. 778, 82 L.Ed. 1234 (1938). Since that legislation normally does not significantly affect the interests that the First Amendment protects, we normally look only for assurance that the legislation "rests upon some rational basis." Ibid.
I repeat these well-known general standards or judicial approaches both because I believe that determining the proper approach is typically more important than trying to distinguish "speech" from "conduct," see Sorrell v. IMS Health Inc., 564 U.S. 552, 582, 131 S.Ct. 2653, 180 L.Ed.2d 544 (2011) (BREYER, J., dissenting), and because the parties here differ as to which approach applies. That difference reflects the fact that it is not clear just what New York's law does. On its face, the law seems simply to tell merchants that they cannot charge higher prices to credit-card users. If so, then it is an ordinary piece of commercial legislation subject to "rational basis" review. See 44 Liquormart, Inc. v. Rhode Island, 517 U.S. 484, 507, 116 S.Ct. 1495, 134 L.Ed.2d 711 (1996) (opinion of Stevens, J.). It may, however, make more sense to interpret the statute as working like the expired federal law that it replaced. If so, it would require a merchant, who posts prices and who wants to charge a higher credit-card price, simply to disclose that credit-card price. See 15 U.S.C. §§ 1602(q), (x), 1666f(a)(2) (1982 ed.) ; see also post, at 1157 (SOTOMAYOR, J., concurring in judgment). In that case, though affecting the merchant's "speech," it would not hinder the transmission of information to the public; the merchant would remain free to say whatever it wanted so long as it also revealed its credit-card price to customers. Accordingly, the law would still receive a deferential form of review. See Zauderer, supra, at 651, 105 S.Ct. 2265.
Nonetheless, petitioners suggest that the statute does more. See, e.g., Brief for Petitioners 28 (arguing that the statute forbids "[f]raming the price difference... as a credit surcharge"). Because the statute's operation is unclear and because its interpretation is a matter of state law, I agree with the majority that we should remand the case to the Second Circuit. I also agree with Justice SOTOMAYOR that on remand, it may well be helpful for the Second Circuit to ask the New York Court of Appeals to clarify the nature of the obligations the statute imposes. See N.Y. Comp. Code, Rules & Regs., tit. 22, Rule 500.27(a) (2016) (permitting "any United States Court of Appeals" to certify "dispositive questions of [New York] law to the [New York] Court of Appeals").
Justice SOTOMAYOR, with whom Justice ALITO joins, concurring in the judgment.
The Court addresses only one part of one half of petitioners' First Amendment challenge to the New York statute at issue here. This quarter-loaf outcome is worse than none. I would vacate the judgment below and remand with directions to certify the case to the New York Court of Appeals for a definitive interpretation of the statute that would permit the full resolution of petitioners' claims. I thus concur only in the judgment.
I
New York prohibits its merchants from "impos[ing] a surcharge on a [customer] who elects to use a credit card in lieu of payment by cash, check, or similar means." N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law Ann. § 518 (West 2012). A merchant who violates this prohibition commits a misdemeanor and risks "a fine not to exceed five hundred dollars or a term of imprisonment up to one year, or both." Ibid.
A
Section 518 can be interpreted in several ways. On first read, its prohibition on "impos[ing] a surcharge" on credit card customers appears to prohibit charging customers who pay with a credit card more than those who pay by other means. See Black's Law Dictionary 1579 (9th ed. 2009) ("surcharge" means "[a]n additional tax, charge, or cost"). That is, § 518 may require a merchant to charge all customers the same price, no matter the form of payment.
An earlier federal law containing an almost identical prohibition muddies the path to this plain text reading. A 1976 amendment to the Truth in Lending Act set out a temporary prohibition barring a "seller in any sales transaction" from "impos[ing] a surcharge on a cardholder who elects to use a credit card in lieu of payment by cash, check, or similar means." § 3(c)(1), 90 Stat. 197. The amendment also defined a "surcharge" as "any means of increasing the regular price to a cardholder which is not imposed upon customers paying by cash, check, or similar means." § 3(a), ibid. "[R]egular price" was later defined to mean the displayed price if a merchant displayed only one price or the credit card price if the merchant either did not display prices or displayed both cash and credit card prices. § 102(a), 95 Stat. 144. Under that definition, a merchant violated the federal prohibition on "impos[ing] a surcharge" by displaying in dollars-and-cents form only one price-the cash price-and then charging credit card customers a higher price.
When the federal law lapsed in 1984, New York enacted § 518, which sets out the same ban on "impos[ing] a surcharge." New York borrowed the federal prohibition almost verbatim. But it chose, without explanation, not to borrow the federal definitions or to enact clarifying definitions of its own.
The difference between the laws leaves § 518 open to at least three interpretations. It could be read in line with its plain text to require that a merchant charge the same price to all his customers. It could be read in line with the lapsed federal ban to permit a merchant to charge different prices to cash and credit card customers but to prohibit a merchant from displaying in dollars-and-cents form only the cash price and then charging credit card customers a higher price. On this reading, § 518 would not apply where a merchant displays in dollars-and-cents form only the credit card price and then charges a lower price to cash customers, or where a merchant displays both the cash and credit card prices in dollars-and-cents form. Or it could be read more broadly, based on the omission of the definitions that had limited the federal ban's scope. On this reading, § 518 might prohibit a merchant from characterizing the difference between the cash and credit card prices as a "surcharge," no matter how he displays his prices.
Confirming the elusive nature of § 518, New York has pressed almost all of these interpretations during this litigation. Before the District Court, it viewed § 518 as mirroring the lapsed federal ban. See 975 F.Supp.2d 430, 442 (S.D.N.Y.2013). Before the Second Circuit, it offered the lapsed federal ban as a narrowing interpretation, thus suggesting that § 518 applies more broadly than that provision. See 808 F.3d 118, 140, n. 13 (2015). And before this Court, it explained that other prosecutorial entities in New York are not bound by its interpretation of § 518 (or the interpretations of the state district attorneys who are parties to this case), leaving open the possibility of still other interpretations. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 40.
B
Petitioners here are five New York merchants. When a customer pays with a credit card, petitioners (like all merchants) are charged a processing fee by the card issuer. Petitioners want to pass that fee on to their credit card paying customers, but not their cash paying customers. They want to charge cash customers one price and credit card customers a higher price that includes the processing fee. One petitioner, Expressions Hair Design, currently does pass the costs of credit card processing fees on to its credit card paying customers. The other four charge one price to all customers. They set their prices to account for the processing fees they predict they will incur.
All five would prefer to use a different pricing system or display than the ones they use now. Expressions Hair Design and Five Points Academy would like to charge cash and credit card customers two different prices and to display a dollars-and-cents cash price alongside the extra charge for credit card customers-say, "$100 with a 3% credit card charge" or "$100 with a $3 credit card charge." Brooklyn Farmacy & Soda Fountain, Brite Buy Wines & Spirits, and Patio.com want to charge cash and credit card customers two different prices and to characterize the difference in prices as a "surcharge" when they display or convey their prices to customers. App. 47-48, 51, 57.
All five do not use their preferred pricing systems or displays for fear of violating § 518. Expressions Hair Design and Five Points Academy believe § 518 prohibits their pricing display because it would convey the credit card processing costs impermissibly as a surcharge, rather than permissibly as a discount-say, "$103 with a 3% discount for cash payment" or "$103 with a $3 discount for cash payment." The other three petitioners believe that § 518 regulates how they can describe the difference between cash and credit card prices. Because § 518 does not, in their view, clearly state just how it regulates those descriptions, they have decided that the uncertainty counsels against a change.
Petitioners view § 518 as an unconstitutional restriction on their ability to display and describe their prices to their customers. And so they sued and challenged the law on First Amendment grounds.
II
Resolving petitioners' challenge to § 518 requires an accurate picture of how, exactly, the statute works. That understanding is needed both to decide whether § 518 prohibits petitioners' preferred pricing systems and displays and, if so, whether that prohibition is consistent with the First Amendment. See 808 F.3d, at 141 ; ante, at 1151, n. 3.
But the Second Circuit did not decide just how far § 518 extends. It instead decided how § 518 applies to part of the petitioners' challenge-the pricing display Expressions Hair Design and Five Points Academy wish to use-and declined to decide how, or even if, § 518 applies to the rest of the challenge. While § 518 evades easy interpretation, a partial decision was neither required nor right. The court below erred by not asking the New York Court of Appeals for a definitive interpretation of § 518, and this Court errs by not correcting it.
A
Given a constitutional challenge that turned on the interpretation of an ambiguous state statute not yet definitively interpreted by the state courts, the Second Circuit faced a problem. Any interpretation it gave § 518 would not be authoritative since state courts, not federal courts, have the final word on the interpretation of state statutes. But it had before it two routes-abstention and certification-to a solution. Both would have allowed it to secure an authoritative interpretation of § 518 before resolving the constitutional challenge.
In this context, abstention and certification serve the same goals. Both recognize that when the outcome of a constitutional challenge turns on the proper interpretation of state law, a federal court's resolution of the constitutional question may turn out to be unnecessary. The state courts could later interpret the state statute differently. And the state court's different interpretation might result in a statute that implicates no constitutional question, or that renders the federal court's constitutional analysis irrelevant. See, e.g., Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 79, 117 S.Ct. 1055, 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997) ; Brockett v. Spokane Arcades, Inc., 472 U.S. 491, 507-509, 105 S.Ct. 2794, 86 L.Ed.2d 394 (1985) (O'Connor, J., concurring). Abstention and certification avoid this risk by deferring a federal court's decision on the constitutionality of the state statute until a state court has authoritatively resolved the antecedent state-law question.
Abstention is a blunt instrument. Under Railroad Comm'n of Tex. v. Pullman Co., 312 U.S. 496, 61 S.Ct. 643, 85 L.Ed. 971 (1941), a federal court's decision to abstain sends the plaintiff to state court. Once the plaintiff obtains the state courts' views on the statute, he may return to federal court, state-court decision in hand, for resolution of the constitutional question. Pullman abstention thus "entail[s] a full round of litigation in the state court system before any resumption of proceedings in federal court." Arizonans for Official English, 520 U.S., at 76, 117 S.Ct. 1055.
Certification offers a more precise tool. In States that have authorized certification, a federal court may "put the [state-law] question directly to the State's highest court, reducing the delay, cutting the cost, and increasing the assurance of gaining an authoritative response." Ibid. The rule relevant here is typical of certification statutes. New York allows a federal court of appeals to certify "determinative questions of New York law... involved in a case pending before that court for which no controlling precedent of the Court of Appeals exists... to the [New York] Court of Appeals." N.Y. Comp. Code, Rules & Regs., tit. 22, Rule 500.27(a) (2016).
While the decision to certify "rests in the sound discretion of the federal court," Lehman Brothers v. Schein, 416 U.S. 386, 391, 94 S.Ct. 1741, 40 L.Ed.2d 215 (1974), this Court has repeatedly emphasized that certification offers clear advantages over abstention. "[M]ere difficulty in ascertaining local law is no excuse for" abstaining and "remitting the parties to a state tribunal for the start of another lawsuit." Id., at 390, 94 S.Ct. 1741. Keeping the case, waiting for an answer on the certified question, and then fully resolving the issues "in the long run save[s] time, energy, and resources and helps build a cooperative judicial federalism." Id., at 391, 94 S.Ct. 1741. As a result, "the availability of certification greatly simplifies
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | C | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case we address the facial constitutionality of a Puerto Rico statute and regulations restricting advertising of casino gambling aimed at the residents of Puerto Rico. Appellant Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates, doing business in Puerto Rico as Condado Holiday Inn Hotel and Sands Casino, filed suit against appellee Tourism Company of Puerto Rico in the Superior Court of Puerto Rico, San Juan Section. Appellant sought a declaratory judgment that the statute and regulations, both facially and as applied by the Tourism Company, impermissibly suppressed commercial speech in violation of the First Amendment and the equal protection and due process guarantees of the United States Constitution. The Superior Court held that the advertising restrictions had been unconstitutionally applied to appellant’s past conduct. But the court adopted a narrowing construction of the statute and regulations and held that, based on such a construction, both were facially constitutional. The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico dismissed an appeal on the ground that it “d[id] not present a substantial constitutional question.” We postponed consideration of the question of jurisdiction until the hearing on the merits. 474 U. S. 917 (1985). We now hold that we have jurisdiction to hear the appeal, and we affirm the decision of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico with respect to the facial constitutionality of the advertising restrictions.
In 1948, the Puerto Rico Legislature legalized certain forms of casino gambling. The Games of Chance Act of 1948, Act No. 221 of May 15, 1948 (Act), authorized the playing of roulette, dice, and card games in licensed “gambling rooms.” §2, codified, as amended, at P. R. Laws Ann., Tit. 15, §71 (1972). Bingo and slot machines were later added to the list of authorized games of chance under the Act. See Act of June 7, 1948, No. 21, § 1 (bingo); Act of July 30, 1974, No. 2, pt. 2, §2 (slot machines). The legislature’s intent was set forth in the Act’s Statement of Motives:
“The purpose of this Act is to contribute to the development of tourism by means of the authorization of certain games of chance which are customary in the recreation places of the great tourist centers of the world, and by the establishment of regulations for and the strict surveillance of said games by the government, in order to ensure for tourists the best possible safeguards, while at the same time opening for the Treasurer of Puerto Rico an additional source of income.” Games of Chance Act of 1948, Act No. 221 of May 15, 1948, § 1.
The Act also provided that “[n]o gambling room shall be permitted to advertise or otherwise offer their facilities to the public of Puerto Rico.” §8, codified, as amended, at P. R. Laws Ann., Tit. 15, §77 (1972).
The Act authorized the Economic Development Administration of Puerto Rico to issue and enforce regulations implementing the various provisions of the Act. See § 7(a), codified, as amended, at P. R. Laws Ann., Tit. 15, §76a (1972). Appellee Tourism Company of Puerto Rico, a public corporation, assumed the regulatory powers of the Economic Development Administration under the Act in 1970. See Act of June 18, J.970, No. 10, § 17, codified at P. R. Laws Ann., Tit. 23, §671p (Supp. 1983). The two regulations at issue in this case were originally issued in 1957 for the purpose of implementing the advertising restrictions contained in §8 of the Act. Regulation 76-218 basically reiterates the language of § 8. See 15 R. & R. P. R. § 76-218 (1972). Regulation 76a-l(7), as amended in 1971, provides in pertinent part:
“No concessionaire, nor his agent or employee is authorized to advertise the gambling parlors to the public in Puerto Rico. The advertising of our games of chance is hereby authorized through newspapers, magazines, radio, television and other publicity media outside Puerto Rico subject to the prior editing and approval by the Tourism Development Company of the advertisement to be submitted in draft to the Company.” 15 R. & R. P. R. §76a-l(7) (1972).
In 1975, appellant Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates, a partnership organized under the laws of Texas, obtained a franchise to operate a gambling casino and began doing business under the name Condado Holiday Inn Hotel and Sands Casino. In 1978, appellant was twice fined by the Tourism Company for violating the advertising restrictions in the Act and implementing regulations. Appellant protested the fines in a series of letters to the Tourism Company. On February 16, 1979, the Tourism Company issued to all casino franchise holders a memorandum setting forth the following interpretation of the advertising restrictions:
“This prohibition includes the use of the word ‘casino’ in matchbooks, lighters, envelopes, inter-office and/or external correspondence, invoices, napkins, brochures, menus, elevators, glasses, plates, lobbies, banners, fly-ers, paper holders, pencils, telephone books, directories, bulletin boards or in any hotel dependency or object which may be accessible to the public in Puerto Rico.” App. 7a.
Pursuant to this administrative interpretation, the Tourism Company assessed additional fines against appellant. The Tourism Company ordered appellant to pay the outstanding total of $1,500 in fines by March 18, 1979, or its gambling franchise would not be renewed. Appellant continued to protest the fines, but ultimately paid them without seeking judicial review of the decision of the Tourism Company. In July 1981, appellant was again fined for violating the advertising restrictions. Faced with another threatened non-renewal of its gambling franchise, appellant paid the $500 fine under protest.
Appellant then filed a declaratory judgment action against the Tourism Company in the Superior Court of Puerto Rico, San Juan Section, seeking a declaration that the Act and implementing regulations, both facially and as applied by the Tourism Company, violated appellant’s commercial speech rights under the United States Constitution. The Puerto Rico Secretary of Justice appeared for the purpose of defending the constitutionality of the statute and regulations. After a trial, the Superior Court held that “[t]he administrative interpretation and application has [sic] been capricious., arbitrary, erroneous and unreasonable, and has [sic] produced absurd results which are contrary to law.” App. to Juris. Statement 29b. The court therefore determined that it must “override the regulatory deficiency to save the constitutionality of the statute.” The court reviewed the history of casino gambling in Puerto Rico and concluded:
“...We assume that the legislator was worried about the participation of the residents of Puerto Rico on what on that date constituted an experiment.... Therefore, he prohibited the gaming rooms from announcing themselves or offering themselves to the public — which we reasonably infer are the bona fide residents of Puerto Rico.... [WJhat the legislator foresaw and prohibited was the invitation to play at the casinos through publicity campaigns or advertising in Puerto Rico addressed to the resident of Puerto Rico. He wanted to protect him.” Id., at 32b.
Based on this view of the legislature’s intent, the court issued a narrowing construction of the statute, declaring that “the only advertisement prohibited by the law originally is that which is contracted with an advertising agency, for consideration, to attract the resident to bet at the dice, card, roulette and bingo tables.” Id., at 33b-34b. The court also issued the following narrowing construction of Regulation 76a-l(7):
“... Advertisements of the casinos in Puerto Rico are prohibited in the local publicity media addressed to inviting the residents of Puerto Rico to visit the casinos.
“We hereby allow, within the jurisdiction of Puerto Rico, advertising by the casinos addressed to tourists, provided they do not invite the residents of Puerto Rico to visit the casino, even though said announcements may incidentally reach the hands of a resident. Within the ads of casinos allowed by this regulation figure, for illustrative purposes only, advertising distributed or placed in landed airplanes or cruise ships in jurisdictional waters and in restricted areas to travelers only in the international airport and the docks where tourist cruise ships arrive since the principal objective of said announcements is to make the tourist in transit through Puerto Rico aware of the availability of the games of chance as a tourist amenity; the ads of casinos in magazines for distribution primarily in Puerto Rico to the tourist, including the official guide of the Tourism Company ‘Que Pasa in Puerto Rico’ and any other tourist facility guide in Puerto Rico, even though said magazines may be available to the residents and in movies, television, radio, newspapers and trade magazines which may be published, taped, or filmed in the exterior for tourism promotion in the exterior even though they may be exposed or incidentally circulated in Puerto Rico. For example: an advertisement in the New York Times, an advertisement in CBS which reaches us through Cable TV, whose main objective is to reach the potential tourist.
“We hereby authorize advertising in the mass communication media of the country, where the trade name of the hotel is used even though it may contain a reference to the casino provided that the word casino is never used alone nor specified. Among the announcements allowed, by way of illustration, are the use of the trade name with which the hotel is identified for the promotion of special vacation packages and activities at the hotel, in invitations, ‘billboards/ bulletins and programs or activities sponsored by the hotel. The use of the trade name, including the reference to the casino is also allowed in the hotel’s facade, provided the word ‘casino’ does not exceed in proportion the size of the rest of the name, and the utilization of lights and colors will be allowed if the rest of the laws regarding this application are complied with; and in the menus, napkins, glasses, tableware, glassware and other items used within the hotel, as well as in calling cards, envelopes and letterheads of the hotel and any other use which constitutes a means of identification.
“The direct promotion of the casinos within the premises of the hotels is allowed. In-house guests and clients may receive any type of information and promotion regarding the location of the casino, its schedule and the procedure of the games as well as magazines, souvenirs, stirrers, matchboxes, cards, dice, chips, T-shirts, hats, photographs, postcards and similar items used by the tourism centers of the world.
“Since a clausus enumeration of this regulation is unforeseeable, any other situation or incident relating to the legal restriction must be measured in light of the public policy of promoting tourism. If the object of the advertisement is the tourist, it passes legal scrutiny.” Id., at 38b-40b.
The court entered judgment declaring that appellant’s constitutional rights had been violated by the Tourism Company’s past application of the advertising restrictions, but that the restrictions were not facially unconstitutional and could be sustained, as “modified by the guidelines issued by this Court on this date.” Id., at 42b.
The Supreme Court of Puerto Rico dismissed appellant’s appeal of the Superior Court’s decision on the ground that it “d[id] not present a substantial constitutional question.” Id., at la. See P. R. Laws Ann., Tit. 4, §37(a) (1978). Treating appellant’s submission as a petition for a writ of review, see §§ 37(b), (g), the Supreme Court denied the petition. One judge dissented.
We hold that we have jurisdiction to review the decision of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico. A federal statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1258(2), specifically authorizes an appeal to this Court from a decision of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico “where is drawn in question the validity of a statute of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico on the ground of its being repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States, and the decision is in favor of its validity.” A careful review of the record in this case reveals that appellant’s federal constitutional claims were adequately raised at every stage of the proceedings below. In a letter to the Tourism Company on February 24, 1982, prior to filing suit, appellant warned that, absent a reinterpretation of the advertising restrictions by the Tourism Company, “we have no choice but to challenge in Court the constitutionality and or validity of the advertising prohibition of the Act and Regulations.” App. to Juris. Statement 6h. In its complaint, appellant claimed that the advertising restrictions “violat[ed] the constitutional rights of petitioner protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States...[,] the constitutional guarantee of equal protection of the laws protected by the Constitution of the United States... [and] the constitutional guarantee of due process of law... Id., at 4i. And in the bill of appeal to the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, appellant claimed that the advertising restrictions violated “the First Amendment of the United States Constitution,” id., at 5c, along with “due process of law guaranteed by the Constitution” and “the equal protection of the laws,” id., at 6c.
Under Puerto Rico law, appellant had the right to appeal the Superior Court’s decision to the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico on the ground that that case “involv[ed] or decid[ed] a substantial constitutional question under the Constitution of the United States.” P. R. Laws Ann., Tit. 4, §37(a) (1978). The Supreme Court’s dismissal of appellant’s appeal for want of “a substantial constitutional question” therefore constituted a decision on the merits in favor of the validity of the challenged statute and regulations. See Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510, 515 (1927). In such a situation, we have jurisdiction to review the decision of the Supreme Court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1258(2).
The Tourism Company argues, however, that appellant’s notice of appeal was not timely filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico, in violation of Rule 53.1 of the Puerto Rico Rules of Civil Procedure. According to the Tourism Company, this flaw is fatal to appellant’s right to seek review in this Court. We do not agree. The requirement under Rule 53.1 that a notice of appeal be timely filed with the clerk of the reviewing court has been held by the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico to be nonjurisdictional. See Morales v. Mendez Mas, 109 P. R. R. 1136 (1980). In this case, the Supreme Court did not dismiss appellant’s appeal on timeliness grounds, so we can only assume that the court waived the timeliness requirement, as it had the power to do. Appellant’s late filing of the notice of appeal does not affect our jurisdiction.
Before turning to the merits of appellant’s First Amendment claim, we must address an additional preliminary matter. Although we have not heretofore squarely addressed the issue in the context of a case originating in Puerto Rico, we think it obvious that, in reviewing the facial constitutionality of the challenged statute and regulations, we must abide by the narrowing constructions announced by the Superior Court and approved sub silentio by the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico. This would certainly be the rule in a case originating in one of the 50 States. See New York v. Ferber, 458 U. S. 747, 769, n. 24 (1982); Kingsley International Pictures Corp. v. Regents, 360 U. S. 684, 688 (1959). And we believe that Puerto Rico’s status as a Commonwealth dictates application of the same rule. See Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U. S. 663, 672-673 (1974) (noting with approval decisions of lower federal courts holding that Puerto Rico is to be deemed “sovereign over matters not ruled by the Constitution”); Wackenhut Corp. v. Aponte, 266 F. Supp. 401, 405 (PR 1966) (Puerto Rico “should have the primary opportunity through its courts to determine the intended scope of its own legislation”), aff’d, 386 U. S. 268 (1967).
Because this case involves the restriction of pure commercial speech which does “no more than propose a commercial transaction,” Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, Inc., 425 U. S. 748, 762 (1976), our First Amendment analysis is guided by the general principles identified in Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp. v. Public Service Comm’n of New York, 447 U. S. 557 (1980). See Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U. S. 626, 637-638 (1985). Under Central Hudson, commercial speech receives a limited form of First Amendment protection so long as it concerns a lawful activity and is not misleading or fraudulent. Once it is determined that the First Amendment applies to the particular kind of commercial speech at issue, then the speech may be restricted only if the government’s interest in doing so is substantial, the restrictions directly advance the government’s asserted interest, and the restrictions are no more extensive than necessary to serve that interest. 447 U. S., at 566.
The particular kind of commercial speech at issue here, namely, advertising of casino gambling aimed at the residents of Puerto Rico, concerns a lawful activity and is not misleading or fraudulent, at least in the abstract. We must therefore proceed to the three remaining steps of the Central Hudson analysis in order to determine whether Puerto Rico’s advertising restrictions run afoul of the First Amendment. The first of these three steps involves an assessment of the strength of the government’s interest in restricting the speech. The interest at stake in this case, as determined by the Superior Court, is the reduction of demand for casino gambling by the residents of Puerto Rico. Appellant acknowledged the existence of this interest in its February 24, 1982, letter to the Tourism Company. See App. to Juris. Statement 2h (“The legislators wanted the tourists to flock to the casinos to gamble, but not our own people”). The Tourism Company’s brief before this Court explains the legislature’s belief that “[e]xcessive casino gambling among local residents... would produce serious harmful effects on the health, safety and welfare of the Puerto Rican citizens, such as the disruption of moral and cultural patterns, the increase in local crime, the fostering of prostitution, the development of corruption, and the infiltration of organized crime.” Brief for Appellees 37. These are some of the very same concerns, of course, that have motivated the vast majority of the 50 States to prohibit casino gambling. We have no difficulty in concluding that the Puerto Rico Legislature’s interest in the health, safety, and welfare of its citizens constitutes a “substantial” governmental interest. Cf. Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U. S. 41, 54 (1986) (city has substantial interest in “preserving the quality of life in the community at large”).
The last two steps of the Central Hudson analysis basically involve a consideration of the- “fit” between the legislature’s ends and the means chosen to accomplish those ends. Step three asks the question whether the challenged restrictions on commercial speech “directly advance” the government’s asserted interest. In the instant case, the answer to this question is clearly “yes.” The Puerto Rico Legislature obviously believed, when it enacted the advertising restrictions at issue here, that advertising of casino gambling aimed at the residents of Puerto Rico would serve to increase the demand for the product advertised. We think the legislature’s belief is a reasonable one, and the fact that appellant has chosen to litigate this case all the way to this Court indicates that appellant shares the legislature’s view. See Central Hudson, supra, at 569 (“There is an immediate connection between advertising and demand for electricity. Central Hudson would not contest the advertising ban unless it believed that promotion would increase its sales”); cf. Metromedia, Inc. v. San Diego, 453 U. S. 490, 509 (1981) (plurality opinion of White, J.) (finding third prong of Central Hudson test satisfied where legislative judgment “not manifestly unreasonable”).
Appellant argues, however, that the challenged advertising restrictions are underinclusive because other kinds of gambling such as horse racing, cockfighting, and the lottery may be advertised to the residents of Puerto Rico. Appellant’s argument is misplaced for two reasons. First, whether other kinds of gambling are advertised in Puerto Rico or not, the restrictions on advertising of casino gambling “directly advance” the legislature’s interest in reducing demand for games of chance. See id., at 511 (plurality opinion of White, J.) (“[WJhether onsite advertising is permitted or not, the prohibition of offsite advertising is directly related to the stated objectives of traffic safety and esthetics. This is not altered by the fact that the ordinance is underinclusive because it permits onsite advertising”). Second, the legislature’s interest, as previously identified, is not necessarily to reduce demand for. all games of chance, but to reduce demand for casino gambling. According to the Superior Court, horse racing, cockfighting, “picas,” or small games of chance at fiestas, and the lottery “have been traditionally part of the Puerto Rican’s roots,” so that “the legislator could have been more flexible than in authorizing more sophisticated games which are not so widely sponsored by the people.” App. to Juris. Statement 35b. In other words, the legislature felt that for Puerto Ricans the risks associated with casino gambling were significantly greater than those associated with the more traditional kinds of gambling in Puerto Rico. In our view, the legislature’s separate classification of casino gambling, for purposes of the advertising ban, satisfies the third step of the Central Hudson analysis.
We also think it clear beyond peradventure that the challenged statute and regulations satisfy the fourth and last step of the Central Hudson analysis, namely, whether the restrictions on commercial speech are no more extensive than necessary to serve the government’s interest. The narrowing constructions of the advertising restrictions announced by the Superior Court ensure that the restrictions will not affect advertising of casino gambling aimed at tourists, but will apply only to such advertising when aimed at the residents of Puerto Rico. See also n. 7, infra; cf. Oklahoma Telecasters Assn. v. Crisp, 699 F. 2d 490, 501 (CA10 1983), rev’d on other grounds sub nom. Capital Cities Cable, Inc. v. Crisp, 467 U. S. 691 (1984). Appellant contends, however, that the First Amendment requires the Puerto Rico Legislature to reduce demand for casino gambling among the residents of Puerto Rico not by suppressing commercial speech that might encourage such gambling, but by promulgating additional speech designed to discourage it. We reject this contention. We think it is up to the legislature to decide whether or not such a “counterspeech” policy would be as effective in reducing the demand for casino gambling as a restriction on advertising. The legislature could conclude, as it apparently did here, that residents of Puerto Rico are already aware of the risks of casino gambling, yet would nevertheless be induced by widespread advertising to engage in such potentially harmful conduct. Cf. Capital Broadcasting Co. v. Mitchell, 333 F. Supp. 582, 585 (DC 1971) (three-judge court) (“Congress had convincing evidence that the Labeling Act of 1965 had not materially reduced the incidence of smoking”), summarily aff’d sub nom. Capital Broadcasting Co. v. Acting Attorney General, 405 U. S. 1000 (1972); Dunagin v. City of Oxford, Miss., 718 F. 2d 738, 751 (CA5 1983) (en banc) (“We do not believe that a less restrictive time, place and manner restriction, such as a disclaimer warning of the dangers of alcohol, would be effective. The state’s concern is not that the public is unaware of the dangers of alcohol.... The concern instead is that advertising will unduly promote alcohol consumption despite known dangers”), cert. denied, 467 U. S. 1259 (1984).
In short, we conclude that the statute and regulations at issue in this case, as construed by the Superior Court, pass muster under each prong of the Central Hudson test. We therefore hold that the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico properly rejected appellant’s First Amendment claim.
Appellant argues, however, that the challenged advertising restrictions are constitutionally defective under our decisions in Carey v. Population Services International, 431 U. S. 678 (1977), and Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U. S. 809 (1975). In Carey, this Court struck down a ban on any “advertisement or display” of contraceptives, 431 U. S., at 700-702, and in Bigelow, we reversed a criminal conviction based on the advertisement of an abortion clinic. We think appellant’s argument ignores a crucial distinction between the Carey and Bigelow decisions and the instant case. In Carey and Bigelow, the underlying conduct that was the subject of the advertising restrictions was constitutionally protected and could not have been prohibited by the State. Here, on the other hand, the Puerto Rico Legislature surely could have prohibited casino gambling by the residents of Puerto Rico altogether. In our view, the greater power to completely ban casino gambling necessarily includes the lesser power to ban advertising of casino gambling, and Carey and Bigelow are hence inapposite.
Appellant also makes the related argument that, having chosen to legalize casino gambling for residents of Puerto Rico, the legislature is prohibited by the First Amendment from using restrictions on advertising to accomplish its goal of reducing demand for such gambling. We disagree. In our view, appellant has the argument backwards. As we noted in the preceding paragraph, it is precisely because the government could have enacted a wholesale prohibition of the underlying conduct that it is permissible for the government to take the less intrusive step of allowing the conduct, but reducing the demand through restrictions on advertising. It would surely be a Pyrrhic victory for casino owners such as appellant to gain recognition of a First Amendment right to advertise their casinos to the residents of Puerto Rico, only to thereby force the legislature into banning casino gambling by residents altogether. It would just as surely be a strange constitutional doctrine which would concede to the legislature the authority to totally ban a product or activity, but deny to the legislature the authority to forbid the stimulation of demand for the product or activity through advertising on behalf of those who would profit from such increased demand. Legislative regulation of products or activities deemed harmful, such as cigarettes, alcoholic beverages, and prostitution, has varied from outright prohibition on the one hand, see, e. g., Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 647(b) (West Supp. 1986) (prohibiting soliciting or engaging in act of prostitution), to legalization of the product or activity with restrictions on stimulation of its demand on the other hand, see, e. g., Nev. Rev. Stat. §§244.345(1), (8) (1986) (authorizing licensing of houses of prostitution except in counties with more than 250,000 population), §§201.430, 201.440 (prohibiting advertising of houses of prostitution “[i]n any public theater, on the public streets of any city or town, or on any public highway,” or “in [a] place of business”). To rule out the latter, intermediate kind of response would require more than we find in the First Amendment.
Appellant’s final argument in opposition to the advertising restrictions is that they are unconstitutionally vague. In particular, appellant argues that the statutory language, “to advertise or otherwise offer their facilities,” and “the public of Puerto Rico,” are not sufficiently defined to satisfy the requirements of due process. Appellant also claims that the term “anunciarse,” which appears in the controlling Spanish version of the statute, is actually broader than the English term “to advertise,” and could be construed to mean simply “to make known.” Even assuming that appellant’s argument has merit with respect to the bare statutory language, however, we have already noted that we are bound by the Superior Court’s narrowing construction of the statute. Viewed in light of that construction, and particularly with the interpretive assistance of the implementing regulations as modified by the Superior Court, we do not find the statute unconstitutionally vague.
For the foregoing reasons, the decision of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico that, as construed by the Superior Court, § 8 of the Games of Chance Act of 1948 and the implementing regulations do not facially violate the First Amendment or the due process or equal protection guarantees of the Constitution, is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
We have held that Puerto Rico is subject to the First Amendment Speech Clause, Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U. S. 298, 314 (1922), the Due Process Clause of either the Fifth or the Fourteenth Amendment, Calero-Toledo v. Pearson Yacht Leasing Co., 416 U. S. 663, 668-669, n. 5 (1974), and the equal protection guarantee of either the Fifth or the Fourteenth Amendment, Examining Board v. Flores de Otero, 426 U. S. 572, 599-601 (1976). See generally Torres v. Puerto Rico, 442 U. S. 465, 468-471 (1979).
The hotel was purchased in 1983 by Williams Electronics Corporation, is now organized as a public corporation under Delaware law as Posadas de Puerto Rico Associates, Inc., and does business in Puerto Rico as Condado Plaza Hotel and Casino.
News of the Tourism Company’s decision to levy the fine against appellant reached the New Jersey Gaming Commission, and caused the Commission to consider denying a petition filed by appellant’s parent company for a franchise to operate a casino in that State.
In addition to its decision concerning the advertising restrictions, the Superior Court declared unconstitutional a regulation, 15 R. & R. P. R. § 76a-4(e) (1972), that required male casino patrons to wear dinner jackets while in the casino. The court described the dinner jacket requirement as “basically a condition of sex” and found that the legislature “has no reasonable interest which would warrant a dissimilar classification” based on sex. See App. to Juris. Statement 35b-36b.
Under Puerto Rico law, the notice of appeal apparently was due in the Clerk’s Office by 5 p.m. on the 30th day following the docketing of the Superior Court’s judgment. Supreme Court of Puerto Rico Rule 48(a). The certificate of the Acting Chief Clerk of the Supreme Court of Puerto Rico indicates that appellant’s notice of appeal was filed at 5:06 p.m. on the 30th day.
A rigid rule of deference to interpretations of Puerto Rico law by Puerto Rico courts is particularly appropriate given the unique cultural and legal history of Puerto Rico. See Diaz v. Gonzalez, 261 U. S. 102, 105-106 (1923) (Holmes, J.) (“This Court has stated many times the deference due to the understanding of the local courts upon matters of purely local concern.... This is especially true in dealing with the decisions of a Court inheriting and brought up in a different system from that which prevails here”).
The narrowing construction of the statute and regulations announced by the Superior Court effectively ensures that the advertising restrictions cannot be used to inhibit either the freedom of the press in Puerto Rico to report on any aspect of casino gambling, or the freedom of anyone, including casino owners, to comment publicly on such matters as legislation relating to casino gambling. See Zauderer v. Office of Disciplinary Counsel, 471 U. S. 626, 637-638, n. 7 (1985) (noting that Ohio’s ban on advertising of legal services in Daikon Shield cases “has placed no general restrictions on appellant’s right to publish facts or express opinions regarding Daikon Shield litigation”); Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Pittsburgh Comm’n on Human Relations, 413 U. S. 376, 391 (1973) (emphasizing that “nothing in our holding allows government at any level to forbid Pittsburgh Press to publish and distribute advertisements commenting on the Ordinance, the enforcement practices of the Commission, or the propriety of sex preferences in employment”); Jackson & Jeffries, Commercial Speech: Economic Due Process and the First Amendment, 65 Va. L. Rev. 1, 35, n. 125 (1979) (such “ ‘political’ dialogue is at the core of... the first amendment”).
The history of legalized gambling in Puerto Rico supports the Superior Court’s view of the legislature’s intent. Casino gambling was prohibited in Puerto Rico for most of the first half of this century. See Puerto Rico Penal Code, §299, Rev. Stats, and Codes of Porto Rico (1902). The Puerto Rico Penal Code of 1937 made it a misdemeanor to deal, play, carry on, open, or conduct “any game of faro, monte, roulette, fantan, poker, seven and a half, twenty one, hoky-poky, or any game of chance played with cards, dice or any device for money, checks, credit, or other representative of value.” See P. R. Laws Ann., Tit. 33, §1241 (1983). This longstanding prohibition of casino gambling stood in stark contrast to the Puerto Rico Legislature’s early legalization of horse racing, see Act of Mar. 10, 1910, No. 23, repealed, Act of Apr. 13, 1916, No. 28, see P. R. Laws Ann., Tit. 15, §§ 181-197 (1972 and Supp. 1985); “picas,” see Act of Apr. 23, 1927, No. 25, § 1, codified, as amended, at P. R. Laws Ann., Tit. 15, § 80 (1972); dog racing, see Act of Apr. 20, 1936, No. 35, repealed, Act of June 4, 1957, No. 10, §1, see P. R. Laws Ann., Tit. 15, §231 (1972) (prohibiting dog racing); cockfighting, see Act of Aug. 12, 1933, No. 1, repealed, Act of May 12, 1942, No. 236, see P. R. Laws Ann., Tit. 15, §§ 292-299 (1972); and the Puerto Rico lottery, see J. R. No. 37, May 14, 1934, repealed, Act of May 15, 1938, No. 212, see P. R. Laws Ann., Tit. 15, §§ 111-128 (1972 and Supp. 1985).
It should be apparent from our discussion of the First Amendment issue, and particularly the third and fourth prongs of the Central Hudson test, that appellant can fare no better under the equal protection guarantee of the Constitution. Cf. Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U. S. 41, 55, n. 4 (1986). If there is a sufficient “fit” between the legislature’s means and ends to satisfy the concerns of the First Amendment, the same “fit” is surely adequate under the applicable “rational basis” equal protection analysis. See Dunagin v. City of Oxford, Miss., 718 F. 2d 738, 752-753 (CA5 1983) (en banc), cert. denied, 467 U. S. 1259 (1984).
Justice Stevens, in dissent, asserts the additional equal protection claim, not raised by appellant either below or in this Court, that the Puerto Rico statute and regulations impermissibly discriminate between different kinds of publications. Post, at 359-360. Justice Stevens misunderstands the nature of the Superior Court’s limiting construction 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: | 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 Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question in this case is whether a Selective Service local board must reopen the classification of a registrant who claims that his conscientious objection to war in any form crystallized between the mailing of his notice to report for induction and his scheduled induction date. The petitioner before us made no claim to conscientious objector status until after he received his induction notice. Before the induction date, he then wrote to his local board and asked to be allowed to present his claim. He represented that his views had matured only after the induction notice had made immediate the prospect of military service. After Selective Service proceedings not material here, the petitioner’s local board notified him that it had declined to reopen his classification because the crystallization of his conscientious objection did not constitute the “change in the registrant’s status resulting from circumstances over which the registrant had no control” required for post-induction notice reopening under a Selective Service regulation. The petitioner then refused to submit'to induction, and a grand jury in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California indicted him for violation of the Military Selective Service Act of 1967.
The petitioner waived trial by jury, and the District Court, holding that ripening of conscientious objector views could not be a circumstance over which a registrant had no control, found the petitioner guilty. The conviction was affirmed by the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, and we granted certiorari, 397 U. S. 1074, to resolve a conflict among the circuits over the interpretation of the governing Selective Service regulation.
A regulation explicitly providing that no conscientious objector claim could be considered by a local board unless filed before the mailing of an induction notice would, we think, be perfectly valid, provided that no inductee could be ordered to combatant training or service before a prompt, fair, and proper in-service determination of his claim. The Military Selective Service Act of 1967 confers on the President authority “to prescribe the necessary rules and regulations to carry out the provisions of this title . . . 50 U. S. C. App. §460 (b)(1). To read out of the authority delegated by this section the power to make reasonable timeliness rules would render it impossible to require the submission, before mailing of an induction notice, of a claim matured before that time. The System needs and has the power to make reasonable timeliness rules for the presentation of claims to exemption from service.
A regulation barring post-induction notice presentation of conscientious objector claims, with the proviso mentioned, would be entirely reasonable as a timeliness rule. Selective Service boards must already handle prenotice claims, and the military has procedures for processing conscientious objector claims that mature in the service. Allocation of the burden of handling claims that first arise in the brief period between notice and induction seems well within the discretion of those concerned with choosing the most feasible means for operating the Selective Service and military systems. Further, requiring in-service presentation of post-notice claims would deprive no registrant of any legal right and would not leave a “no man's land” time period in which a claim then arising could not be presented in any forum.
The only unconditional right conferred by statute upon conscientious objectors is exemption from combatant training and service. The Selective Service law, indeed, provides for noncombatant training and service for those objectors to whose induction there is no obstacle. The right to civilian service “in lieu of . . . induction” arises only if a registrant’s “claim is sustained by the local board.” It does not follow, given the power to make reasonable timeliness rules, that a registrant has an unconditional right to present his claim to the local board before induction, any more than he has such a right after induction. Congress seems rather carefully to have confined the unconditional right created by the statute to immunity from combatant training and service. Consequently, requiring those whose conscientious objection has not crystallized until after their induction notices to present their claims after induction would work no deprivation of statutory rights, so long as the claimants were not subjected to combatant training or service until their claims had been acted upon.
That those whose views are late in crystallizing can be required to wait, however, does not mean they can be deprived of a full and fair opportunity to present the merits of their conscientious objector claims for consideration under the same substantive criteria that must guide the Selective Service System. See Welsh v. United States, 398 U. S. 333. The very assertion of crystallization just before induction might cast doubt upon the genuineness of some claims, but there is no reason to suppose that such claims could not be every bit as bona fide and substantial as the claims of those whose conscientious objection ripens before notice or after induction. It would be wholly arbitrary to deny the late crystallizer a full opportunity to obtain a determination on the merits of his claim to exemption from combatant training and service just because his conscientious scruples took shape during a brief period in legal limbo. A system in which such persons could present their claims after induction, with the assurance of no combatant training or service before opportunity for a ruling on the merits, would be wholly consistent with the conscientious objector statute.
The regulation we must interpret in this case does not unambiguously create such a system. Rather, it bars post-notice reopening “unless the local board first specifically finds there has been a change in the registrant's status resulting from circumstances over which the registrant had no control.” It is clear that the regulation was meant to cover at least such nonvolitional changes as injury to the registrant or death in his family making him the sole surviving son. The Government urges that the regulation be confined to just such "objectively identifiable” and “extraneous” events and circumstances. The petitioner contends that post-notice crystallization of conscientious objection is both a “circumstance” within the meaning of the regulation and one over which the registrant has no control.
We need not take sides in the somewhat theological debates about the nature of “control” over one’s own conscience that the phrasing of this regulation has forced upon so many federal courts. Rather, since the meaning of the language is not free from doubt, we are obligated to regard as controlling a reasonable, consistently applied administrative interpretation if the Government’s be such. Immigration Service v. Stanisic, 395 U. S. 62, 72; Thorpe v. Housing Authority, 393 U. S. 268, 276; Udall v. Tallman, 380 U. S. 1, 16-17; Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U. S. 410, 413-414.
The Government argues for an interpretation identical in effect with the unambiguous rule hypothecated above, which, we have said, would clearly be a reasonable timeliness rule, consistent with the conscientious objector statute. The Government’s interpretation is a plausible construction of the language of the actual regulation, though admittedly not the only possible one. Given the ambiguity of the language, it is wholly rational to confine it to those “objectively identifiable” and “extraneous” circumstances that are most likely to prove manageable without putting undue burdens on the administration of the Selective Service System. It appears, moreover, that this position has been consistently urged by the Government in litigation when it was not foreclosed by adverse local precedent.
There remains for consideration whether the conditions for the validity of such a rule, discussed above, are met in practice. It appears undisputed that when an inductee presents a prima facie claim of conscientious objection that complies with timeliness rules for in-service cog-nizability, he is given duty involving the minimum practicable conflict with his asserted beliefs. It is thus evident that armed forces policy substantially meets the requirement of no combat training or service before an opportunity for a ruling on the claim.
As for the absence of any no man's land, the pertinent military regulations are somewhat inconsistent in their phrasing, perhaps because of the sharp division among the courts of appeals. They contain language appearing to recognize the obligation of the service to hear the claims of those whose alleged conscientious objection has crystallized between notice and induction, but they also contain formulations seeming to look the other way. We are assured, however, by a letter included in the briefs in this case from the General Counsel of the Department of the Army to the Department of Justice, that present practice allows presentation of such claims, and that there thus exists no possibility that late crystallizers will find themselves without a forum in which to press their claims. Our conclusion in this case is based upon that assurance. For if, contrary to that assurance, a situation should arise in which neither the local board nor the military had made available a full opportunity to present a prima facie conscientious objection claim for determination under established criteria, see Welsh v. United States, supra, a wholly different case would be presented.
Given the prevailing interpretation of the Army regulation, we hold that the Court of Appeals did not misconstrue the Selective Service regulation in holding that it barred presentation to the local board of a claim that allegedly arose between mailing of a notice of induction and the scheduled induction date. Accordingly the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is
Affirmed.
32 CFR § 1625.2 (1971) provides, in pertinent part:
“[T]he classification of a registrant shall not be reopened after the local board has mailed to such registrant an Order to Report for Induction ... or an Order to Report for Civilian Work and Statement of Employer . . . unless the local board first specifically finds there has been a change in the registrant’s status resulting from circumstances over which the registrant had no control.”
Military Selective Service Act of 1967, § 12 (a), 50 U. S. C. App. §462 (a) (1964 ed., Supp. V), provides in pertinent part:
“[A]ny person . . . who . . . refuses . . . service in the armed forces ... or who in any manner shall knowingly fail or neglect or refuse to perform any duty required of him under or in the execution of this title . . . shall, upon conviction in any district court of the United States of competent jurisdiction, be punished by imprisonment for not more than five years or a fine of not more than $10,000, or by both such fine and imprisonment . . .
In accord with the position of the Ninth Circuit, see United States v. Al-Majied Muhammad, 364 F. 2d 223, 224 (CA4); Davis v. United States, 374 F. 2d 1, 4 (CA5); United States v. Taylor, 351 F. 2d 228, 230 (CA6) (semble).
Contra, United States v. Gearey, 368 F. 2d 144, 150 (CA2), 379 F. 2d 915 (after remand), cert. denied, 389 U. S. 959; Scott v. Commanding Officer, 431 F. 2d 1132, 1136 (CA3); United States v. Nordlof, 440 F. 2d 840 (CA7); Keene v. United States, 266 F. 2d 378, 384 (CA10); Swift v. Director of Selective Service, — U. S. App. D. C. —, 448 F. 2d 1147. See also United States v. Stoppelman, 406 F. 2d 127, 131 n. 7 (CA1) (dictum), cert. denied, 395 U. S. 981.
The power of the Selective Service System to set reasonable time limits for presentation of claims, with the penalty of forfeiture for noncompliance, seems never to have been questioned by any court. See, e. g., United States v. Gearey, 368 F. 2d 144, 149 and n. 9 (CA2).
The statute on conscientious objection begins:
“Nothing contained in this title . . . shall be construed to require any person to be subject to combatant training and service in the armed forces of the United States who, by reason of religious training and belief, is conscientiously opposed to participation in war in any form.” Military Selective Service Act of 1967, §6 (j), 81 Stat. 104, 60 U. S. C. App. §456 (j) (1964 ed., Supp. V).
Ibid.:
“Any person claiming exemption from combatant training and service because of such conscientious objections whose claim is sustained by the local board shall, if he is inducted into the armed forces under this title ... be assigned to noncombatant service as defined by the President, or shall, if he is found to be conscientiously opposed to participation in such noncombatant service, in lieu of such induction, be ordered by his local board, subject to such regulations as the President may prescribe, to perform for a period equal to the period prescribed in [Military Selective Service Act of 1967, §4(b), 50 U. S. C. App. §454 (b)] such civilian work contributing to the maintenance of the national health, safety, or interest as the local board pursuant to Presidential regulations may deem appropriate . . . .”
Since such a “no man’s land” would be intolerable, our decision today simply involves settling in which forum late crystallizers must have an opportunity for a ruling on the merits. Whether they must have such an opportunity at all cannot be open to question. Of course, a claimant who, after induction, declined to utilize available administrative procedures or who failed to observe reasonable and properly publicized time cutoffs might forfeit his claim.
There is no reason to suppose that a Selective Service local board, faced with the need to fill its monthly quotas, would be more sensitive in applying the legal standards that govern all conscientious objector claims than would the Army, whose mission is to train inductees as members of military units of maximum effectiveness and morale.
Department of Defense Directive No. 1300.6, § VI B (May 10, 1968):
“With respect to persons who have already served a portion of their obligated service who request discharge or non-combatant service for conscientious objection, the following actions will be taken:
“2. Pending decision on the case and to the extent practicable the person will be employed in duties which involve the minimum conflict with his asserted beliefs. . . .”
Army Regulation No. 635-20, ¶ 6a (July 31, 1970):
“[I]ndividuals who have submitted formal applications ... for discharge based on conscientious objection 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. In the case of trainees, this means that they will not be required to train in the study, use, or handling of arms or weapons. . . .”
See Army Regulation No. 635-20, ¶3:
“a. Consideration will be given to requests for separation based on bona fide conscientious objection to participation in war, in any form, when such objection develops subsequent to entry into the military service.
“b. Federal courts have held that a claim to exemption from military service under Selective Service laws must be interposed prior to notice of induction, and failure to make timely claim for exemption constitutes waiver of the right to claim. . . . Requests for discharge after entering military service will not be favorably considered when—
“(1) Based on conscientious objection which existed, but which was not claimed prior to notice of induction, enlistment or appointment.”
See also Department of Defense Directive No. 1300.6, § IV B 2.
“You also asked whether the Army allows a soldier to file for discharge in instances where his conscientious objector views are fixed after notice of induction but prior to entry into the military service. Present practice grants the soldier the opportunity to file in such cases.”
The letter additionally explains the composition and operation of the Army 1-0 Conscientious Objector Review Board, which has the responsibility of ruling on applications for conscientious objector discharges. The Board is composed of a senior officer, an officer in the Judge Advocate General Corps, a chaplain, and a Medical Corps officer. Only two votes are required to approve an application.
The same letter from the General Counsel of the Department of the Army reports that the identical interpretation prevailed in 1965, when the petitioner first was ordered to report for induction.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 protracted nature of this litigation is perhaps best illustrated by the identity of the original federal defendant, “George Romney, Secretary of the Department of Housing and Urban Development.” At the center of this dispute is the site of a proposed low-income housing project to be constructed on Manhattan’s Upper West Side. In 1962, the New York City Planning Commission (Commission), acting in conjunction with the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), began formulating a plan for the renewal of 20 square blocks known as the “West Side Urban Renewal Area” (WSURA) through a joint effort on the part of private parties and various government agencies. As originally written, the plan called for a mix of 70% middle-income housing and 30% low-income housing and designated the site at issue here as the location of one of the middle-income projects. In 1969, after substantial progress toward completion of the plan, local agencies in New York determined that the number of low-income units proposed for WSURA would be insufficient to satisfy an increased need for such units. In response to this shortage the Commission amended the plan to designate the site as the future location of a high-rise building containing 160 units of low-income housing. HUD approved this amendment in December 1972.
Meanwhile, in October 1971, the Trinity Episcopal School Corp. (Trinity), which had participated in the plan by building a combination school and middle-income housing development at a nearby location, sued in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York to enjoin the Commission and HUD from constructing low-income housing on the site. The present respondents, Roland N. Karlen, Alvin C. Hudgins, and the Committee of Neighbors To Insure a Normal Urban Environment (CONTINUE), intervened as plaintiffs, while petitioner Strycker’s Bay Neighborhood Council, Inc., intervened as a defendant.
The District Court entered judgment in favor of petitioners. See Trinity Episcopal School Corp. v. Romney, 387 F. Supp. 1044 (1974). It concluded, inter alia, that petitioners had not violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 83 Stat. 852, 42 U. S. C. § 4321 et seq.
On respondents’ appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed all but the District Court’s treatment of the NEPA claim. See Trinity Episcopal School Corp. v. Romney, 523 F. 2d 88 (1975). While the Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that HUD was not required to prepare a full-scale environmental impact statement under § 102 (2) (C) of NEPA, 42 U. S. C. § 4332 (2)(C), it held that HUD had not complied with § 102 (2) (E), which requires an agency to “study, develop, and describe appropriate alternatives to recommended courses of action in any proposal which involves unresolved conflicts concerning alternative uses of available resources.” 42 U. S. C. §4332 (2)(E). See 523 F. 2d., at 92-95. According to the Court of Appeals, any consideration by HUD of alternatives to placing low-income housing on the site “was either highly limited or nonexistent.” Id., at 94. Citing the “background of urban environmental factors” behind HUD’s decision, the Court of Appeals remanded the case, requiring HUD to prepare a “statement of possible alternatives, the consequences thereof and the facts and reasons for and against. . . .” Ibid. The statement was not to reflect “HUD’s concept or the Housing Authority’s views as to how these agencies would choose to resolve the city’s low income group housing situation,” but rather was to explain “how within the framework of the Plan its objective of economic integration can best be achieved with a minimum of adverse environmental impact.” Ibid. The Court of Appeals believed that, given such an assessment of alternatives, “the agencies with the cooperation of the interested parties should be able to arrive at an equitable solution.” Id., at 95.
On remand, HUD prepared a lengthy report entitled Special Environmental Clearance (1977), After marshaling the data, the report asserted that, “while the choice of Site 30 for development as a 100 percent low-income project has raised valid questions about the potential social environmental impacts involved, the problems associated with the impact on social fabric and community structures are not considered so serious as to require that this component be rated as unacceptable.” Special Environmental Clearance Report 42. The last portion of the report incorporated a study wherein the Commission evaluated nine alternative locations for the project and found none of them acceptable. While HUD’s report conceded that this study may not have considered all possible alternatives, it credited the Commission’s conclusion that any relocation of the units would entail an unacceptable delay of two years or more. According to HUD, “[m]eas-ured against the environmental costs associated with the minimum two-year delay, the benefits seem insufficient to justify a mandated substitution of sites.” Id., at 54.
After soliciting the parties’ comments on HUD’s report, the District Court again entered judgment in favor of petitioners. See Trinity Episcopal School Corp. v. Harris, 445 P. Supp. 204 (1978). The court was “impressed with [HUD’s analysis] as being thorough and exhaustive,” id., at 209-210, and found that “HUD’s consideration of the alternatives was neither arbitrary nor capricious”; on the contrary, “[i]t was done in good faith and in full accordance with the law.” Id., at 220.
On appeal, the Second Circuit vacated and remanded again. Karlen v. Harris, 590 F. 2d 39 (1978). The appellate court focused upon that part of HUD’s report where the agency considered and rejected alternative sites, and in particular upon HUD’s reliance on the delay such a relocation would entail. The Court of Appeals purported to recognize that its role in reviewing HUD’s decision was defined by the Administrative Procedure Act (APA), 5 U. S. C. § 706 (2) (A), which provides that agency actions should be set aside if found to be “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. . . .” Additionally, however, the Court of Appeals looked to “[t] he provisions of NEPA” for “the substantive standards necessary to review the merits of agency decisions. . . 590 F. 2d, at 43. The Court of Appeals conceded that HUD had “given ‘consideration’ to alternatives” to redesignating the site. Id., at 44. Nevertheless, the court believed that “ ‘consideration’ is not an end in itself.” Ibid. . Concentrating on HUD’s finding that development of an alternative location would entail an unacceptable delay, the appellate court held that such delay could not be “an overriding factor” in HUD’s decision to proceed with the development. Ibid. According to the court, when HUD considers such projects, “environmental factors, such as crowding low-income housing into a concentrated area, should be given determinative weight.” Ibid. The Court of Appeals therefore remanded the case to the District Court, instructing HUD to attack the shortage of low-income housing in a manner that would avoid the “concentration” of such housing on Site 30. Id., at 45.
In Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. NRDC, 435 U. S. 519, 558 (1978), we stated that NEPA, while establishing “significant substantive goals for the Nation,” imposes upon agencies duties that are “essentially procedural.” As we stressed in that case, NEPA was designed “to insure a fully informed and well-considered decision,” but not necessarily “a decision the judges of the Court of Appeals or of this Court would have reached had they been members of the decisionmaking unit of the agency.” Ibid. Vermont Yankee cuts sharply against the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that an agency, in selecting a course of action, must elevate environmental concerns over other appropriate considerations. On the contrary, once an agency has made a decision subject to NEPA’s procedural requirements, the only role for a court is to insure that the agency has considered the environmental consequences; it cannot “ ‘interject itself within the area of discretion of the executive as to the choice of the action to be taken.' ” Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U. S, 390, 410, n. 21 (1976). See also FPC v. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corp., 423 U.S. 326 (1976).
In the present litigation there is no doubt that HUD considered the environmental consequences of its decision to re-designate the proposed site for low-income housing. NEPA requires no more. The petitions for certiorari are granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore
Reversed.
At the time of the Court of Appeals’ decision, this section was numbered 102 (2) (D) and was codified at 42 U. S. C. § 4332 (2) (D) (1970 ed.). Congress redesignated it two weeks later. See Act of Aug. 9, 1975, Pub. L. 94-83, 89 Stat. 424.
If we could agree with the dissent that the Court of Appeals held that HUD had acted “arbitrarily” in redesignating the site for low-income housing, we might also agree that plenary review is warranted. But the District Court expressly concluded that HUD had not acted arbitrarily or capriciously and our reading of the opinion of the Court of Appeals satisfies us that it did not overturn that finding. Instead, the appellate court required HUD to elevate environmental concerns over other, admittedly legitimate, considerations. Neither NEPA nor the APA provides any support for such a reordering of priorities by a reviewing court.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question in this case is whether the Sherman Act extends to an agreement among real estate brokers in a market area to conform to a fixed rate of brokerage commissions on sales of residential property.
I
The complaint in this private antitrust action, filed in the Eastern District of Louisiana in 1975, alleges that real estate brokers in the Greater New Orleans area have engaged in a price-fixing conspiracy in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, ch. 647, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1. No trial has as yet been had on the merits of the claims since the complaint was dismissed for failure to establish the interstate commerce component of Sherman Act jurisdiction.
The complaint asserts a claim individually and on behalf of that class of persons who employed the services of a respondent real estate broker in the purchase or sale of residential property in the Louisiana parishes of Jefferson or Orleans (the Greater New Orleans area) during the four years preceding the filing of the complaint. The respondents are two real estate trade associations, six named real estate firms, and that class of real estate brokers who at some time during the period covered by the complaint transacted realty brokerage business in the Greater New Orleans area and charged a brokerage fee for their services. The unlawful conduct alleged is a continuing combination and conspiracy among the respondents to fix, control, raise, and stabilize prices for the purchase and sale of residential real estate by the systematic use of fixed commission rates, widespread fee splitting, suppression of market information useful to buyers and sellers, and other allegedly anticompetitive practices. The complaint asserts that respondents’ conduct has injured petitioners in their business or property because the fees and commissions charged for brokerage services have been maintained at an artificially high and noncompetitive level, with the effect that the prices of residential properties have been artificially raised. The complaint seeks treble damages and injunctive relief as authorized by §§ 4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, 737, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §§ 15, 26.
The allegations of the complaint pertinent to establishing federal jurisdiction are:
(1) that the activities of the respondents are “within the flow of interstate commerce and have an effect upon that commerce”;
(2) that the services of respondents were employed in connection with the purchase and sale of real estate by “persons moving into and out of the Greater New Orleans area”;
(3) that respondents “assist their clients in securing financing and insurance involved with the purchase of real estate in the Greater New Orleans area,” which “financing and insurance are obtained from sources outside the State of Louisiana and move in interstate commerce into the State of Louisiana through the activities of the [respondents]”; and
(4) that respondents have engaged in an unlawful restraint of “interstate trade and commerce in the offering for sale and sale of real estate brokering services.”
Respondents moved in the District Court to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim within the ambit of the Sherman Act. This motion was supported by a memorandum and by the affidavits of two officers of respondent Real Estate Board of New Orleans. The affiants testified that real estate brokers in Louisiana were licensed to perform their function in that State only, that there was no legal or other requirement that real estate brokers be employed in connection with the purchase or sale of real estate within Louisiana, and that the affiants had personal knowledge of such transactions occurring without the assistance of brokers. The function of real estate brokers was described as essentially completed when buyer and seller had been brought together on agreeable terms. The affiants also stated that real estate brokers did not obtain and were not instrumental in obtaining financing of credit sales, save in a few special cases, nor were they involved with examination of titles in connection with the sale of real estate or the financing of such sales.
The memorandum in support of the motion to dismiss sought to distinguish this case from Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U. S. 773 (1975), in which we held that § 1 of the Sherman Act had been violated by conformance with a bar association’s minimum-fee schedule that established fees for title examination services performed by attorneys in connection with the financing of real estate purchases. The respondents construed the applicability of Goldfarb as limited by certain language in the opinion that described the activities of lawyers in the examination of titles as an inseparable and integral part of the interstate commerce in real estate financing. 421 U. S., at 784-785. In contrast, with respect to this case, respondents asserted on the basis of the affidavits that “the role of . . . real estate brokers in financing such purchases is neither integral nor inseparable.” Respondents contended (1) that the activities of respondent real estate brokers were purely local in nature; (2) that the allegation that respondents assisted in securing financing or insurance in connection with the purchase of real estate had been controverted by the affidavits; and (3) that the conclusory assertion in the complaint that respondents’ activities “are within the flow of interstate commerce and have an effect upon that commerce” was insufficient by itself to establish federal jurisdiction.
Petitioners’ response to the motion to dismiss asserted that since adequate pretrial discovery up to that time had been precluded pursuant to a pretrial order, petitioners had not had a full opportunity to substantiate the jurisdictional allegations of their complaint. Petitioners advanced two independent theories to support federal jurisdiction: (1) that respondents’ activities occurred within the stream of interstate commerce; and (2) that even if respondents’ activities were wholly local in character they depended upon and affected the interstate flow of both services and people.
Accompanying the response was an affidavit stating that one of the named petitioners had employed the services of a respondent real estate broker to assist in an interstate relocation. There was also an affidavit from a loan guarantee officer of the Veterans’ Administration disclosing that VA-insured loans for residential purchases in the Greater New Orleans area for the years 1973-1975 amounted to $46.3 million, $45.9 million, and $53.5 million, respectively.
After briefing on the jurisdictional issue, the District Court heard oral argument and received postargument briefs. The court then held a conference with counsel, the substance of which was carefully recorded in the minute entries by the District Judge:
“The Court advised counsel that it appears plaintiffs may satisfy said jurisdictional requirement only by bringing the facts of this case within the parameters of the Supreme Court’s holding in Ooldfarb v. Virginia State Bar. ... It is recognized, however, that further discovery is needed on the issue of Ooldfarb’s applicability sub judice. More specifically, such discovery should determine whether, in the first place, there is the requisite interdependence between the brokerage activity of defendants and the financing and/or insuring of real estate transactions in the New Orleans area and, secondly, whether there is a substantial involvement of interstate commerce in such real estate transactions via the financing and/or insurance aspects thereof.”
Following this conference, petitioners deposed nine witnesses, who produced various documents. The deponents included government officials, real estate brokers, mortgage lenders, and real estate title insurers. This evidence was directed to establishing that an appreciable amount of interstate commerce was involved in various aspects of the purchase and sale of residential property in the Greater New Orleans area.
The deposition testimony of the president of Security Homestead Association, one of nearly 40 savings and loan institutions in the Greater New Orleans area, revealed that during the period covered by the complaint the Association lent in excess of $100 million for local purchases of residential property. The Association obtained loan capital from deposits by investors, some of whom lived out of state, and from borrowings from the Federal Home Loan Bank of Little Rock, Ark. Toward the close of the relevant period, the Association entered the interstate secondary mortgage market, in which existing mortgages were sold to raise new capital for future loans.
Another deponent was the president of Carruth Mortgage Corp., an Arkansas corporation doing business in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Texas. Its business was to originate home loans, then to sell the financial paper in the secondary mortgage market. The testimony showed that during the relevant period Carruth made in excess of $100 million in loans on residential real estate in the Greater New Orleans area. The overwhelming proportion of these home loans was guaranteed by either the Federal Housing Administration or the Veterans’ Administration. With respect to the FHA-guaranteed loans, Carruth collected and remitted premiums for the guarantee to the FHA in Washington, D. C., on a periodic basis for each account.
Both deponents testified that real estate brokers often play a role in securing financing information on behalf of a borrower and in bringing borrower and lender together, but that after the introductory phases the substance of the mortgage transaction progressed without the involvement of a real estate broker. The president of Carruth testified that his company required title insurance on all the home loans it made. This testimony was accompanied by the deposition of the president of Lawyers Title Insurance Co. of Louisiana, which revealed that each of the nearly 30 title insurance companies then writing coverage in the Greater New Orleans area was a subsidiary or branch of a corporation in another state.
Following the close of the discovery period and the filing of additional briefs, the District Court took the matter under submission and, having considered the memoranda of counsel and the relevant documents of record, issued a memorandum opinion and order granting the motion to dismiss the complaint. 432 F. Supp. 982 (1977). The court stated that the ground upon which respondents had challenged jurisdiction was that “brokerage activities are wholly intrastate in nature and, since they neither occur in nor substantially affect interstate commerce, are beyond the ambit of federal anti-trust prohibition.” Id., at 983. In line with the view expressed at the earlier conference, see swpra, at 237-238, the District Court viewed the jurisdictional inquiry as narrowly confined: the question was whether the facts of this case could be brought within the Ooldfarb holding. In the District Court’s view, “any inquiry based upon [Goldfarb] must be twofold: 1) whether a 'substantial’ volume of interstate commerce is involved in the overall real estate transaction, and 2) whether the challenged activity is an essential, integral part of the transaction and inseparable from its interstate aspects.” 432 F. Supp., at 984. The District Court assumed, arguendo, that the title insurance and financing aspects of the New Orleans residential real estate market were interstate in character, but ruled that federal jurisdiction was not established because in its view “the inescapable conclusion to be drawn from the evidence is that the participation of the broker in these (presumably interstate) phases of the real estate transaction is an incidental rather than indispensable occurrence in the transactional chain of events.” Id., at 985.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the complaint. 583 F. 2d 1315 (1978). Examining first the specific acts complained of in this case, the Court of Appeals concluded that they failed to satisfy the “in commerce” test. Realty was viewed as a quintessentially local product, and the brokerage activity described in the pleadings was found to occur wholly intrastate. Id., at 1319. Second, that court rejected petitioners’ “effect on commerce” argument. The interpretation of Goldfarb that had guided the District Court’s analysis was adopted by the Court of Appeals, which ruled that “unlike the attorneys in Goldfarb whose participation in title insurance was statutorily mandated, real estate brokers are neither necessary nor integral participants in the 'interstate aspects’ of realty financing and insurance.” 583 F. 2d, at 1321-1323.
The Court of Appeals noted that the District Court had styled its judgment as a dismissal under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12 (b)(6) for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted, to be treated as a summary judgment insofar as matters outside of the pleadings were considered. The Court of Appeals concluded that the appropriate designation of the dismissal was for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Rule 12 (b)(1), and affirmed the dismissal on that basis.
We granted certiorari. 441 U. S. 942.
II
A
The broad authority of Congress under the Commerce Clause has, of course, long been interpreted to extend beyond activities actually in interstate commerce to reach other activities that, while wholly local in nature, nevertheless substantially affect interstate commerce. Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111 (1942); United States v. Darby, 312 U. S. 100 (1941). This Court has often noted the correspondingly broad reach of the Sherman Act. Hospital Building Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U. S. 738, 743 (1976); United States v. Employing Plasterers Assn., 347 U. S. 186, 189 (1954); United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Assn., 322 U. S. 533, 558 (1944); Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers, Inc. v. United States, 286 U. S. 427, 435 (1932). During the near century of Sherman Act experience, forms and modes of business and commerce have changed along with changes in communication and travel, and innovations in methods of conducting particular businesses have altered relationships in commerce. Application of the Act reflects an adaptation to these changing circumstances. Compare United States v. E. C. Knight Co., 156 U. S. 1, 12-15 (1895), and Hopkins v. United States, 171 U. S. 578, 587-592 (1898), with Mandeville Island Farms, Inc. v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U. S. 219, 231-235 (1948), and United States v. Employing Plasterers Assn., supra, at 189.
The conceptual distinction between activities “in” interstate commerce and those which “affect” interstate commerce has been preserved in the cases, for Congress has seen fit to preserve that distinction in the antitrust and related laws by limiting the applicability of certain provisions to activities demonstrably “in commerce.” United States v. American Building Maintenance Industries, 422 U. S. 271 (1975); Gulf Oil Corp. v. Copp Paving Co., 419 U. S. 186 (1974); FTC v. Bunte Bros., Inc., 312 U. S. 349 (1941). It can no longer be doubted, however, that the jurisdictional requirement of the Sherman Act may be satisfied under either the “in commerce” or the “effect on commerce” theory. Hospital Building Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, supra, at 743; Gulf Oil Corp. v. Copp Paving Co., supra, at 194—195; United States v. Women’s Sportswear Manufacturers Assn., 336 U. S. 460, 464 (1949); Mandeville Island Farms, Inc. v. American Crystal Sugar Co., supra, at 235-237.
Although the cases demonstrate the breadth of Sherman Act prohibitions, jurisdiction may not be invoked under that statute unless the relevant aspect of interstate commerce is identified; it is not sufficient merely to rely on identification of a relevant local activity and to presume an interrelationship with some unspecified aspect of interstate commerce. To establish jurisdiction a plaintiff must allege the critical relationship in the pleadings and if these allegations are controverted must proceed to demonstrate by submission of evidence beyond the pleadings either that the defendants’ activity is itself in interstate commerce or, if it is local in nature, that it has an effect on some other appreciable activity demonstrably in interstate commerce. Gulf Oil Corp. v. Copp Paving Co., supra, at 202.
To establish the jurisdictional element of a Sherman Act violation it would be sufficient for petitioners to demonstrate a substantial effect on interstate commerce generated by respondents’ brokerage activity. Petitioners need not make the more particularized showing of an effect on interstate commerce caused by the alleged conspiracy to fix commission rates, or by those other aspects of respondents’ activity that are alleged to be unlawful. The validity of this approach is confirmed by an examination of the case law. If establishing jurisdiction required a showing that the unlawful conduct itself had an effect on interstate commerce, jurisdiction would be defeated by a demonstration that the alleged restraint failed to have its intended anticompetitive effect. This is not the rule of our cases. See American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U. S. 781, 811 (1946); United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 U. S. 150, 225, n. 59 (1940). A violation may still be found in such circumstances because in a civil action under the Sherman Act, liability may be established by proof of either an unlawful purpose or an anti-competitive effect. United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 438 U. S. 422, 436, n. 13 (1978); see United States v. Container Corp., 393 U. S. 333, 337 (1969); United States v. National Assn, of Real Estate Boards, 339 U. S. 485, 489 (1950); United States v. Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., supra, at 224-225, n. 59.
Nor is jurisdiction defeated in a case relying on anticom-petitive effects by plaintiff’s failure to quantify the adverse impact of defendant’s conduct. See Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U. S. 100, 123-125 (1969); Bigelow v. RKO Radio Pictures, Inc., 327 U. S. 251, 265-266 (1946). Even where there is an inability to prove that concerted activity has resulted in legally cognizable damages, jurisdiction need not be impaired, though such a failure may confine the available remedies to injunctive relief. See Georgia v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 324 U. S. 439, 452-463 (1945); Keogh v. Chicago & N. W. R. Co., 260 U. S. 156 (1922).
B
The interpretation and application of our holding in Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U. S. 773 (1975), has figured prominently in this case. The District Court held that petitioners could establish federal jurisdiction only if the facts of this case could be brought within Goldfarb. As previously noted, as interpreted by that court, "any inquiry based upon [Goldfarb] must be twofold: 1) whether a ‘substantial’ volume of interstate commerce is involved in the overall real estate transaction, and 2) whether the challenged activity is an essential, intergral part of the transaction and inseparable from its interstate aspects.” 432 F. Supp., at 984. The Court of Appeals took a similar view of Goldfarb, holding that Sherman Act jurisdiction did not exist because petitioners had failed to demonstrate that real estate brokers are either necessary or integral participants in the interstate aspects of residential real estate financing and title insurance. 583 F. 2d, at 1322.
It is with the second phase of the analysis of the District Court and of the Court of Appeals that we disagree. The facts of Goldfarb revealed an application of the state bar association’s minimum-fee schedule to fix fees for attorneys’ title examination services. Since the financing depended on a valid and insured title we concluded that title examination, was “an integral part” of the interstate transaction of obtaining financing for the purchase of residential property and, because of the “inseparability” of the attorneys’ services from the title examination process, we held that the legal services were in turn an “integral part of an interstate transaction.” 421 U. S., at 784-785. By placing the Goldfarb holding on the available ground that the activities of the attorneys were within the stream of interstate commerce, Sherman Act jurisdiction was established. The Goldfarb holding was not addressed to the “effect on commerce” test of jurisdiction and in no way restricted it to those challenged activities that have an integral relationship to an activity in interstate commerce. To adopt the restrictive interpretation urged upon us by respondents would return to a jurisdictional analysis under the Sherman Act of an era long past. It has been more than 30 years since this Court stated: “At this late day we are not willing to take that long backward step.” Mandeville Island Farms, Inc. v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U. S., at 235.
C
On the record thus far made, it cannot be said that there is an insufficient basis for petitioners to proceed at trial to establish Sherman Act jurisdiction. It is clear that an appreciable amount of commerce is involved in the financing of residential property in the Greater New Orleans area and in the insuring of titles to such property. The presidents of two of the many lending institutions in the area stated in their deposition testimony that those institutions committed hundreds of millions of dollars to residential financing during the period covered by the complaint. The testimony further demonstrates that this appreciable commercial activity has occurred in interstate commerce. Funds were raised from out-of-state investors and from interbank loans obtained from interstate financial institutions. Multistate lending institutions took mortgages insured under federal programs which entailed interstate transfers of premiums and settlements. Mortgage obligations physically and constructively were traded as financial instruments in the interstate secondary mortgage market. Before making a mortgage loan in the Greater New Orleans area, lending institutions usually, if not always, required title insurance, which was furnished by interstate corporations. Reading the pleadings, as supplemented, most favorably to petitioners, for present purposes we take these facts as established.
At trial, respondents will have the opportunity, if they so choose, to make their own case contradicting this factual showing. On the other hand, it may be possible for petitioners to establish that, apart from the commerce in title insurance and real estate financing, an appreciable amount of interstate commerce is involved with the local residential real estate market arising out of the interstate movement of people, or otherwise.
To establish federal jurisdiction in this case, there remains only the requirement that respondents’ activities which allegedly have been infected by a price-fixing conspiracy be shown “as a matter of practical economics” to have a not insubstantial effect on the interstate commerce involved. Hospital Building Co. v. Rex Hospital Trustees, 425 U. S., at 745; see Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, supra, at 784, n. 11; Burke v. Ford, 389 U. S. 320, 321-322 (1967). It is clear, as the record shows, that the function of respondent real estate brokers is to bring the buyer and seller together on agreeable terms. For this service the broker charges a fee generally calculated as a percentage of the sale price. Brokerage activities necessarily affect both the frequency and the terms of residential sales transactions. Ultimately, whatever stimulates or retards the volume of residential sales, or has an impact on the purchase price, affects the demand for financing and title insurance, those two commercial activities that on this record are shown to have occurred in interstate commerce. Where, as here, the services of respondent real estate brokers are often employed in transactions in the relevant market, petitioners at trial may be able to show that respondents’ activities have a not insubstantial effect on interstate commerce.
It is axiomatic that a complaint should not be dismissed unless “it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.” Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 45-46 (1957) ; see 5 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure §§ 1202, 1205-1207, 1215-1224, 1228 (1969). This rule applies with no less force to a Sherman Act claim, where one of the requisites of a cause of action is the existence of a demonstrable nexus between the defendants’ activity and interstate commerce. Here, what was submitted to the District Court shows a sufficient basis for satisfying the Act’s jurisdictional requirements under the effect-on-commerce theory so as to entitle the petitioners to go forward. We therefore conclude that it was error to dismiss the complaint at this stage of the proceedings. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Vacated and remanded.
Me. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Retinquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Once again, we are called upon to decide whether a private remedy is implicit in a statute not expressly providing one. During this Term alone, we have been asked to undertake this task no fewer than five times in cases in which we have granted certiorari. Here we decide whether customers of securities brokerage firms that are required to file certain financial reports with regulatory authorities by § 17 (a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 (1934 Act), 48 Stat. 897, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 78q (a), have an implied cause of action for damages under § 17 (a) against accountants who audit such reports, based on misstatements contained in the reports.
I
Petitioner Touche Ross & Co. is a firm of certified public accountants. Weis Securities, Inc. (Weis), a securities brokerage firm registered as a broker-dealer with the Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) and a member of the New York Stock Exchange (Exchange), retained Touche Ross to serve as Weis’ independent certified public accountant from 1969 to 1973. In this capacity, Touche Ross conducted audits of Weis’ books and records and prepared for filing with the Commission the annual reports of financial condition required by § 17 (a) of the 1934 Act, 15 U. S. C. § 78q (a), and the rules and regulations adopted thereunder. 17 CFR § 240.17a-5 (1972). Touche Ross also prepared for Weis responses to financial questionnaires required by the Exchange of its member firms.
This case arises out of the insolvency and liquidation of Weis. In 1973, the Commission and the Exchange learned of Weis’ precarious financial condition and of possible violations of the 1934 Act by Weis and its officers. In May 1973, the Commission sought and was granted an injunction barring Weis and five of its officers from conducting business in violation of the 1934 Act. At the same time, the Securities Investor Protection Corporation (SIPC), pursuant to statutory authority, applied in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York for a decree adjudging that Weis’ customers were in need of the protection afforded by the Securities Investor Protection Act of 1970 (SIPA), 84 Stat. 1636, 15 U. S. C. § 78aaa et seq. The District Court granted the requested decree and appointed respondent Red-ington (Trustee) to act as trustee in the liquidation of the Weis business under SIPA.
During the liquidation, Weis’ cash and securities on hand appeared to be insufficient to make whole those customers who had left assets or deposits with Weis. Accordingly, pursuant to SIPA, SIPC advanced the Trustee $14 million to satisfy, up to specified statutory limits, the claims of the approximately 34,000 Weis customers and certain other creditors of Weis. Despite the advance of $14 million by SIPC, there apparently remain several million dollars of unsatisfied customer claims.
In 1976, SIPC and the Trustee filed this action for damages against Touche Ross in the District Court for the Southern District of New York. The “common allegations” of the complaint, which at this stage of the case we must accept as true, aver that certain of Weis’ officers conspired to conceal substantial operating losses during its 1972 fiscal year by falsifying financial reports required to be filed with regulatory authorities pursuant to § 17 (a) of the 1934 Act. App. 8. SIPC and the Trustee seek to impose liability upon Touche Ross by reason of its allegedly improper audit and certification of the 1972 Weis financial statements and preparation of answers to the Exchange financial questionnaire. Id., at 15-19. The complaint alleges that because of its improper conduct, Touche Ross breached duties that it owed SIPC, the Trustee, and others under the common law, § 17 (a) and the regulations thereunder, and that Touche Ross’ alleged dereliction prevented Weis’ true financial condition from becoming known until it was too late to take remedial action to forestall liquidation or to lessen the adverse financial consequences of such a liquidation to the Weis customers. App. 8-9. The Trustee seeks to recover $51 million on behalf of Weis in its own right and on behalf of the customers of Weis whose property the Trustee was unable to return. SIPC claims $14 million, either as subrogee of Weis’ customers whose claims it has paid under SIPA or in its own right. The federal claims are based on § 17 (a) of the 1934 Act; the complaint also alleges several state common-law causes of action based on accountants’ negligence, breach of contract, and breach of warranty.
The District Court dismissed the complaint, holding that no claim for relief was stated because no private cause of action could be implied from § 17 (a). 428 P. Supp. 483 (SDNY 1977). A divided panel of the Second Circuit reversed. 592 F. 2d 617 (1978). The court first found that § 17 (a) imposes a duty on accountants. 592 F. 2d, at 621. It next concluded, based on the factors set forth in Cort v. Ash, 422 U. S. 66, 78 (1975), that an accountant’s breach of his § 17 (a) duty gives rise to an implied private right of action for damages in favor of a broker-dealer’s customers, even though it acknowledged that the “legislative history of the section is mute on the issue.” 592 F. 2d, at 622. The court held that SIPC and the Trustee could assert this implied cause of action on behalf of the Weis customers. We granted certiorari, 439 U. S. 979 (1978), and we now reverse.
II
The question of the existence of a statutory cause of action is, of course, one of statutory construction. Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677, 688 (1979); see National Railroad Passenger Corp. v. National Association of Railroad Passengers, 414 U. S. 453, 458 (1974) (hereinafter Amtrak). SIPC’s argument in favor of implication of a private right of action based on tort principles, therefore, is entirely misplaced. Brief for Respondent SIPC 22-23. As we recently have emphasized, “the fact that a federal statute has been violated and some person harmed does not automatically give rise to a private cause of action in favor of that person.” Cannon v. University of Chicago, supra, at 688. Instead, our task is limited solely to determining whether Congress intended to create the private right of action asserted by SIPC and the Trustee. And as with any case involving the interpretation of a statute, our analysis must begin with the language of the statute itself. Cannon v. University of Chicago, supra, at 689; Teamsters v. Daniel, 439 U. S. 551, 558 (1979); Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green, 430 U. S. 462, 472 (1977); Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc., 430 U. S. 1, 24 (1977); Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U. S. 185, 197 (1976).
At the time pertinent to the case before us, § 17 (a) read, in relevant part, as follows:
“Every national securities exchange, every member thereof,... and every broker or dealer registered pursuant to... this title, shall make, keep, and preserve for such periods, such accounts, correspondence,... and other records, and make such reports, as the Commission by its rules and regulations may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.” 15 U. S. C. § 78q (a) (1970 ed.).
In terms, § 17 (a) simply requires broker-dealers and others to keep such records and file such reports as the Commission may prescribe. It does not, by its terms, purport to create a private cause of action in favor of anyone. It is true that in the past our cases have held that in certain circumstances a private right of action may be implied in a statute not expressly providing one. But in those cases finding such implied private remedies, the statute in question at least prohibited certain conduct or created federal rights in favor of private parties. E. g., Cannon v. University of Chicago, supra (20 U. S. C. §1681); Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U. S. 454 (1975) (42 U. S. C. § 1981); Superintendent of Insurance v. Bankers Life & Cas. Co., 404 U. S. 6 (1971) (15 U. S. C. § 78j (b)); Sullivan v. Little Hunting Park, Inc., 396 U. S. 229 (1969) (42 U. S. C. § 1982); Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U. S. 544 (1969) (42 U. S. C. § 1973c); Jones v. Alfred H. Mayer Co., 392 U. S. 409 (1968) (42 U. S. C. § 1982); J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S. 426 (1964) (15 U. S. C. § 78n (a)). By contrast, § 17 (a) neither confers rights on private parties nor proscribes any conduct as unlawful.
The intent of § 17 (a) is evident from its face. Section 17 (a) is like provisions in countless other statutes that simply require certain regulated businesses to keep records and file periodic reports to enable the relevant governmental authorities to perform their regulatory functions. The reports and records provide the regulatory authorities with the necessary information to oversee compliance with and enforce the various statutes and regulations with which they are concerned. In this case, the § 17 (a) reports, along with inspections and other information, enable the Commission and the Exchange to ensure compliance with the “net capital rule,” the principal regulatory tool by which the Commission and the Exchange monitor the financial health of brokerage firms and protect customers from the risks involved in leaving their cash and securities with broker-dealers. The information contained in the § 17 (a) reports is intended to provide the Commission, the Exchange, and other authorities with a sufficiently early warning to enable them to take appropriate action to protect investors before the financial collapse of the particular broker-dealer involved. But § 17 (a) does not by any stretch of its language purport to confer private damages rights or, indeed, any remedy in the event the regulatory authorities are unsuccessful in achieving their objectives and the broker becomes insolvent before corrective steps can be taken. By its terms, § 17 (a) is forward-looking, not retrospective; it seeks to forestall insolvency, not to provide recompense after it has occurred. In short, there is no basis in the language of § 17 (a) for inferring that a civil cause of action for damages lay in favor of anyone. Cort v. Ash, 422 U. S., at 79.
As the Court of Appeals recognized, the legislative history of the 1934 Act is entirely silent on the question whether a private right of action for damages should or should not be available under § 17 (a) in the circumstances of this case. 592 F. 2d, at 622. SIPC and the Trustee nevertheless argue that because Congress did not express an intent to deny a private cause of action under § 17 (a), this Court should infer one. But implying a private right of action on the basis of congressional silence is a hazardous enterprise, at best. See Santa Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U. S. 49, 64 (1978). And 'where, as here, the plain language of the provision weighs against implication of a private remedy, the fact that there is no suggestion whatsoever in the legislative history that § 17 (a) may give rise to suits for damages reinforces our decision not to find such a right of action implicit within the section. See Cort v. Ash, supra, at 82-84; cf. Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Barbour, 421 U. S. 412 (1975); Amtrak, 414 U. S. 453 (1974); T. I. M. E. Inc. v. United States, 359 U. S. 464 (1959).
Further justification for our decision not to imply the private remedy that SIPC and the Trustee seek to establish may be found in the statutory scheme of which § 17 (a) is a part. First, § 17 (a) is flanked by provisions of the 1934 Act that explicitly grant private causes of action. § 16 (b), 15 U. S. C. § 78p (b); § 18 (a), 15 U. S. C. § 78r (a). Section 9 (e) of the 1934 Act also expressly provides a private right of action. 15 U. S. C. § 78i (e). See also § 20, 15 U. S. C. § 78t. Obviously, then, when Congress wished to provide' a private damages remedy, it knew how to do so and did so expressly. Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U. S. 723, 734 (1975); see Amtrak, supra, at 458; T. I. M. E. Inc. v. United States, supra, at 471.
Second, § 18 (a) creates a private cause of action against persons, such as accountants, who “make or cause to be made” materially misleading statements in any reports or other documents filed with the Commission, although the cause of action is limited to persons who, in reliance on the statements, purchased or sold a security whose price was affected by the statements. 15 U. S. C. § 78r (a); see Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U. S., at 211 n. 31; Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, supra, at 736. Since SIPC and the Trustee do not allege that the Weis customers purchased or sold securities in reliance on the § 17 (a) reports at issue, they cannot sue Touche Ross under § 18 (a). Instead, their claim is that the Weis customers did not get the enforcement action they would have received if the § 17 (a) reports had been accurate. SIPC and the Trustee argue that § 18 (a) cannot provide the exclusive remedy for misstatements made in § 17 (a) reports because the cause of action created by § 18 (a) is expressly limited to purchasers and sellers. They assert that Congress could not have intended in § 18 (a) to deprive customers, such as those whom they seek to represent, of a cause of action for misstatements contained in § 17 (a) reports.
There is evidence to support the view that § 18 (a) was intended to provide the exclusive remedy for misstatements contained in any reports filed with the Commission, including those filed pursuant to § 17 (a). Certainly, SIPC and the Trustee have pointed to no evidence of a legislative intent to except § 17 (a) reports from § 18 (a)’s purview. Cf. Securities Investor Protection Corp., 421 U. S., at 419-420; Amtrak, 414 U. S., at 458. But we need not decide whether Congress expressly intended § 18 (a) to provide the exclusive remedy for misstatements contained in § 17 (a) reports. For where the principal express civil remedy for misstatements in reports created by Congress contemporaneously with the passage of § 17 (a) is by its terms limited to purchasers and sellers of securities, we are extremely reluctant to imply a cause of action in § 17 (a) that is significantly broader than the remedy that Congress chose to provide. Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, supra, at 735-736; see Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, supra, at 210; Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Barbour, supra, at 421-423; Amtrak, supra, at 458; cf. T. I. M. E. Inc. v. United States, 359 U. S., at 471.
SIPC and the Trustee urge, and the Court of Appeals agreed, that the analysis should not stop here. Relying on the factors set forth in Cort v. Ash, 422 U. S., at 78, they assert that we also must consider whether an implied private remedy is necessary to "effectuate the purpose of the section” and whether the cause of action is one traditionally relegated to state law. SIPC and the Trustee contend that implication of a private remedy is essential to the goals of § 17 (a) and that enforcement of § 17 (a) is properly a matter of federal, not state, concern. Brief for Respondent Redington 30 — 35; Brief for Respondent SIPC 42-52. We need not reach the merits of the arguments concerning the “necessity” of implying a private remedy and the proper forum for enforcement of the rights asserted by SIPC and the Trustee, for we believe such inquiries have little relevance to the decision of this case. It is true that in Cort v. Ash, the Court set forth four factors that it considered “relevant” in determining whether a private remedy is implicit in a statute not expressly providing one. But the Court did not decide that each of these factors is entitled to equal weight. The central inquiry remains whether Congress intended to create, either expressly or by implication, a private cause of action. Indeed, the first three factors discussed in Cort — the language and focus of the statute, its legislative history, and its purpose, see 422 U. S., at 78 — are ones traditionally relied upon in determining legislative intent. Here, the statute by its terms grants no private rights to any identifiable class and proscribes no conduct as unlawful. And the parties as well as the Court of Appeals agree that the legislative history of the 1934 Act simply does not speak to the issue of private remedies under § 17 (a). At least in such a case as this, the inquiry ends there: The question whether Congress, either expressly or by implication, intended to create a private right of action, has been definitely answered in the negative.
Finally, SIPA and the Trustee argue that our decision in J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S. 426 (1964), requires implication of a private cause of action under § 17 (a). In Borak, the Court found in § 14 (a) of the 1934 Act, 15 U. S. C. § 78n (a), an implied cause of action for damages in favor of shareholders for losses resulting from deceptive proxy solicitations in violation of § 14 (a). SIPC and the Trustee emphasize language in Borak that discusses the remedial purposes of the 1934 Act and § 27 of the Act, which, inter alia, grants to federal district courts the exclusive jurisdiction of violations of the Act and suits to enforce any liability or duty created by the Act or the rules and regulations thereunder. They argue that Touche Ross has breached its duties under § 17 (a) and the rules adopted thereunder and that in view of § 27 and of the remedial purposes of the 1934 Act, federal courts should provide a damages remedy for the breach.
The reliance of SIPC and the Trustee on § 27 is misplaced. Section 27 grants jurisdiction to the federal courts and provides for venue and service of process. It creates no cause of action of its own force and effect; it imposes no liabilities. The source of plaintiffs’ rights must be found, if at all, in the substantive provisions of the 1934 Act which they seek to enforce, not in the jurisdictional provision. See Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Barbour, 421 U. S., at 424. The Court in Borak found a private cause of action implicit in § 14 (a). See Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S., at 690-693, n. 13; Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc., 430 U. S. at 25; Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U. S., at 557. We do not now question the actual holding of that case, but we decline to read the opinion so broadly that virtually every provision of the securities Acts gives rise to an implied private cause of action. E. g., Piper v. Chris-Craft Industries, Inc., supra.
The invocation of the “remedial purposes” of the 1934 Act is similarly unavailing. Only last Term, we emphasized that generalized references to the “remedial purposes” of the 1934 Act will not justify reading a provision “more broadly than its language and the statutory scheme reasonably permit.” SEC v. Sloan, 436 U. S. 103, 116 (1978); see Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U. S., at 200. Certainly, the mere fact that § 17 (a) was designed to provide protection for brokers’ customers does not require the implication of a private damages action in their behalf. Cannon v. University of Chicago, supra, at 688, and n. 9; Securities Investor Projection Corp. v. Barbour, supra, at 421. To the extent our analysis in today’s decision differs from that of the Court in Borah, it suffices to say that in a series of cases since Borah we have adhered to a stricter standard for the implication of private causes of action, and we follow that stricter standard today. Cannon v. University of Chicago, supra, at 688-709. The ultimate question is one of congressional intent, not one of whether this Court thinks that it can improve upon the statutory scheme that Congress enacted into law.
III
SIPC and the Trustee contend that the result we reach sanctions injustice. But even if that were the case, the argument is made in the wrong forum, for we are not at liberty to legislate. If there is to be a federal damages remedy under these circumstances, Congress must provide it. “[I]t is not for us to fill any hiatus Congress has left in this area.” Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U. S. 647, 652 (1963). Obviously, nothing we have said prevents Congress from creating a private right of action on behalf of brokerage firm customers for losses arising from misstatements contained in § 17 (a) reports. But if Congress intends those customers to have such a federal right of action, it is well aware of how it may effectuate that intent.
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.
Mr. Justice Powell took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
See, in addition to the instant case, Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U. S. 281 (1979); Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677 (1979); Southeastern Community College v. Davis, ante, p. 397; Transamerica Mortgage Advisers, Inc. v. Lewis, No. 77-1645, cert. granted, 439 U. S. 952 (1978).
In 1972, the date relevant to the instant case, § 17 (a), as set forth in 15 U. S. C. § 78q (a) (1970 ed.), read as follows:
“(a) Every national securities exchange, every member thereof, every broker or dealer who transacts a business in securities through the medium of any such member, every registered securities association, and every broker or dealer registered pursuant to section 78o of this title, shall make, keep, and preserve for such periods, such accounts, correspondence, memo-randa, papers, books, and other records, and make such reports, as the Commission by its rules and regulation's may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors. Such accounts, correspondence, memoranda, papers, books, and other records shall be subject at any time or from time to time to such reasonable periodic, special, or other examinations by examiners or other representatives of the Commission as the Commission may deem necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.”
Section 17 of the 1934 Act was substantially amended by the Securities Acts Amendments of 1975. § 14, 89 Stat. 137. The present § 17 (a) (1) contains essentially the same language as the first sentence of the 1972 version of §17 (a). Compare 15 U. S. C. § 78q (a) (1970 ed.) with 15 U. S. C. §78q (a)(1) (1976 ed.).
In Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U. S. 185, 194 n. 13 (1976), we reserved decision on the question whether the respondents in that case could assert a private cause of action against Ernst & Ernst under § 17 (a).
At the time Touche Ross performed auditing services for Weis, Commission Rule 17a-5 required Weis to file an annual report of its financial condition, including a certificate by an independent public accountant stating “clearly the opinion of the accountant with respect to the financial statement covered by the certificate and the accounting principles and practices reflected therein.” 17 CFR §§ 240.17a-5 (a), (h) (1972). See also SEC Release No. 3338 (Nov. 28, 1942), X-17A-5. The Rule also required the accountant’s certificate to contain a “reasonably comprehensive statement as to the scope of the audit made, including a statement as to whether the accountant reviewed the procedures followed for safeguarding the securities of customers,... whether the audit was made in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards applicable in the circumstances; and... whether the audit made omitted any procedure deemed necessary by the accountant under the circumstances of the particular case.” 17 CFR § 240.17a — 5 (g) (2) (1972). Nothing in the Rule was to be interpreted to imply authority to omit any procedure the accountant ordinarily would employ in the course of an audit made for the purpose of expressing the opinions required by the Rule. § 240.17a-5 (g) (3). Weis was required to attach an oath or affirmation to the report that the financial statements were true and correct. § 240.17a-5 (b) (2). The Commission has amended Rule 17a-5 since 1972. See 17 CFR § 240-17a-5 (1978).
Some months later, several of Weis’ officers were indicted, in part, for a conspiracy to violate and a number of substantive violations of the recordkeeping and reporting regulations adopted by the Commission under § 17 (a). United States v. Levine, 73 Crim. 693 (SDNY); see United States v. Solomon, 509 F. 2d 863, 865 (CA2 1975). Four of the defendants pleaded guilty to at least one substantive count; the other was found guilty of one substantive count. Ibid.
SIPC is a nonprofit organization of securities dealers established by Congress in 1970 in the Securities Investor Protection Act. 15 U. S. C. § 78ccc. SIPC maintains a fund, supported by assessments of its members, which is used to compensate, up to specified limits, customers of brokerage firms who incur losses as a result of broker insolvencies. §§ 78ddd, 78fff (f). If SIPC determines that a member has failed or is in danger of failing to meet its obligations to customers and finds any one of five specified conditions indicating possible financial instability, it may apply to a court of competent jurisdiction for a decree adjudicating that the customers of such member are in need of the protection afforded by the Act. § 78eee (a) (2). SIPA also provides procedures for the liquidation of brokerage firms when required. § 78fff. See generally Securities Investor Protection Corp. v. Barbour, 421 U. S. 412, 415-418 (1975).
At the time Weis was liquidated, property on hand permitted the Trustee to return to the Weis customers 67% of the property they should have received. 592 P. 2d 617, 620 n. 6 (CA2 1978). Subsequent marshaling of assets and recoveries in other litigation apparently have reduced the amount of the deficit in the fund of customer property. Brief for Respondent Redington 10 n. 5. The Weis customer accounts were protected by SIPA up to a maximum of $50,000 for each customer, except that cash claims were limited to $20,000. 15 U. S. C. § 78fff (f).
Approximately one year prior to institution of this action in federal court, SIPC and the Trustee commenced a nearly identical suit against Touche Ross in New York state court. Redington v. Touche Ross & Co., Index No. 13996/76 (N. Y. S. Ct., N. Y. County). The parties, factual allegations, claims, and requests for damages are the same in the state-court action as they are in the federal suit, except that there is no claim in the state-court action under § 17 (a). Touche Ross has begun discovery in the state-court action, but otherwise it has remained virtually inactive since the filing of the complaint. 592 F. 2d, at 620 n. 7.
In the District Court’s view, § 17 (a) was essentially a bookkeeping provision. By its terms, it did not impose any duty on accountants and did not “create any rights in anybody.” 428 F. Supp., at 489, 491. By contrast, the court noted that § 18 (a) of the 1934 Act, 15 U. S. C. § 78r (a), did create an express private right of action for damages arising from materially misleading statements in any report filed pursuant to the 1934 Act in favor of any person who, in reliance on the statements, purchased or sold a security whose price was affected by the statements. See n. 12, infra. SIPC and the Trustee could not sue under § 18 (a) because neither they nor Weis’ customers had bought or sold stock in reliance on the reports Touche Ross had prepared and certified. In view of § 18 (a), the court declined to infer a private right of action under § 17 (a) broader than the express remedy Congress had created in the very next section of the Act. The court concluded that the subject matter, titles, and juxtaposition of the two sections “strongly suggest a legislative intent that the only private claim for a violation of Section 17 was the claim created in Section 18.” 428 F. Supp., at 489.
The District Court also held that since the § 17 (a) claim should be dismissed, there was no basis for exercising pendent jurisdiction over the common-law claims, and that there was no other basis for exercising subject-matter jurisdiction over the common-law claims. 428 F. Supp., at 492-493. None of these latter rulings are before us.
The court rejected the District Court’s conclusion that § 18 (a) was intended to be the exclusive remedy for violation of § 17 (a). Because, in the court’s view, it was plain that brokers’ customers were the “favored wards” of § 17 (a), it could not agree that “Congress simultaneously sought to protect a class and deprived the class [by virtue of § 18’s limiting language] of the means of protection.” 592 F. 2d, at 623. The court held that the Trustee could assert the § 17 (a) action on behalf of the Weis customers as “bailee” of the customer property that he was unable to return, and that SIPC could sue on behalf of the customers as “subrogee” of the customers whose claims it had paid. 592 F. 2d, at 624-625. The court also held that the Trustee could not maintain the § 17 (a) action in its own right, and it reserved decision on whether “SIPC could ever have a claim for damages other than on behalf of a broker’s customers.” 592 F. 2d, at 624, and n. 13. The court remanded the case to the District Court for consideration of whether to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the state actions in light of the Court of Appeals’ ruling on § 17 (a) and whether to stay the federal action pending determination of the state action. 592 F. 2d, at 619 n. 3, 625. Since we hold that the Court of Appeals wrongly implied a private federal claim under § 17 (a), it is unnecessary to reach these other' rulings by the Court of Appeals.
See, e. g., Study of Unsafe and Unsound Practices of Brokers and Dealers, Report and Recommendations of the Securities and Exchange Commission, H. R. Doc. No. 92-231, pp. 7-8, 15, 22, 24 (1971); Exchange Act Release No. 11497 (1975); National Assn, of Securities Dealers, Inc., 12 S. E. C. 322, 329 n. 9 (1942). The net capital rule requires a broker to maintain a certain minimum ratio of net capital to aggregate indebtedness so that the broker’s assets will always be sufficiently liquid to enable him to meet all of his current obligations. See 15 U. S. C. § 78o- (c) (3) ; 17 CFR § 240.15c3-l (1978).
A number of provisions of the 1934 Act provide the Commission with the authority needed to enforce the reporting requirements of § 17 (a) and the rules adopted thereunder. E. g., § 15 (b) (4), 15 U. S. C. § 78o (b) (4) (authorizes institution of administrative proceedings and imposition of sanctions against brokers for, inter alia, materially misleading statements in reports or applications required to be filed with the Commission); § 21, 15 U. S. C. § 78u (allows Commission to investigate and enjoin violations and to refer violations to the Attorney General for possible prosecution); § 32, 15 U. S. C. § 78ff (authorizes criminal sanctions for violations of statute and rules and for materially misleading statements in reports or documents required to be filed by the statute or rules); see n. 4, supra.
What legislative history there is of § 17 (a) simply confirms our belief that § 17 (a) was intended solely to be an integral part of a system of preventative reporting and monitoring, and not to provide
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Title 38 U. S. C. § 3404(c) limits to $10 the fee that may be paid an attorney or agent who represents a veteran seeking benefits for service-connected death or disability. The United States District Court for the Northern District of California held that this limit violates the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and the First Amendment, because it denies veterans or their survivors the opportunity to retain counsel of their choice in pursuing their claims. We noted probable jurisdiction of the Government’s appeal, 469 U. S. 1085 (1984), and we now reverse.
I — I
Congress has by statute established an administrative system for granting service-connected death or disability benefits to veterans. See 38 U. S. C. § 301 et seq. The amount of the benefit award is not based upon need, but upon service connection — that is, whether the disability is causally related to an injury sustained in the service — and the degree of incapacity caused by the disability. A detailed system has been established by statute and Veterans’ Administration (VA) regulation for determining a veteran’s entitlement, with final authority resting with an administrative body known as the Board of Veterans’ Appeals (BVA). Judicial review of VA decisions is precluded by statute. 38 U. S. C. § 211(a); Johnson v. Robison, 415 U. S. 361 (1974). The controversy in this case centers on the opportunity for a benefit applicant or recipient to obtain legal counsel to aid in the presentation of his claim to the VA. Section 3404(c) of Title 38 provides:
“The Administrator shall determine and pay fees to agents or attorneys recognized under this section in allowed claims for monetary benefits under laws administered by the Veterans’ Administration. Such fees—
“(2) shall not exceed $10 with respect to any one claim...
Section 3405 provides criminal penalties for any person who charges fees in excess of the limitation of § 3404.
Appellees here are two veterans’ organizations, three individual veterans, and a veteran’s widow. The two veterans’ organizations are the National Association of Radiation Survivors, an organization principally concerned with obtaining compensation for its members for injuries resulting from atomic bomb tests, and Swords to Plowshares Veterans Rights Organization, an organization particularly devoted to the concerns of Vietnam veterans. The complaint contains no further allegation with respect to the numbers of members in either organization who are veteran claimants. Appellees did not seek class certification.
Appellees contended in the District Court that the fee limitation provision of § 3404 denied them any realistic opportunity to obtain legal representation in presenting their claims to the VA and hence violated their rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment and under the First Amendment. The District Court agreed with the appellees on both of these grounds, and entered a nationwide “preliminary injunction” barring appellants from enforcing the fee limitation. 589 F. Supp. 1302 (1984). To understand fully the posture in which the case reaches us it is necessary to discuss the administrative scheme in some detail.
Congress began providing veterans pensions in early 1789, and after every conflict in which the Nation has been involved Congress has, in the words of Abraham Lincoln, “provided for him who has borne the battle, and his widow and his orphan.” The VA was created by Congress in 1930, and since that time has been responsible for administering the congressional program for veterans’ benefits. In 1978, the year covered by the report of the Legal Services Corporation to Congress that was introduced into evidence in the District Court, approximately 800,000 claims for service-connected disability or death and pensions were decided by the 58 regional offices of the VA. Slightly more than half of these were claims for service-connected disability or death, and the remainder were pension claims. Of the 800,000 total claims in 1978, more than 400,000 were allowed, and some 379,000 were denied. Sixty-six thousand of these denials were contested at the regional level; about a quarter of these contests were dropped, 15% prevailed on reconsideration at the local level, and the remaining 36,000 were appealed to the BVA. At that level some 4,500, or 12%, prevailed, and another 13% won a remand for further proceedings. Although these figures are from 1978, the statistics in evidence indicate that the figures remain fairly constant from year to year.
As might be expected in a system which processes such a large number of claims each year, the process prescribed by Congress for obtaining disability benefits does not contemplate the adversary mode of dispute resolution utilized by courts in this country. It is commenced by the submission of a claim form to the local veterans agency, which form is provided by the VA either upon request or upon receipt of notice of the death of a veteran. Upon application a claim generally is first reviewed by a three-person “rating board” of the VA regional office — consisting of a medical specialist, a legal specialist, and an “occupational specialist.” A claimant is “entitled to a hearing at any time on any issue involved in a claim....” 38 CFR §3.103(c) (1984). Proceedings in front of the rating board “are ex parte in nature,” §3.103(a); no Government official appears in opposition. The principal issues are the extent of the claimant’s disability and whether it is service connected. The board is required by regulation “to assist a claimant in developing the facts pertinent to his claim,” § 3.103(a), and to consider any evidence offered by the claimant. See §3.103(b). In deciding the claim the board generally will request the applicant’s Armed Service and medical records, and will order a medical examination by a VA hospital. Moreover, the board is directed by regulation to resolve all reasonable doubts in favor of the claimant. §3.102.
After reviewing the evidence the board renders a decision either denying the claim or assigning a disability “rating” pursuant to detailed regulations developed for assessing various disabilities. Money benefits are calculated based on the rating. The claimant is notified of the board’s decision and its reasons, and the claimant may then initiate an appeal by filing a “notice of disagreement” with the local agency. If the local agency adheres to its original decision it must then provide the claimant with a “statement of the case” — a written description of the facts and applicable law upon which the board based its determination — so that the claimant may adequately present his appeal to the BVA. Hearings in front of the BVA are subject to the same rules as local agency hearings — they are ex parte, there is no formal questioning or cross-examination, and no formal rules of evidence apply. 38 CFR §19.157 (1984). The BVA’s decision is not subject to judicial review. 38 U. S. C. § 211(a).
The process is designed to function throughout with a high degree of informality and solicitude for the claimant. There is no statute of limitations, and a denial of benefits has no formal res judicata effect; a claimant may resubmit as long as he presents new facts not previously forwarded. See 38 CFR §§3.104, 3.105 (1984). Although there are time limits for submitting a notice of disagreement and although a claimant may prejudice his opportunity to challenge factual or legal decisions by failing to challenge them in that notice, the time limit is quite liberal — up to one year — and the VA boards are instructed to read any submission in the light most favorable to the claimant. See 38 CFR §§19.129, 19.124, 19.121 (1984). Perhaps more importantly for present purposes, however, various veterans’ organizations across the country make available trained service agents, free of charge, to assist claimants in developing and presenting their claims. These service representatives are contemplated by the VA statute, 38 U. S. C. § 3402, and they are recognized as an important part of the administrative scheme. Appellees’ counsel agreed at argument that a representative is available for any claimant who requests one, regardless of the claimant’s affiliation with any particular veterans’ group.
In support of their claim that the present statutory and administrative scheme violates the Constitution, appellees submitted affidavits and declarations of 16 rejected claimants or recipients and 24 practicing attorneys, depositions of several VA employees, and various exhibits. The District Court held a hearing and then issued a 52-page opinion and order granting the requested “preliminary injunction.”
With respect to the merits of appellees’ due process claim, the District Court first determined that recipients of service-connected death and disability benefits possess “property” interests protected by the Due Process Clause, see Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319 (1976) (recipients of Social Security benefits possess a protected “property” interest), and also held that applicants for such benefits possess such an interest. Although noting that this Court has never ruled on the latter question, the court relied on several opinions of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit holding, with respect to similar Government benefits, that applicants possess such an interest. See, e. g., Ressler v. Pierce, 692 F. 2d 1212, 1214-1216 (1982) (applicants for federal rent subsidies).
The court then held that appellees had a strong likelihood of showing that the administrative scheme violated the due process rights of those entitled to benefits. In holding that the process described above was “fundamentally unfair,” the court relied on the analysis developed by this Court in Mathews v. Eldridge, swpra, in which we stated the factors that must be weighed in determining what process is due an individual subject to a deprivation:
“First, the private interest that will be affected by the official action; second, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, and the probable value, if any, of additional or substitute procedural safeguards; and finally, the Government’s interest, including the function involved and the fiscal and administrative burdens that the additional or substitute procedural requirement would entail.” 424 U. S., at 335.
In applying this test the District Court relied heavily on appellees’ evidence; it noted that the veterans’ interest in receiving benefits was significant in that many recipients are disabled, and totally or primarily dependent on benefits for their support. 589 F. Supp., at 1315. With respect to the likelihood of error under the present system, and the value of the additional safeguard of legal representation, it first noted that some of the appellees had been represented by service agents and had been dissatisfied with their representation, and had sought and failed to obtain legal.counsel due solely to the fee limitation. The court found that absent expert legal counsel claimants ran a significant risk of forfeiting their rights, because of the highly complex issues involved in some cases. VA processes, the court reasoned, allow claimants to waive points of disagreement on appeal, or to waive appeal altogether by failing to file the notice of disagreement; in addition, claimants simply are not equipped to engage in the factual or legal development necessary in some cases, or to spot errors made by the administrative boards. Id., at 1319-1321.
With respect to whether the present process alleviated these problems, the court found that “neither the VA officials themselves nor the service organizations are providing the full array of services that paid attorneys might make available to claimants.” Id., at 1320. Even assuming that all VA personnel were willing to go out of their way for each claimant, a point which the court would not fully accept, the court found that in any event the VA does not have the resources to permit the substantial investments of time that are necessary. The VA does not seek independent testimony that might establish service connection, or independent medical examinations with respect to disability.
In reaching its conclusions the court relied heavily on the problems presented by what it described as “complex cases” — a class of cases also focused on in the depositions. Though never expressly defined by the District Court, these cases apparently include those in which a disability is slow developing and therefore difficult to find service connected, such as the claims associated with exposure to radiation or harmful chemicals, as well as other cases identified by the deponents as involving difficult matters of medical judgment. Nowhere in the opinion of the District Court is there any estimate of what percentage of the annual VA caseload of 800,000 these cases comprise, nor is there any more precise description of the class. There is no question but what the 3 named plaintiffs and the plaintiff veteran’s widow asserted such claims, and in addition there are declarations in the record from 12 other claimants who were asserting such claims. The evidence contained in the record, however, suggests that the sum total of such claims is extremely small; in 1982, for example, roughly 2% of the BVA caseload consisted of “agent orange” or “radiation” claims, and what evidence there is suggests that the percentage of such claims in the' regional offices was even less — perhaps as little as 3 in 1,000.
With respect to the service representatives, the court again found the representation unsatisfactory. Although admitting that this was not due to any “lack of dedication,” the court found that a heavy caseload and the lack of legal training combined to prevent service representatives from adequately researching a claim. Facts are not developed, and “it is standard practice for service organization representatives to submit merely a one to two page handwritten brief.” Id., at 1322.
Based on the inability of the VA and service organizations to provide the full range of services that a retained attorney might, the court concluded that appellees had demonstrated a “high risk of erroneous deprivation” from the process as administered. Ibid. The court then found that the Government had “failed to demonstrate that it would suffer any harm if the statutory fee limitation... were lifted.” Id., at 1323. The only Government interest suggested was the “paternalistic” assertion that the fee limitation is necessary to ensure that claimants do not turn substantial portions of their benefits over to unscrupulous lawyers. The court suggested that there were “less drastic means” to confront this problem.
Finally, the court agreed with appellees that there was a substantial likelihood that the fee limitation also violates the First Amendment. The court relied on this Court’s decisions in Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Assn., 389 U. S. 217 (1967), and Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia ex rel. Virginia State Bar, 377 U. S. 1 (1964), as establishing “the principle that the First Amendment rights to petition, association and speech protect efforts by organizations and individuals to obtain effective legal representation of their constituents or themselves.” 589 F. Supp., at 1324. This right to “adequate legal representation” or “meaningful access to courts,” the court found, was infringed by the fee limitation — again without substantial justification by the Government. Id., at 1325-1326.
After reiterating the Government’s failure of proof with respect to the likely harms arising from doing away with the fee limitation, the court entered a “preliminary injunction” enjoining the Government appellants from “enforcing or attempting to enforce in any way the provisions of 38 U. S. C. §§3404-3405....” Id., at 1329. The injunction was not limited to the particular plaintiffs, nor was it limited to claims processed in the District of Northern California, where the court sits.
II
Before proceeding to the merits we must deal with a significant question as to our jurisdiction, one not raised by appellees in this Court. This appeal was taken under 28 U. S. C. § 1252, which grants this Court jurisdiction “from an interlocutory or final judgment, decree or order of any court of the United States... holding an Act of Congress unconstitutional in any civil action... to which the United States or any of its agencies, or any officer or employee thereof, as such officer or employee, is a party.” We have here an interlocutory decree in a civil action to which an officer of the United States is a party, and the only question is whether the District Court’s decision “holds” an Act of Congress unconstitutional. The problem, of course, is that given that the court’s opinion and order are cast in terms of a “preliminary injunction” the court only states that there is a “high likelihood of success” on the merits of appellees’ claims, and does not specifically state that the fee limitation provision is unconstitutional.
We do not write on a clean slate. In McLucas v. DeChamplain, 421 U. S. 21 (1975), this Court similarly entertained an appeal from an order that granted a preliminary injunction and in the process held an Act of Congress unconstitutional. In holding that we had jurisdiction under § 1252 we noted that that section constitutes an “exception” to “the policy... of minimizing the mandatory docket of this Court,” and we went on to state:
“It might be argued that, in deciding to issue the preliminary injunction, the District Court made only an interlocutory determination of appellee’s probability of success on the merits and did not finally ‘hold’ the article unconstitutional. By its terms, however, § 1252 applies to interlocutory as well as final judgments, decrees, and orders, and this Court previously has found the section properly invoked when the court below has made only an interlocutory determination of unconstitutionality, at least if, as here, that determination forms the necessary predicate to the grant or denial of preliminary equitable relief.” Id., at 30.
We think this case is controlled by McLucas. It is true that in McLucas the District Court actually stated its holding that the statute was unconstitutional, whereas here the court’s statements are less direct. But that is merely a semantic difference in this case; inasmuch as any conclusions reached at the preliminary injunction stage are subject to revision, University of Texas v. Camenisch, 451 U. S. 390, 395 (1981), it should make little difference whether the court stated conclusively that a statute was unconstitutional, or merely said it was likely, so long as the injunction granted enjoined the statute’s operation. This Court’s appellate jurisdiction does not turn on such semantic niceties. See also California v. Grace Brethren Church, 457 U. S. 393, 405 (1982) (“§ 1252 provides jurisdiction even though the lower court did not expressly declare a federal statute unconstitutional...”).
Indeed, we note that the problem raised by the statute’s use of the word “holding” may in any event be a bit of a red herring. In its original form § 1252 provided this Court with appellate jurisdiction over decisions “against the constitutionality of any Act of Congress,” see Act of Aug. 24, 1937, ch. 754, § 2, 50 Stat. 752; although this language was changed when the provision was codified in 1948, so that § 1252 now grants jurisdiction from a decision “holding any Act of Congress unconstitutional,” this change was effected without substantive comment, and absent such comment it is generally held that a change during codification is not intended to alter the statute’s scope. See Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U. S. 454, 467-474 (1975). Any fair reading of the decision at issue would conclude that it is “against the constitutionality” of §3404, and we are loath to read an unheralded change in phraseology to divest us of jurisdiction here.
Finally, acceptance of appellate jurisdiction in this case is in accord with the purpose of the statutory grant. Last Term, in Heckler v. Edwards, 465 U. S. 870 (1984), we discussed § 1252’s legislative history. We noted that in enacting § 1252 Congress sought to identify a category of important decisions adverse to the constitutionality of an Act of Congress — which decisions, because the United States or its agent was a party, had implications beyond the controversy then before the court — and to provide an expeditious means for ensuring certainty and uniformity in the enforcement of such an Act by establishing direct review over such decisions in this Court. Id., at 879-883. Edwards teaches that the decisions Congress targeted for appeal under § 1252 were those which involved the exercise of judicial power to impair the enforcement of an Act of Congress on constitutional grounds, and that it was the constitutional question that Congress wished this Court to decide. As we pointed out in McLucas, §1252 contemplates that this impairment can arise from interlocutory decrees, just as the original statute provided for appeal from decisions in “any proceedings.” Cf. Goldstein v. Cox, 396 U. S. 471, 476 (1970) (28 U. S. C. § 1253 authorizes direct appeals from preliminary injunctions issued by three-judge courts). A single district judge’s interlocutory decision on constitutional grounds that an Act of Congress should not be enforced frustrates the will of Congress in the short run just as surely as a final decision to that effect. By § 1252 Congress gave the Government the right of immediate appeal to this Court in such a situation so that only those district court injunctions which had been reviewed and upheld by this Court would continue to have such an effect. Cf. Edwards, swpra. The injunction at issue here creates precisely the problem to which § 1252 was addressed, inasmuch as it enjoins the operation of the fee limitation on constitutional grounds, across the country and under all circumstances. Thus, whether or not the injunction here is framed as a “holding” of unconstitutionality we believe we have jurisdiction under § 1252.
HH I — i ► — I
Judging the constitutionality of an Act of Congress is properly considered “ ‘the gravest and most delicate duty that this Court is called upon to perform,’” Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U. S. 57, 64 (1981) (quoting Blodgett v. Holden, 275 U. S. 142, 148 (1927) (Holmes, J.)), and we begin our analysis here with no less deference than we customarily must pay to the duly enacted and carefully considered decision of a coequal and representative branch of our Government. Indeed one might think, if anything, that more deference is called for here; the statute in question for all relevant purposes has been on the books for over 120 years. Cf. McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 401-402 (1819). This deference to congressional judgment must be afforded even though the claim is that a statute Congress has enacted effects a denial of the procedural due process guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment. Schweiker v. McClure, 456 U. S. 188 (1982); Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S., at 349. We think that the District Court went seriously awry in assessing the constitutionality of §3404.
Appellees’ first claim, accepted by the District Court, is that the statutory fee limitation, as it bears on the administrative scheme in operation, deprives a rejected claimant or recipient of “life, liberty or property, without due process of law,” U. S. Const., Arndt. 5, by depriving him of representation by expert legal counsel. Our decisions establish that “due process” is a flexible concept — that the processes required by the Clause with respect to the termination of a protected interest will vary depending upon the importance attached to the interest and the particular circumstances under which the deprivation may occur. See Mathews, supra, at 334; Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471, 481 (1972). In defining the process necessary to ensure “fundamental fairness” we have recognized that the Clause does not require that “the procedures used to guard against an erroneous deprivation... be so comprehensive as to preclude any possibility of error,” Mackey v. Montrym, 443 U. S. 1, 13 (1979), and in addition we have emphasized that the marginal gains from affording an additional procedural safeguard often may be outweighed by the societal cost of providing such a safeguard. See Mathews, 424 U. S., at 348.
These general principles are reflected in the test set out in Mathews, which test the District Court purported to follow, and which requires a court to consider the private interest that will be affected by the official action, the risk of an erroneous deprivation of such interest through the procedures used, the probable value of additional or substitute procedural safeguards, and the government’s interest in adhering to the existing system. Id., at 335. In applying this test we must keep in mind, in addition to the deference owed to Congress, the fact that the very nature of the due process inquiry indicates that the fundamental fairness of a particular procedure does not turn on the result obtained in any individual case; rather, “procedural due process rules are shaped by the risk of error inherent in the truth-finding process as applied to the generality of cases, not the rare exceptions.” Id., at 344; see also Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 612-613 (1979).
The Government interest, which has been articulated in congressional debates since the fee limitation was first enacted in 1862 during the Civil War, has been this: that the system for administering benefits should be managed in a sufficiently informal way that there should be no need for the employment of an attorney to obtain benefits to which a claimant was entitled, so that the claimant would receive the entirety of the award without having to divide it with a lawyer. See United States v. Hall, 98 U. S. 343, 352-355 (1879). This purpose is reinforced by a similar absolute prohibition on compensation of any service organization representative. 38 U. S. C. 3402(b)(1). While Congress has recently considered proposals to modify the fee limitation in some respects, a Senate Committee Report in 1982 highlighted that body’s concern that “any changes relating to attorneys’ fees be made carefully so as not to induce unnecessary retention of attorneys by VA claimants and not to disrupt unnecessarily the very effective network of non-attorney resources that has evolved in the absence of significant attorney involvement in VA claims matters.” S. Rep. No. 97-466, p. 49 (1982). Although this same Report professed the Senate’s belief that the original stated interest in protecting veterans from unscrupulous lawyers was “no longer tenable,” the Senate nevertheless concluded that the fee limitation should with a limited exception remain in effect, in order to “protect claimants’ benefits” from being unnecessarily diverted to lawyers.
In the face of this congressional commitment to the fee limitation for more than a century, the District Court had only this to say with respect to the governmental interest:
“The government has neither argued nor shown that lifting the fee limit would harm the government in any way, except as the paternalistic protector of claimants’ supposed best interests. To the extent the paternalistic role is valid, there are less drastic means available to ensure that attorneys’ fees do not deplete veterans’ death or disability benefits.” 589 F. Supp., at 1323.
It is not for the District Court or any other federal court to invalidate a federal statute by so cavalierly dismissing a long-asserted congressional purpose. If “paternalism” is an insignificant Government interest, then Congress first went astray in 1792, when by its Act of March 23 of that year it prohibited the “sale, transfer or mortgage... of the pension... [of a] soldier... before the same shall become due.” Ch. 11, § 6, 1 Stat. 245. Acts of Congress long on the books, such as the Fair Labor Standards Act, might similarly be described as “paternalistic”; indeed, this Court once opined that “[statutes of the nature of that under review, limiting the hours in which grown and intelligent men may labor to earn their living, are mere meddlesome interferences with the rights of the individual....” Lochner v. New York, 198 U. S. 45, 61 (1905). That day is fortunately long gone, and with it the condemnation of rational paternalism as a legitimate legislative goal.
There can be little doubt that invalidation of the fee limitation would seriously frustrate the oft-repeated congressional purpose for enacting it. Attorneys would be freely employable by claimants to veterans’ benefits, and the claimant would as a result end up paying part of the award, or its equivalent, to an attorney. But this would not be the only consequence of striking down the fee limitation that would be deleterious to the congressional plan.
A necessary concomitant of Congress’ desire that a veteran not need a representative to assist him in making his claim was that the system should be as informal and nonadversarial as possible. This is not to say that complicated factual inquiries may be rendered simple by the expedient of informality, but surely Congress desired that the proceedings be as informal and nonadversarial as possible. The regular introduction of lawyers into the proceedings would be quite unlikely to further this goal. Describing the prospective impact of lawyers in probation revocation proceedings, we said in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 778, 787-788 (1973):
“The introduction of counsel into a revocation proceeding will alter significantly the nature of the proceeding. If counsel is provided for the probationer or parolee, the State in turn will normally provide its own counsel; lawyers, by training and disposition, are advocates and bound by professional duty to present all available evidence and arguments in support of their clients’ positions and to contest with vigor all adverse evidence and views. The role of the hearing body itself... may become more akin to that of a judge at a trial, and less attuned to the rehabilitative needs of the individual.... Certainly, the decisionmaking process will be prolonged, and the financial cost to the State — for appointed counsel,... a longer record, and the possibility of judicial review — will not be insubstantial.”
We similarly noted in Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539, 570 (1974), that the use of counsel in prison disciplinary proceedings would “inevitably give the proceedings a more adversary cast....”
Knowledgeable and thoughtful observers have made the same point in other language:
“To be sure, counsel can often perform useful functions even in welfare cases or other instances of mass justice; they may bring out facts ignored by or unknown to the authorities, or help to work out satisfactory compromises. But this is only one side of the coin. Under our adversary system the role of counsel is not to make sure the truth is ascertained but to advance his client’s cause by any ethical means. Within the limits of professional propriety, causing delay and sowing confusion not only are his right but may be his duty. The appearance of counsel for the citizen is likely to lead the government to provide one — or at least to cause the government’s representative to act like one. The result may be to turn what might have been a short conference leading to an amicable result into a protracted controversy.
“These problems concerning counsel and confrontation inevitably bring up the question whether we would not do better to abandon the adversary system in certain areas of mass justice.... While such an experiment would be a sharp break with our tradition of adversary process, that tradition, which has come under serious general challenge from a thoughtful and distinguished judge, was not formulated for a situation in which many thousands of hearings must be provided each month.” Friendly, “Some Kind of Hearing,” 123 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1267, 1287-1290 (1975).
Thus, even apart from the frustration of Congress’ principal goal of wanting the veteran to get the entirety of the award, the destruction of the fee limitation would bid fair to complicate a proceeding which Congress wished to keep as simple as possible. It is scarcely open to doubt that if claimants were permitted to retain compensated attorneys the day might come when it could be said that an attorney might indeed be necessary to present a claim properly in a system rendered more adversary and more complex by the very presence of lawyer representation. It is only a small step beyond that to the situation in which the claimant who has a factually simple and obviously deserving claim may nonetheless feel impelled to retain an attorney simply because so many other claimants retain attorneys. And this additional complexity will undoubtedly engender greater administrative costs, with the end result being that less Government money reaches its intended beneficiaries.
We accordingly conclude that under the Mathews v. Eldridge analysis great weight must be accorded to the Government interest at stake here. The flexibility of our approach in due process cases is intended in part to allow room for other forms of dispute resolution; with respect to the individual interests at stake here, legislatures are to be allowed considerable leeway to formulate such processes without being forced to conform to a rigid constitutional code of procedural necessities. See Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S., at 608, n. 16. It would take an extraordinarily strong showing of probability of error under the present system — and the probability that the presence of attorneys would sharply diminish that possibility — to warrant a holding that the fee limitation denies claimants due process of law. We have no hesitation in deciding that no such showing was made out on the record before the District Court.
As indicated by the statistics set out earlier in this opinion, more than half of the 800,000 claims processed annually by the VA result in benefit awards at the regional level. An additional 10,000 claims succeed on request for reconsideration at the regional level, and of those that do not, 36,000 are appealed to the BVA. Of these, approximately 16% succeed before the BVA. It is simply not possible to determine on this record whether any of the claims of the named plaintiffs, or of other declarants who are not parties to the action, were wrongfully rejected at the regional level or by the BVA, nor is it possible to quantify the “erroneous deprivations” among the general class of rejected claimants. If one regards the decision of the BVA as the “correct” result in every case, it follows that the regional determination against the claimant is “wrong” in the 16% of the cases that are reversed by the Board.
Passing the problems with quantifying the likelihood of an erroneous deprivation, however, under Mathews we must also ask what value the proposed additional procedure may have in reducing such error. In this case we are fortunate to have statistics that bear directly on this question, which statistics were addressed by the District Court. These unchallenged statistics chronicle the success rates before the BVA depending on the type of representation of the claimant, and are summarized in the following figures taken from the record. App. 568.
Ultimate Success Rates Before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals by Mode of Representation
American Legion. 16.2%
American Red Cross. 16.8%
Disabled American Veterans. 16.6%
Veterans of Foreign Wars. 16.7%
Other nonattorney. 15.8%
No representation. 15.2%
Attorney/Agent. 18.3%
The District Court opined that these statistics were not helpful, because in its view lawyers were retained so infrequently that no body of lawyers with an expertise in VA practice had developed, and lawyers who represented veterans regularly might do better than lawyers who represented them only pro bono on a sporadic basis. The District Court felt that a more reliable index of the effect lawyers would have on the proceedings was a statistical study showing success of various representatives in appeals to discharge review boards in the uniformed services — statistics that showed a significantly higher success rate for those claimants represented by lawyers as compared to those claimants not so represented.
We think the District Court
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
Petitioner applied for suspension of an order directing his deportation to Korea or permitting his voluntary departure. He does not question the validity of the deportation order, but contends that he is within the eligible statutory class whose deportation may be suspended at the discretion of the Attorney General. § 19 (c) of the Immigration Act of 1917, as amended. Relief on this score was denied on the basis that the Attorney General has no power to exercise his discretion in that regard since petitioner failed to prove his eligibility under that section and the Internal Security Act of 1950.
Before the hearing officer, petitioner was asked if he was a member of the Communist Party. He refused to answer, claiming the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The officer refused the suspension on the grounds that petitioner had failed to prove that he was a person of good moral character and that he had not met the statutory requirement of showing that he was not a member of or affiliated with the Communist Party. The Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed on the latter ground, as did the Court of Appeals. 263 F. 2d 773.
Petitioner contends that he presented “clear affirmative evidence” as to eligibility which stands uncontradicted and that the burden was on the Government to show his affiliations, if any, with the Party. He contends that the disqualifying factor of Communist Party membership is an exception to § 19 (c) which the Government must prove. We think not. Rather than a proviso, it is an absolute disqualification, since that class of aliens is carved out of the section at its very beginning by the words “other than one to whom subsection (d) of this section is applicable.” Subsection (d) referred to aliens deportable under the Act of October 16, 1918. Section 22 of the Internal Security Act of 1950 amended the 1918 Act to include Communists, and thus terminated the discretionary authority under § 19 (c) as ta any alien who was deportable because of membership in the Communist Party; Petitioner offered no evidence on this point, although the regulations place on him the burden of proof as to “the statutory requirements precedent to the exercise of discretionary relief.” 8 CFR, 1949 ed., § 151.3 (e), as amended, 15 Fed. Reg. 7638. This regulation is corn-pletely consistent with § 19 (c). The language of that section, in contrast with the statutory provisions governing deportation, imposes the general burden of proof upon the applicant.
It follows that an applicant for suspension, “a matter of discretion and of administrative grace,” Hintopoulos v. Shaughnessy, 353 U. S. 72, 77 (1957), must, upon the request of the Attorney General, supply such information that is within his knowledge and has a direct bearing on his eligibility under the statute. The Attorney General may, of course, exercise his authority of grace through duly delegated agents. Jay v. Boyd, 351 U. S. 345 (1956). Perhaps the petitioner was justified in his personal refusal to answer — a question we do not pass upon — but this did not relieve him under the statute of the burden of establishing the authority of the Attorney General to exercise his discretion in the first place.
, _ Affirmed.
Section 19 (c) provided, in relevant part:
“In the case of any alien (other than one to whom subsection (d) of this section is applicable) who is deportable under any law of the United States and who has proved good moral character for the preceding five years, the Attorney General may ... (2) suspend deportation of such alien if he is not ineligible for naturalization . . . if he finds . . . (b) that such alien has resided continuously in the United States for seven years or more and is residing in the United States upon the effective date of this Act. ...” 8 U. S. C. (1946 ed., Supp. II) § 155 (c).
Section 19 (d), as amended:
“The provisions of subsection (c) shall not be applicable in the case of any alien who is deportable under (1) the Act of October 16, 1918 (40 Stat. 1008; U. S. C., title 8, sec. 137), entitled ‘An Act to exclude and expel from the United States aliens who are members of the anarchist and similar classes,’ as amended . . . .” 54 Stat. 672, 8 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) §155 (d).
The Act of October 16, 1918, c. 186, 40 Stat. 1012, as amended by the Internal Security Act of 1950, c. 1024, § 22, 64 Stat. 1006-1008, provided in pertinent part:
“Any alien who is a member of any one of the following classes shall be excluded from admission into the United States:
“ (2) Aliens who, at any time, shall be or shall have been members of any of the following classes:
“(C) Aliens who are members of or affiliated with (i) the Commu- ' nist Party of the United States, (ii) any other totalitarian party of the United States, (iii) the Communist Political Association, (iv) the Communist or other totalitarian party of any State of the United States, of any foreign state, or of any political or geographical subdivision of any foreign state; (v) any section, subsidiary, branch, affiliate, or subdivision of any such association or party; or (vi) the direct predecessors or successors of any such association or party, regardless of what name such group or organization may have used, may now bear, or may hereafter adopt;
“Sec. 4. (a) Any alien who was at the time of entering the United States, or has been at any time thereafter, ... a member of any one of the classes of aliens enumerated in section 1 (2) of this Act, shall, upon the warrant of the Attorney General, be taken into custody and deported ....’’
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This case arises from five related lawsuits that challenge a determination adopted by the Acting Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). The determination, announced by the Acting Secretary, is to take immediate steps to rescind a program known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, by March 5, 2018. The Acting Secretary stated that her determination was based in part on the Attorney General's conclusion that DACA is unlawful and likely would be enjoined in potentially imminent litigation.
The five suits were filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and the plaintiffs in those actions are the respondents in the matter now before this Court. The defendants in the District Court, and the petitioners here, include the Government of the United States, the Acting Secretary, and the President of the United States, all referred to here as the Government.
In the District Court litigation respondents argue that the Acting Secretary's determination to rescind DACA in the near future is unlawful because, among other reasons, it violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) and the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment, including the equal protection guarantee implicit in that Clause.
The issue to be considered here involves respondents' contention that the administrative record the Government filed to support the Acting Secretary's determination to rescind DACA is incomplete. The record consists of 256 pages of documents, and the Government contends that it contains all of the nondeliberative material considered by the Acting Secretary in reaching her determination. (Nearly 200 pages consist of published opinions from various federal courts.)
On October 17, the District Court, on respondents' motion, ordered the Government to complete the administrative record. See Regents of Univ. of Cal. v. Department of Homeland Security , App. C to Pet. for Mandamus, 2017 WL 4642324 (N.D.Cal., Oct. 17, 2017) (District Court Order). The details of that order are recounted further below. See infra , at 3.
The Government petitioned for a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Court of Appeals, in a divided opinion, denied the Government's petition. See 875 F.3d 1200 (2017).
On November 19, three days after the Court of Appeals issued its opinion, respondents moved the District Court to stay its order requiring completion of the administrative record until after the District Court resolved the Government's motion to dismiss and respondents' motion for a preliminary injunction. See Motion to Stay in No. 17-cv-5211 (Nov. 19, 2017), Doc. 190. The District Court did not grant respondents' request, instead staying its order for one month.
Still objecting to the District Court's order, the Government now seeks relief in this Court. It has filed here a petition for a writ of mandamus to the District Court, or, in the alternative, for a writ of certiorari to the Court of Appeals.
The Court now grants the petition for a writ of certiorari, vacates the order of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, and remands the case.
The District Court's October 17 order requires the Government to turn over all "emails, letters, memoranda, notes, media items, opinions and other materials" that fall within the following categories:
"(1) all materials actually seen or considered, however briefly, by Acting Secretary [Elaine] Duke in connection with the potential or actual decision to rescind DACA ..., (2) all DACA-related materials considered by persons (anywhere in the government) who thereafter provided Acting Secretary Duke with written advice or input regarding the actual or potential rescission of DACA, (3) all DACA-related materials considered by persons (anywhere in the government) who thereafter provided Acting Secretary Duke with verbal input regarding the actual or potential rescission of DACA, (4) all comments and questions propounded by Acting Secretary Duke to advisors or subordinates or others regarding the actual or potential rescission of DACA and their responses, and (5) all materials directly or indirectly considered by former Secretary of DHS John Kelly leading to his February 2017 memorandum not to rescind DACA." District Court Order, 2017 WL 4642324, at *8.
The Government makes serious arguments that at least portions of the District Court's order are overly broad. (The Government appears to emphasize certain materials in categories 2, 3, and 4.) Under the specific facts of this case, the District Court should have granted respondents' motion on November 19 to stay implementation of the challenged October 17 order and first resolved the Government's threshold arguments (that the Acting Secretary's determination to rescind DACA is unreviewable because it is "committed to agency discretion," 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2), and that the Immigration and Nationality Act deprives the District Court of jurisdiction). Either of those arguments, if accepted, likely would eliminate the need for the District Court to examine a complete administrative record.
On remand of the case, the Court of Appeals shall take appropriate action so that the following steps can be taken. The District Court should proceed to rule on the Government's threshold arguments and, in doing so, may consider certifying that ruling for interlocutory appeal under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b) if appropriate. Thereafter, the Court of Appeals or the District Court in the first instance may consider whether narrower amendments to the record are necessary and appropriate. In any event, the District Court may not compel the Government to disclose any document that the Government believes is privileged without first providing the Government with the opportunity to argue the issue.
This order does not suggest any view on the merits of respondents' claims or the Government's defenses, or that the District Court's rulings on the Government's motion to dismiss and respondents' motion for preliminary injunction should be delayed.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
On November 7, 1968, after having been granted immunity, petitioner refused to answer questions put to him before a duly convened Kings County, N. Y., grand jury which was investigating a murder conspiracy. On March 18, 1969, petitioner refused to obey a court order to return to testify before the same grand jury in connection with the same investigation. On that date, petitioner was adjudicated in contempt of court under N. Y. Jud. Law § 750 (1968) for his failure to testify before the grand jury; and, on March 21, 1969, after declining an offer to purge his contempt, petitioner was sentenced to a flat 30-day term in civil jail. Petitioner served his sentence.
On June 10, 1970, petitioner was indicted for his refusal to answer questions before the grand jury on November 7, 1968. After asserting unsuccessfully that this indictment should be dismissed under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution, petitioner pleaded guilty to the indictment and was sentenced on his plea.
Petitioner appealed, claiming that the Double Jeopardy Clause precluded the State from haling him into court on the charge to which he had pleaded guilty. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, declining to address the double jeopardy claim on the merits. It held, relying, inter alia, on Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U. S. 258 (1973), that the double jeopardy claim had been “waived” by petitioner’s counseled plea of guilty.
We reverse. Where the State is precluded by the United States Constitution from haling a defendant into court on a charge, federal law requires that a conviction on that charge be set aside even if the conviction was entered pursuant to a counseled plea of guilty. Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U. S. 21, 30 (1974). The motion for leave to proceed in forma pawperis and the petition for certiorari are granted, and the case is remanded to the New York Court of Appeals for a determination of petitioner’s double jeopardy claim on the merits, a claim on which we express no view.
So ordered.
The State concedes that petitioner’s double jeopardy claim is a strong one on the merits. In light of the flat 30-day sentence imposed, the earlier contempt adjudication was a criminal conviction, People v. Colombo, 31 N. Y. 2d 947, 293 N. E. 2d 247 (1972), on remand from Colombo v. New York, 405 U. S. 9 (1972), and New York law supports the proposition that the earlier conviction was based, at least in part, on the failure to answer questions on November 7, 1968, and was thus for the same crime as the one charged in the instant indictment. In re Capio v. Justices of the Supreme Court, 41 App. Div. 2d 235, 342 N. Y. S. 2d 100 (1973), aff’d, 34 N. Y. 2d 603, 310 N. E. 2d 547 (1974); People v. Matra, 42 App; Div. 2d 865, 346 N. Y. S. 2d 872 (1973).
Neither Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U. S. 258 (1973), nor our earlier cases on which it relied, e. g., Brady v. United States, 397 U. S. 742 (1970), and McMann v. Richardson, 397 U. S. 759 (1970), stand for the proposition that counseled guilty pleas inevitably “waive” all antecedent constitutional violations. If they did so hold, the New York Court of Appeals might be correct. However, in Tollett we emphasized that waiver was not the basic ingredient of this line of cases, 411 U. S., at 266. The point of these cases is that a counseled plea of guilty is an admission of factual guilt so reliable that, where voluntary and intelligent, it quite validly removes the issue of factual guilt from the case. In most cases, factual guilt i's a sufficient basis for the State’s imposition of punishment. A guilty plea, therefore, simply renders irrelevant those constitutional violations not logically inconsistent with the valid establishment of factual guEt and which do not stand in the way of conviction, if factual guilt is validly established. Here, however, the claim is that the State may not convict petitioner no matter how validly his factual guEt is established. The guilty plea, therefore, does not bar the claim.
We do not hold that a double jeopardy claim may never be waived. We simply hold that a plea of guilty to a charge does not waive a claim that — judged on its face — the charge is one which the State may not constitutionally prosecute.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The owner of an economic interest in a mineral deposit is allowed a special deduction from taxable income measured by a percentage of his gross income derived from exhaustion of the mineral. This deduction, codified in §§611 and 613 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, is designed to compensate such owners for the exhaustion of their interest in a wasting asset, the mineral in place. This case presents the question whether that “percentage depletion” allowance must be denied to otherwise eligible lessees of underground coal because their leases were subject to termination by the lessor on 30 days’ notice.
This question arises out of three different tax refund suits that were decided by the Court of Claims in a single opinion. 221 Ct. Cl. 246, 602 F. 2d 348. The controlling facts are essentially the same in all three cases. Each taxpayer operated a coal mine pursuant to a written lease; in exchange for a fixed royalty per ton, the lessor granted the lessee the right to extract coal and to sell it at prices determined by the lessee. Each lease contained a clause permitting the lessor to terminate the lease on 30 days’ notice. In fact, however, none of the lessors exercised that right; each lessee mined a substantial tonnage of coal during an uninterrupted operation that continued for several years. The proceeds from the sale of the coal represented the only revenue from which the lessees recovered the royalties paid to the lessors.
In each of the cases, certain additional facts help to illuminate the issue. In the Black Hawk case the lease was to continue “during the term commencing on the first day of March, 1964, and terminating when LESSEE shall have exhausted all of The Feds Creek (or Clintwood) Seam of coal, ... or until said tenancy shall be earlier terminated . . . .” App. 77a. The lease required Black Hawk to pay a royalty of 25 cents per ton of coal or $5,000 per year, whichever was larger. Id., at 77a-78a. In addition, the lease required Black Hawk to pay all taxes on the underground coal, as well as the taxes on its plant and equipment and on mined coal. Id., at 79a. Black Hawk paid independent contractors a fixed price per ton to remove the coal, and Black Hawk was free to sell the coal to any party at whatever price it could obtain. Black Hawk mined the seam to exhaustion, operating continuously under the lease for 13 years. Id., at 70a-71a. The Government stipulated that Black Hawk was the sole claimant to the percentage depletion deduction; no claim had been made by the lessor or by any independent mining contractor employed by Black Hawk. Id., at 71a.
The Swank case involves two separate leases executed by Swank and Northumberland County, Pa., pursuant to which Swank operated mines on land owned by the county. The first lease, a deep-mining lease executed in 1964, was terminated in 1968 after a mountain slide forced Swank to close the mine. Id., at 52a. The second, a strip-mining lease executed in 1966, was still being operated by Swank’s successor in interest in 1977 when the case was tried. During the tax years in dispute, Swank’s royalty payments to the county at the rate of 35 cents per ton amounted to $7,545.10 in 1966 and $6,854.05 in 1967. Id., at 53a. The deduction for depletion, which was based on the gross income received from the sale of the coal, was significantly larger. The record also indicates that Swank invested significant sums in the construction of access roads, the acquisition of equipment, and the purchase and improvement of a “tipple” — the surface structure that is used to remove slate and rock from the mined product and to sort the coal into specific sizes for marketing. Id., at 55a-56a.
The Bull Run case involves a 5-year lease executed in 1967 and renewed in 1972. Id., at 90a-91a. Unlike the leases in the other cases, it gave the lessor a right of first purchase if it was willing to meet the lessee’s price, and in the tax year in dispute the lessor did purchase all of the coal mined by Bull Run. 221 Ct. Cl., at 249, n. 4, 602 F. 2d, at 350, n. 4. The lease did not, however, limit the lessee’s right to set selling prices or to sell to others who were willing to pay more than the lessor. Ibid. Like the lease in Black Hawk, the lease provided for a royalty of 25 cents per ton. App. 91a. As is also true in both Black Hawk and Swank, there is no suggestion that any other party has made any claim to any part of the percentage depletion allowance at issue in this case. See id., at 92a. The Bull Run lease, like the others, contained a provision giving the lessor the right to cancel on 30 days’ written notice.
I
Since 1913 the Internal Revenue Code or its predecessors have provided special deductions for depletion of wasting assets. We have explained these deductions as resting “on the theory that the extraction of minerals gradually exhausts the capital investment in the mineral deposit/’ and therefore the depletion allowance permits “a recoupment of the owner’s capital investment in the minerals so that when the minerals are exhausted, the owner’s capital is unimpaired.” Commissioner v. Southwest Exploration Co., 350 U. S. 308, 312. The percentage depletion allowance, however, is clearly more than a method of enabling the operator of a coal mine to recover the amount he has paid for the unmined coal. Because the deduction is computed as a percentage of his gross income from the mining operation and is not computed with reference to the operator’s investment, it provides a special incentive for engaging in this line of business that goes well beyond a purpose of merely allowing the owner of a wasting asset to recoup the capital invested -in that asset. As the Court said in Southwest Exploration Co., supra:
“The present allowance, however, bears little relationship to the capital investment, and the taxpayer is not limited to a recoupment on his original investment. The allowance continues so long as minerals are extracted, and even though no money was actually invested in the deposit. The depletion allowance in the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 [the forerunner of the present statute] is solely a matter of congressional grace . . . .” 350 U. S., at 312.
Hence eligibility for the deduction is determined not by the amount of the capital investment but by the mine operator’s “economic interest” in the coal.
A recognition that the percentage depletion allowance is more than merely a recovery of the cost of the unmined coal is especially significant in this case. The question here is whether a deduction for the asset depleted by respondents will be received by anyone. The tax consequences of the lessors’ receipt of royalties will not be affected, either favorably or unfavorably, by our decision in this case. The Government therefore is not contending that the wrong party is claiming the percentage depletion allowance. Rather, the Government takes the position that no such deduction shall be allowed to any party if the legal interest of the lessee-operator is subject to cancellation on short notice.
II
The language of the controlling statute makes no reference to the minimum duration of the interest in mineral deposits on which a taxpayer may base his claim to percentage depletion. The relevant Treasury Regulation merely requires the taxpayer to have an “economic interest” in the unmined coal. That term is broadly defined by regulation as follows:
“(b) Economic interest. (1) Annual depletion deductions are allowed only to the owner of an economic interest in mineral deposits or standing timber. An economic interest is possessed in every case in which the taxpayer has acquired by investment any interest in mineral in place or standing timber and secures, by any form of legal relationship, income derived from the extraction of the mineral or severance of the timber, to which he must look for a return of his capital.”
The Government’s argument that the termination clause deprived the lessees of an economic interest is advanced in two forms. First, the Government notes that the regulation distinguishes a mere “economic advantage” from a depleta-ble “economic interest,” and argues that two cases — Parsons v. Smith, 359 U. S. 215, and Paragon Jewel Coal Co. v. Commissioner, 380 U. S. 624 — in which the Court concluded that mining contractors had only an “economic advantage” rather than an “economic interest” in coal deposits — support the conclusion that these lessees also had a mere “economic advantage.” Second, the Government argues as a matter of “practical economics” that the right to terminate gives the lessor the only significant economic interest in the coal. Neither submission is persuasive.
The- Parsons opinion covered two consolidated cases with similar facts. In each the owner of coal-bearing land entered into a contract with the taxpayer providing that the taxpayer would strip-mine the coal and deliver it to the owner for a fixed price per ton. Neither of the contracts purported to give the mining contractor any interest in the coal, either before or after it was mined, or any right to sell it to third parties. See 359 U. S., at 216-219. The contracts were terminable on short notice and terminability was one of the seven factors the Court listed to support its conclusion that the independent contractors did not have an economic interest in the coal. It is perfectly clear, however, that the Court would have reached the same conclusion if that factor had not been present.
The facts in the Paragon Jewel case were much like those in Parsons, except that the mining contractors dealt with lessees instead of the owners of the underground coal. As in Parsons, the contractors agreed to mine the coal at their own expense and deliver it to Paragon’s tipple at a fixed fee per ton. The contractors had no control over the coal after delivery to Paragon, had no responsibility for its sale or in fixing its price, and did not even know the price at which Paragon sold the coal. 380 U. S., at 628. The Court stated that the Commissioner took the position that
“only a taxpayer with a legally enforceable right to share in the value of a mineral' deposit has a depletable capital or economic interest in that deposit and the contract miners in this case had no such interest in the unmined coal.” Id., at 627.
The Court agreed that the miners did not have an economic interest in the coal:
“Here, Paragon was bound to pay the posted fee regardless of the condition of the market at the time of the particular delivery and thus the contract miners did not look to the sale of the coal for a return of their investment, but looked solely to Paragon to abide by its covenant.” Id., at 635.
Thus in Paragon Jewel Coal Co., as in Parsons, the termina-bility of the agreements was not the dispositive factor, and neither case answers the narrow question before us in this case.
The contrast between the interest of the contractors in Parsons and Paragon Jewel and the lessees in these cases is stark. Whereas those contractors never acquired any legal interest in the coal, the lessees in these cases had a legal interest in the mineral both before and after it was mined, and were free to sell the coal at whatever price the market could bear. Indeed, the Government does not contend that, absent the termination clauses, the lessees would not have had an economic interest in the coal. In contrast, it seems clear that the contract miners’ interest in the Parsons and Paragon Jewel cases would have been insufficient even if their agreements had been for a fixed term.
The Government, however, does argue that the lessors’ right to terminate the leases alone made the taxpayers’ interest so tenuous as to defeat a claim to the percentage depletion deduction. According to the Government, as a matter of “practical economics” an increase in the price of the minerals will “assuredly” lead to an exercise of the lessors’ right to terminate; accordingly, the only significant economic interest is controlled by the lessor. We find this theoretical argument unpersuasive for at least three reasons.
First, the royalty rate is a relatively small element of the mine operator’s total cost. Therefore, even if the price of coal increases, the lessor cannot be certain that he will be able to negotiate a more favorable lease with another lessee. Moreover, the quantity of coal extracted by the operator each year may be as important in providing royalties for the lessor as the rate per ton. Purely as a theoretical matter, it therefore is by no means certain that an increase in the price of coal will induce a lessor to terminate a satisfactory business relationship. Indeed, the only evidence in the record — the history of three different operations that were uninterrupted for many years — tends to belie the Government’s entire argument.
Second, from the standpoint of the taxpayer who did in fact conduct a prolonged and continuous operation, it would seem rather unfair to deny him a tax benefit that is available to his competitors simply because he accepted a business risk — the risk of termination — that his competitors were able to avoid when they negotiated their mining leases. It is unlikely that Congress intended to limit the availability of the percentage depletion deduction to the mining operations with the greatest bargaining power.
Third, and most important, the Government has not suggested any rational basis for linking the right to a depletion deduction to the period of time that the taxpayer operates a mine. If the authorization of a special tax benefit for mining a seam of coal to exhaustion is sound policy, that policy would seem equally sound whether the entire operation is conducted by one taxpayer over a prolonged period or by a series of taxpayers operating for successive shorter periods. The Government has suggested no reason why the efficient removal of a great quantity of coal in less than 30 days should have different tax consequences than the slower removal of the same quantity over a prolonged period.
The Court of Claims correctly concluded that the mere existence of the lessors’ unexercised right to terminate these leases did not destroy the taxpayers’ economic interest in the leased mineral deposits.
The judgment is
Ҥ 611. Allowance of deduction for depletion
“(a) General Rule
“In the case of mines, oil and gas wells, other natural deposits, and timber, there shall be allowed as a deduction in computing taxable income a reasonable allowance for depletion and for depreciation of improvements, according to the peculiar conditions in each case; such reasonable allowance in all cases to be made under regulations prescribed by the Secretary. . . .” 26 U. S. C. §611 (a).
Ҥ 613. Percentage depletion
“(a) General Rule
“In the case of the mines, wells, and other natural deposits listed in subsection (b), the allowance for depletion under section 611 shall be the percentage, specified in subsection (b), of the gross income from the property excluding from such gross income an amount equal to any rents or royalties paid or incurred by the taxpayer in respect of the property. Such allowance shall not exceed 50 percent of the taxpayer’s taxable income from the property (computed without allowance for depletion). . . . In no case shall the allowance for depletion under section 611 be less than it would be if computed without reference to this section.
“(b) Percentage depletion rates
“The mines, wells, and other natural deposits, and the percentages, referred to in subsection (a) are as follows:
“(4) 10 percent
“Asbestos, . . . brucite, coal, lignite, perlite, sodium chloride, and wollastonite.” 26 U. S. C. §§613 (a), (b)(4).
Black Hawk Coal Corp., Inc., operated drift mines in Pike County, Ky. Its refund suit covered the tax years 1970-1972.
The Government states that the depletion deductions claimed by Swank in 1966 and 1967 amounted to $41,371.24 and $15,204.32. Brief for United States 3. See also App. 8a-9a. No other party claimed the depletion deduction on coal mined by Swank.
Bull Run Mining Co. operated in West Virginia. In its brief, Bull Run states that the leased coal was mined to exhaustion in September 1978. Brief for Respondent Bull Run Mining Co. 2.
Bull Run claimed a depletion deduction of $39,981.41 for 1974, the tax year in question. App. 92a.
The relevant section of the lease provides:
“5. CANCELLATION. It is agreed between the parties that either party to this agreement may cancel this lease upon giving to the other party a written notice at least thirty (30) days prior to the effective date of said cancellation. If any coal is mined during said thirty (30) day period, the same shall be paid for the same as if said notice were not given, and upon the expiration of said thirty (30) days, Lessee agrees to deliver the possession of said premises to the Lessor. Upon such cancellation becoming effective, Lessor shall reasonably compensate Lessee for the then fair market value of track, conveyors, dumps, bins, motors and other equipment which Lessee shall have affixed to the premises, and if the parties cannot agree upon such compensation, Lessee shall have a period of four (4) months within which to remove his equipment, from the effective date of cancellation.” Id., at 96a.
In Helvering v. Bankline Oil Co., 303 U. S. 362, 366, the Court explained that the deduction “is permitted in recognition'of the fact that the mineral deposits are wasting assets and is intended as compensation to the owner for the part used up in production.”
The Swank case is illustrative of the nature of the depletion deduction. We can determine from the fact that Swank paid royalties of $7,545.10 in 1966 and $6,854.05 in 1967 that Swank mined roughly the same amount of coal in both years, 21,557 tons in 1966 and 19,585 tons in 1967. Thus Swank could apparently claim a depletion allowance of about $1.92 per ton in 1966 and about 78 cents per ton in 1967. Inasmuch as the depletion allowance is a percentage of gross income, these figures — which suggest that the selling price of the coal may have been almost as high as $20 a ton — indicate the lack of any specific relationship between the lessee’s cost of the raw coal and the value of the depletion allowance.
In the Revenue Act of 1918, the capital to be recovered through the depletion allowance was not determined by the owner’s investment in the minerals but rather was measured by the fair market value of the property at the date the mineral deposits were “discovered.” See Revenue Act of 1918, ch. 18, §§214 (a) (10), 234 (a)(9), 40 Stat. 1068, 1078. Although this method of determining the depletion allowance was changed to the percentage depletion method for oil and gas in 1926, Revenue Act of 1926, ch. 27, §204 (c), 44 Stat. (part 2) 16, and for coal in 1932, Revenue Act of 1932, ch. 209, § 114 (b)(4), 47 Stat. 203, this Court, in Helvering v. Bankline Oil Co., su-pra, at 366-367, recognized that “[t]he granting of an arbitrary deduction ... of a percentage of gross income was in the interest of convenience and in no way altered the fundamental theory of the allowance.” Thus since 1918 the depletion deduction has not been limited to a recoupment of the operator’s investment.
The Court developed the “economic interest” test in Palmer v. Bender, 287 U. S. 551. In Palmer, the Court stated:
“The language of the statute is broad enough to provide, at least, for every case in which the taxpayer has acquired, by investment, any interest in the oil in place, and secures, by any form of legal relationship, income derived from the extraction of the oil, to which he must look for a return of his capital.” Id., at 557.
The Government argues that the Court of Claims erred in concluding that a consequence of the Government’s position is that no one will receive the percentage depletion deduction. See 221 Ct. Cl. 246, 251, 602 F. 2d 348, 351; Brief for United States 22-23. This argument is not persuasive.
Under § 631 (c) of the Internal Revenue Code, the lessor is required to treat his royalty income as a capital gain and is not entitled to claim a percentage depletion deduction. Section 631 (c) provides in pertinent part:
“In the case of the disposal of coal (including lignite), or iron ore mined in the United States, held for more than 1 year before such disposal, by the owner thereof under any form of contract by virtue of which such owner retains an economic interest in such coal or iron ore, the difference between the amount realized from the disposal of such coal or iron ore and the adjusted depletion basis thereof plus the deductions disallowed for the taxable year under section 272 shall be considered as though it were a gain or loss, as the case may be, on the sale of such coal or iron ore. Such owner shall not be entitled to the allowance for percentage depletion provided in section 618 with respect to such coal or iron ore. This subsection shall not apply to income realized by any owner as a co-adventurer, partner, or principal in the mining of such coal or iron ore, and the word 'owner’ means any person who owns an economic interest in coal or iron ore in place, including a sublessor.” 26 U. S. C. § 631 (c) (1976 ed., Supp. Ill) (emphasis added).
Unlike the percentage depletion deduction, the capital gains treatment required by § 631 (c) is directly related to the lessor’s capital investment in the mine. Because the lessor’s gain is measured by the difference between his cost, computed on a per ton basis, and his royalty, he of course recoups his capital investment as the coal is mined. In this sense, he receives “cost depletion.” The difference between the lessor’s “cost depletion” and the lessee’s “percentage depletion” is indicated by the record in the Swank case. In 1966 the royalty payments amounted to $7,545.10; a part of that amount was the lessor’s capital gain and the remainder was his “cost depletion.” In contrast, the “percentage depletion” claimed by the lessee amounted to $41,371.24. The amounts are not in dispute. Thus, contrary to the Government’s argument, the provision of capital gains treatment to the lessor does not indicate that the percentage depletion deduction, which we have characterized as a form of “congressional grace,” will be available to some other party if it cannot be claimed by the lessee. See n. 12, infra.
The Government conceded at oral argument that the lessor’s entitlement to the capital gain treatment of the royalty proceeds would be the same regardless of whether the lessee is entitled to percentage depletion. Tr. of Oral Arg. 16. Moreover, the Government also conceded that even if the lessees had a long-term lease and were clearly entitled to the depletion allowance, the lessors would nevertheless have .a retained economic interest in the coal. Id., at 16-18. Therefore, the lessors would be required by § 631 (c) to take capital gains rather than a depletion deduction regardless of whether we hold that the lessee is entitled to the percentage depletion deduction.
Although these cases involve provisions for cancellation on 30 days’ notice, the Government advises us that it takes the same position with respect- to any lease cancellable on less than one year’s notice. Tr. of Oral Arg. 8. This position has its genesis in G. C. M. 26290, 1950-1 Cum. Bull. 42, declared obsolete, Rev. Rui. 70-277, 1970-1 Cum. Bull. 280. See also Rev. Rui. 74-507, 1974-2 Cum. Bull. 179.
See n. 1, supra.
The Court early recognized that lessees had an economic interest in the mines:
“It is, of course, true that the leases here under review did not convey title to the unextracted ore deposits . . . ; but it is equally true that such leases, conferring upon the lessee the exclusive possession of the deposits and the valuable right of removing and reducing the ore to ownership, created a very real and substantial interest therein. . . . And there can be no doubt that such an interest is property.” Lynch v. Alworth-Stephens Co., 267 U. S. 364, 369.
Treas. Reg. §1.611-1 (b), 26 CFR § 1.611-1 (b) (1980).
The regulation provides an example of such an “economic advantage”:
“[A]n agreement between the owner of an economic interest and another entitling the latter to purchase or process the product upon production or entitling the latter to compensation for extraction or cutting does not convey a depletable economic interest.” Ibid.
The Court listed the seven factors in this paragraph:
“To recapitulate, the asserted fiction is opposed to the facts (1) that petitioners’ investments were in their equipment, all of which was movable — not in the coal in place; (2) that their investments in equipment were recoverable through depreciation — not depletion; (3) that the contracts were completely termmable without cause on short notice; (4) that the landowners did not agree to surrender and did not actually surrender to petitioners any capital interest in the coal in place; (5) that the coal at all times, even after it was mined, belonged entirely to the landowners, and that petitioners could not sell or keep any of it but were required to deliver all that they mined to the landowners; (6) that petitioners were not to have any part of the proceeds of the sale of the coal, but, on the contrary, they were to be paid a fixed sum for each ton mined and delivered, which was, as stated in Huss, agreed to be in 'full compensation for the full performance of all work and for the furnishing of all [labor] and equipment required for the work’; and (7) that petitioners, thus, agreed to look only to the landowners for all sums to become due them under their contracts. The agreement of the landowners to pay a fixed sum per ton for mining and delivering the coal 'was a personal covenant and did not purport to grant [petitioners] an interest in the [coal in place].’ Helvering v. O’Donnell, 303 U. S. 370, 372. Surely these facts show that petitioners did not actually make any capital investment in, or acquire any economic interest in, the coal in place, and that they may not fictionally be regarded as having done so.” 359 U. S., at 225 (emphasis added).
Although this fee varied depending on the general trends of the market price and labor costs, the Court noted that such changes “were always prospective, the contractors being notified several days in advance of any change so that they always knew the amount they would get for the mining of the coal upon delivery.” 380 U. S., at 628.
With respect to the terminability issue, although no specific right to terminate was mentioned in the-agreement, the Paragon Jewel Court concluded that because the contractors had apparently been able to terminate at will, such a power should also be imputed to Paragon. The Court indicated, however, that even if the agreements were not terminable at will, the “right to mine to exhaustion, without more, does not constitute an economic interest under Parsons.” Id., at 634.
Another distinguishing feature of Paragon Jewel is that that case really presented an issue respecting which taxpayer — the contract miner or the lessee — should receive the depletion allowance. See id., at 626, 630; id., at 639-649 (Goldberg, J., dissenting). The fact that the existence of a right to terminate is relevant in what is essentially a dispute between the parties to the contract surely does not support the conclusion that such an unexercised right has any bearing on the question whether any taxpayer may claim percentage depletion.
“Although he has a potential right to benefit from a rise in the market, that right is illusory for practical economies will compel the lessor to terminate the lease and conclude a more favorable arrangement if market conditions so dictate.” Brief for United States 19.
“As we have pointed out (supra, page 19), if the market price of the minerals rises above the lessor’s royalty, the lessor will assuredly exercise his right to terminate the lease on short notice and will either enter into a more profitable lease or extract the mineral himself and sell it. In these circumstances, the lease provision permitting termination on short notice gives the lessor the unilateral right to assume complete and unfettered dominion over the mineral deposit, viz., an economic interest in the minerals in place. The unexercised termination clause therefore has profound economic significance, rather than, as the decision below erroneously concluded (Pet. App. 5a), 'mere existence.’ ” Id., at 21-22 (footnotes omitted).
In Swank, for example, the royalty payment was 35 cents per ton, while the price of coal apparently approached $20 per ton. See n. 8, supra.
The Court of Claims opinion also recognized the weakness of this argument. The court stated that counsel for one of the taxpayers at oral argument had noted that the lessors had not terminated even though the value of coal had increased markedly. The taxpayer argued that lessors would be reluctant to terminate because “the costs of continuing with an existing mine are usually so great, comparatively, that it is difficult for a lessor to obtain new lessees at terms more favorable to the lessors than the existing leases.” 221 Ct. Cl., at 251, n. 9, 602 F. 2d, at 351, n. 9. The court did not accept these representations as evidence but indicated that “the record contains nothing to contradict this explanation for what seems to be the fact that leases of this type have not been regularly cancelled by lessors in recent years.” Ibid.
As we have indicated, the depletion deduction is geared to the depletion of the mineral in place, and not to the taxpayer’s capital investment. Therefore, we can perceive no reason to impose duration requirements on the availability of the deduction for taxpayers who admittedly otherwise have an “economic interest” in the coal, are dependent on the market to recover their costs, and are actually depleting the mineral in place.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Parents of black public school children allege in this nationwide class action that the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) has not adopted sufficient standards and procedures to fulfill its obligation to deny tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private schools. They assert that the IRS thereby harms them directly and interferes with the ability of their children to receive an education in desegregated public schools. The issue before us is whether plaintiffs have standing to bring this suit. We hold that they do not.
I
The IRS denies tax-exempt status under §§ 501(a) and (c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U. S. C. §§ 501(a) and (c)(3) — and hence eligibility to receive charitable contributions deductible from income taxes under §§ 170(a)(1) and (c)(2) of the Code, 26 U. S. C. §§ 170(a)(1) and (c)(2) — to racially discriminatory private schools. Rev. Rui. 71-447, 1971-2 Cum. Bull. 230. The IRS policy requires that a school applying for tax-exempt status show that it “admits the students of any race to all the rights, privileges, programs, and activities generally accorded or made available to students at that school and that the school does not discriminate on the basis of race in administration of its educational policies, admissions policies, scholarship and loan programs, and athletic and other school-administered programs. ” Ibid. To carry out this policy, the IRS has established guidelines and procedures for determining whether a particular school is in fact racially nondiscriminatory. Rev. Proc. 75-50, 1975-2 Cum. Bull. 587. Failure to comply with the guidelines “will ordinarily result in the proposed revocation of” tax-exempt status. Id., §4.08, p. 589.
The guidelines provide that “[a] school must show affirmatively both that it has adopted a racially nondiscriminatory policy as to students that is made known to the general public and that since the adoption of that policy it has operated in a bona fide manner in accordance therewith.” Id., §2.02. The school must state its nondiscrimination policy in its organizational charter, id., §4.01, pp. 587-588, and in all of its brochures, catalogs, and other advertisements to prospective students, id., §4.02, p. 588. The school must make its nondiscrimination policy known to the entire community served by the school and must publicly disavow any contrary representations made on its behalf once it becomes aware of them. Id., §4.03. The school must have nondiscriminatory policies concerning all programs and facilities, id., §4.04, p. 589, including scholarships and loans, id., §4.05, and the school must annually certify, under penalty of perjury, compliance with these requirements, id., §4.07.
The IRS rules require a school applying for tax-exempt status to give a breakdown along racial lines of its student body and its faculty and administrative staff, id., §5.01-1, as well as of scholarships and loans awarded, id., §5.01-2. They also require the applicant school to state the year of its organization, id., §5.01-5, and to list “incorporators, founders, board members, and donors of land or buildings,” id., §5.01-3, and state whether any of the organizations among these have an objective of maintaining segregated public or private school education, id., §5.01-4. The rules further provide that, once given an exemption, a school must keep specified records to document the extent of compliance with the IRS guidelines. Id., §7, p. 590. Finally, the rules announce that any information concerning discrimination at a tax-exempt school is officially welcomed. Id., §6.
In 1976 respondents challenged these guidelines and procedures in a suit filed in Federal District Court against the Secretary of the Treasury and the Commissioner of Internal Revenue. The plaintiffs named in the complaint are parents of black children who, at the time the complaint was filed, were attending public schools in seven States in school districts undergoing desegregation. They brought this nationwide class action “on behalf of themselves and their children, and... on behalf of all other parents of black children attending public school systems undergoing, or which may in the future undergo, desegregation pursuant to court order [or] HEW regulations and guidelines, under state law, or voluntarily.” App. 22-23. They estimated that the class they seek to represent includes several million persons. Id., at 23.
Respondents allege in their complaint that many racially segregated private schools were created or expanded in their communities at the time the public schools were undergoing desegregation. Id., at 23-24. According to the complaint, many such private schools, including 17 schools or school systems identified by name in the complaint (perhaps some 30 schools in all), receive tax exemptions either directly or through the tax-exempt status of “umbrella” organizations that operate or support the schools. Id., at 23-38. Respondents allege that, despite the IRS policy of denying tax-exempt status to racially discriminatory private schools and despite the IRS guidelines and procedures for implementing that policy, some of the tax-exempt racially segregated private schools created or expanded in desegregating districts in fact have racially discriminatory policies. Id., at 17-18 (IRS permits “schools to receive tax exemptions merely on the basis of adopting and certifying — but not implementing — a policy of nondiscrimination”); id., at 25 (same). Respondents allege that the IRS grant of tax exemptions to such racially discriminatory schools is unlawful.
Respondents allege that the challenged Government conduct harms them in two ways. The challenged conduct
“(a) constitutes tangible federal financial aid and other support for racially segregated educational institutions, and
“(b) fosters and encourages the organization, operation and expansion of institutions providing racially segregated educational opportunities for white children avoiding attendance in desegregating public school districts and thereby interferes with the efforts of federal courts, HEW and local school authorities to desegregate public school districts which have been operating racially dual school systems.” Id., at 38-39.
Thus, respondents do not allege that their children have been the victims of discriminatory exclusion from the schools whose tax exemptions they challenge as unlawful. Indeed, they have not alleged at any stage of this litigation that their children have ever applied or would ever apply to any private school. See Wright v. Regan, 211 U. S. App. D. C. 281, 238, 656 F. 2d 820, 827 (1981) (“Plaintiffs... maintain they have no interest whatever in enrolling their children in a private school”). Rather, respondents claim a direct injury from the mere fact of the challenged Government conduct and, as indicated by the restriction of the plaintiff class to parents of children in desegregating school districts, injury to their children’s opportunity to receive a desegregated education. The latter injury is traceable to the IRS grant of tax exemptions to racially discriminatory schools, respondents allege, chiefly because contributions to such schools are deductible from income taxes under §§ 170(a)(1) and (c)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code and the “deductions facilitate the raising of funds to organize new schools and expand existing schools in order to accommodate white students avoiding attendance in desegregating public school districts.” App. 24.
Respondents request only prospective relief. Id., at 40-41. They ask for a declaratory judgment that the challenged IRS tax-exemption practices are unlawful. They also ask for an injunction requiring the IRS to deny tax exemptions to a considerably broader class of private schools than the class of racially discriminatory private schools. Under the requested injunction, the IRS would have to deny tax-exempt status to all private schools
“which have insubstantial or nonexistent minority enrollments, which are located in or serve desegregating public school districts, and which either—
“(1) were established or expanded at or about the time the public school districts in which they are located or which they serve were desegregating;
“(2) have been determined in adversary judicial or administrative proceedings to be racially segregated; or
“(3) cannot demonstrate that they do not provide racially segregated educational opportunities for white children avoiding attendance in desegregating public school systems... Id., at 40.
Finally, respondents ask for an order directing the IRS to replace its 1975 guidelines with standards consistent with the requested injunction.
In May 1977 the District Court permitted intervention as a defendant by petitioner Allen, the head of one of the private school systems identified in the complaint. Id., at 54-55. Thereafter, progress in the lawsuit was stalled for several years. During this period, the IRS reviewed its challenged policies and proposed new Revenue Procedures to tighten requirements for eligibility for tax-exempt status for private schools. See 43 Fed. Reg. 37296 (1978); 44 Fed. Reg. 9451 (1979). In 1979, however, Congress blocked any strengthening of the IRS guidelines at least until October 1980. The District Court thereupon considered and granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint, concluding that respondents lack standing, that the judicial task proposed by respondents is inappropriately intrusive for a federal court, and that awarding the requested relief would be contrary to the will of Congress expressed in the 1979 ban on strengthening IRS guidelines. Wright v. Miller, 480 F. Supp. 790 (DC 1979).
The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, concluding that respondents have standing to maintain this lawsuit. The court acknowledged that Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U. S. 26 (1976), “suggests that litigation concerning tax liability is a matter between taxpayer and IRS, with the door barely ajar for third party challenges.” 211 U. S. App. D. C., at 239, 656 F. 2d, at 828. The court concluded, however, that the Simon case is inapposite because respondents claim no injury dependent on taxpayers’ actions: “[t]hey claim indifference as to the course private schools would take.” Id., at 240, 656 F. 2d, at 829. Instead, the court observed, “[t]he sole injury [respondents] claim is the denigration they suffer as black parents and schoolchildren when their government graces with tax-exempt status educational institutions in their communities that treat members of their race as persons of lesser worth.” Id., at 238, 656 F. 2d, at 827. The court held this denigration injury enough to give respondents standing since it was this injury which supported standing in Coit v. Green, 404 U. S. 997 (1971), summarily aff’g Green v. Connally, 330 F. Supp. 1150 (DC); Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U. S. 455 (1973); and Gilmore v. City of Montgomery, 417 U. S. 556 (1974). 211 U. S. App. D. C., at 239-243, 656 F. 2d, at 828-832. The Court of Appeals also held that the 1979 congressional actions were not intended to preclude judicial remedies and that the relief requested by respondents could be fashioned “without large scale judicial intervention in the administrative process,” id., at 248, 656 F. 2d, at 837. The court accordingly remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings, enjoining the defendants meanwhile from granting tax-exempt status to any racially discriminatory school, App. 81-84.
The Government defendants and defendant-intervenor Allen filed separate petitions for a writ of certiorari in this Court. They both sought review of the Court of Appeals' holding that respondents have standing to bring this lawsuit. We granted certiorari, 462 U. S. 1130 (1983), and now reverse.
II
A
Article III of the Constitution confines the federal courts to adjudicating actual “cases” and “controversies.” As the Court explained in Valley Forge Christian College v. Americans United for Separation of Church and State, Inc., 454 U. S. 464, 471-476 (1982), the “case or controversy” requirement defines with respect to the Judicial Branch the idea of separation of powers on which the Federal Government is founded. The several doctrines that have grown up to elaborate that requirement are “founded in concern about the proper — and properly limited — role of the courts in a democratic society.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S. 490, 498 (1975).
“All of the doctrines that cluster about Article III — not only standing but mootness, ripeness, political question, and the like — relate in part, and in different though overlapping ways, to an idea, which is more than an intuition but less than a rigorous and explicit theory, about the constitutional and prudential limits to the powers of an unelected, unrepresentative judiciary in our kind of government.” Vander Jagt v. O’Neill, 226 U. S. App. D. C. 14, 26-27, 699 F. 2d 1166, 1178-1179 (1983) (Bork, J., concurring).
The case-or-controversy doctrines state fundamental limits on federal judicial power in our system of government.
The Art. Ill doctrine that requires a litigant to have “standing” to invoke the power of a federal court is perhaps the most important of these doctrines. “In essence the question of standing is whether the litigant is entitled to have the court decide the merits of the dispute or of particular issues.” Warth v. Seldin, supra, at 498. Standing doctrine embraces several judicially self-imposed limits on the exercise of federal jurisdiction, such as the general prohibition on a litigant’s raising another person’s legal rights, the rule barring adjudication of generalized grievances more appropriately addressed in the representative branches, and the requirement that a plaintiff’s complaint fall within the zone of interests protected by the law invoked. See Valley Forge, supra, at 474-475. The requirement of standing, however, has a core component derived directly from the Constitution. A plaintiff must allege personal injury fairly traceable to the defendant’s allegedly unlawful conduct and likely to be redressed by the requested relief. 454 U. S., at 472.
Like the prudential component, the constitutional component of standing doctrine incorporates concepts concededly not susceptible of precise definition. The injury alleged must be, for example, “‘distinct and palpable,’” Gladstone, Realtors v. Village of Bellwood, 441 U. S. 91, 100 (1979) (quoting Warth v. Seldin, supra, at 501), and not “abstract” or “conjectural” or “hypothetical,” Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95, 101-102 (1983); O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488, 494 (1974). The injury must be “fairly” traceable to the challenged action, and relief from the injury must be “likely” to follow from a favorable decision. See Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U. S., at 38, 41. These terms cannot be defined so as to make application of the constitutional standing requirement a mechanical exercise.
The absence of precise definitions, however, as this Court’s extensive body of case law on standing illustrates, see generally Valley Forge, supra, at 471-476, hardly leaves courts at sea in applying the law of standing. Like most legal notions, the standing concepts have gained considerable definition from developing case law. In many cases the standing question can be answered chiefly by comparing the allegations of the particular complaint to those made in prior standing cases. See, e. g., Los Angeles v. Lyons, supra, at 102-105. More important, the law of Art. Ill standing is built on a single basic idea — the idea of separation of powers. It is this fact which makes possible the gradual clarification of the law through judicial application. Of course, both federal and state courts have long experience in applying and elaborating in numerous contexts the pervasive and fundamental notion of separation of powers.
Determining standing in a particular case may be facilitated by clarifying principles or even clear rules developed in prior cases. Typically, however, the standing inquiry requires careful judicial examination of a complaint’s allegations to ascertain whether the particular plaintiff is entitled to an adjudication of the particular claims asserted. Is the injury too abstract, or otherwise not appropriate, to be considered judicially cognizable? Is the line of causation between the illegal conduct and injury too attenuated? Is the prospect of obtaining relief from the injury as a result of a favorable ruling too speculative? These questions and any others relevant to the standing inquiry must be answered by reference to the Art. Ill notion that federal courts may exercise power only “in the last resort, and as a necessity,” Chicago & Grand Trunk R. Co. v. Wellman, 143 U. S. 339, 345 (1892), and only when adjudication is “consistent with a system of separated powers and [the dispute is one] traditionally thought to be capable of resolution through the judicial process,” Flast v. Cohen, 392 U. S. 83, 97 (1968). See Valley Forge, 454 U. S., at 472-473.
B
Respondents allege two injuries in their complaint to support their standing to bring this lawsuit. First, they say that they are harmed directly by the mere fact of Government financial aid to discriminatory private schools. Second, they say that the federal tax exemptions to racially discriminatory private schools in their communities impair their ability to have their public schools desegregated. See supra, at 745.
In the Court of Appeals, respondents apparently relied on the first injury. Thus, the court below asserted that “[t]he sole injury [respondents] claim is the denigration they suffer” as a result of the tax exemptions. 211 U. S. App. D. C., at 238, 656 F. 2d, at 827. In this Court, respondents have not focused on this claim of injury. Here they stress the effect of the tax exemptions on their “equal educational opportunities,” see, e. g., Brief for Respondents 12, 14, renewing reliance on the second injury described in their complaint.
Because respondents have not clearly disclaimed reliance on either of the injuries described in their complaint, we address both allegations of injury. We conclude that neither suffices to support respondents’ standing. The first fails under clear precedents of this Court because it does not constitute judicially cognizable injury. The second fails because the alleged injury is not fairly traceable to the assertedly unlawful conduct of the IRS.
1
Respondents’ first claim of injury can be interpreted in two ways. It might be a claim simply to have the Government avoid the violation of law alleged in respondents’ complaint. Alternatively, it might be a claim of stigmatic injury, or denigration, suffered by all members of a racial group when the Government discriminates on the basis of race. Under neither interpretation is this claim of injury judicially cognizable.
This Court has repeatedly held that an asserted right to have the Government act in accordance with law is not sufficient, standing alone, to confer jurisdiction on a federal court. In Schlesinger v. Reservists Committee to Stop the War, 418 U. S. 208 (1974), for example, the Court rejected a claim of citizen standing to challenge Armed Forces Reserve commissions held by Members of Congress as violating the Incompatibility Clause of Art. I, § 6, of the Constitution. As citizens, the Court held, plaintiffs alleged nothing but “the abstract injury in nonobservance of the Constitution....” Id., at 223, n. 13. More recently, in Valley Forge, supra, we rejected a claim of standing to challenge a Government conveyance of property to a religious institution. Insofar as the plaintiffs relied simply on “‘their shared individuated right’” to a Government that made no law respecting an establishment of religion, id., at 482 (quoting Americans United v. U. S. Dept. of HEW, 619 F. 2d 252, 261 (CA3 1980)), we held that plaintiffs had not alleged a judicially cognizable injury. “[Assertion of a right to a particular kind of Government conduct, which the Government has violated by acting differently, cannot alone satisfy the requirements of Art. Ill without draining those requirements of meaning.” 454 U. S., at 483. See also United States v. Richardson, 418 U. S. 166 (1974); Laird v. Tatum, 408 U. S. 1 (1972); Ex parte Lévitt, 302 U. S. 633 (1937). Respondents here have no standing to complain simply that their Government is violating the law.
Neither do they have standing to litigate their claims based on the stigmatizing injury often caused by racial discrimination. There can be no doubt that this sort of noneconomic injury is one of the most serious consequences of discriminatory government action and is sufficient in some circumstances to support standing. See Heckler v. Mathews, 465 U. S. 728, 739-740 (1984). Our cases make clear, however, that such injury accords a basis for standing only to “those persons who are personally denied equal treatment” by the challenged discriminatory conduct, ibid.
In Moose Lodge No. 107 v. Irvis, 407 U. S. 163 (1972), the Court held that the plaintiff had no standing to challenge a club’s racially discriminatory membership policies because he had never applied for membership. Id., at 166-167. In O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488 (1974), the Court held that the plaintiffs had no standing to challenge racial discrimination in the administration of their city’s criminal justice system because they had not alleged that they had been or would likely be subject to the challenged practices. The Court denied standing on similar facts in Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U. S. 362 (1976). In each of those cases, the plaintiffs alleged official racial discrimination comparable to that alleged by respondents here. Yet standing was denied in each case because the plaintiffs were not personally subject to the challenged discrimination. Insofar as their first claim of injury is concerned, respondents are in exactly the same position: unlike the appellee in Heckler v. Mathews, supra, at 740-741, n. 9, they do not allege a stigmatie injury suffered as a direct result of having personally been denied equal treatment.
The consequences of recognizing respondents’ standing on the basis of their first claim of injury illustrate why our cases plainly hold that such injury is not judicially cognizable. If the abstract stigmatie injury were cognizable, standing would extend nationwide to all members of the particular racial groups against which the Government was alleged to be discriminating by its grant of a tax exemption to a racially discriminatory school, regardless of the location of that school. All such persons could claim the same sort of abstract stigmatic injury respondents assert in their first claim of injury. A black person in Hawaii could challenge the grant of a tax exemption to a racially discriminatory school in Maine. Recognition of standing in such circumstances would transform the federal courts into “no more than a vehicle for the vindication of the value interests of concerned bystanders.” United States v. SCRAP, 412 U. S. 669, 687 (1973). Constitutional limits on the role of the federal courts preclude such a transformation.
2
It is in their complaint’s second claim of injury that respondents allege harm to a concrete, personal interest that can support standing in some circumstances. The injury they identify — their children’s diminished ability to receive an education in a racially integrated school — is, beyond any doubt, not only judicially cognizable but, as shown by cases from Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954), to Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U. S. 574 (1983), one of the most serious injuries recognized in our legal system. Despite the constitutional importance of curing the injury alleged by respondents, however, the federal judiciary may not redress it unless standing requirements are met. In this case, respondents’ second claim of injury cannot support standing because the injury alleged is not fairly traceable to the Government conduct respondents challenge as unlawful.
The illegal conduct challenged by respondents is the IRS’s grant of tax exemptions to some racially discriminatory schools. The line of causation between that conduct and desegregation of respondents’ schools is attenuated at best. From the perspective of the IRS, the injury to respondents is highly indirect and “results from the independent action of some third party not before the court,” Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., 426 U. S., at 42. As the Court pointed out in Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S., at 505, “the indirectness of the injury... may make it substantially more difficult to meet the minimum requirement of Art. Ill...
The diminished ability of respondents’ children to receive a desegregated education would be fairly traceable to unlawful IRS grants of tax exemptions only if there were enough racially discriminatory private schools receiving tax exemptions in respondents’ communities for withdrawal of those exemptions to make an appreciable difference in public school integration. Respondents have made no such allegation. It is, first, uncertain how many racially discriminatory private schools are in fact receiving tax exemptions. Moreover, it is entirely speculative, as respondents themselves conceded in the Court of Appeals, see n. 17, supra, whether withdrawal of a tax exemption from any particular school would lead the school to change its policies. See 480 F. Supp., at 796. It is just as speculative whether any given parent of a child attending such a private school would decide to transfer the child to public school as a result of any changes in educational or financial policy made by the private school once it was threatened with loss of tax-exempt status. It is also pure speculation whether, in a particular community, a large enough number of the numerous relevant school officials and parents would reach decisions that collectively would have a significant impact on the racial composition of the public schools.
The links in the chain of causation between the challenged Government conduct and the asserted injury are far too weak for the chain as a whole to sustain respondents’ standing. In Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., supra, the Court held that standing to challenge a Government grant of a tax exemption to hospitals could not be founded on the asserted connection between the grant of tax-exempt status and the hospitals’ policy concerning the provision of medical services to indigents. The causal connection depended on the decisions hospitals would make in response to withdrawal of tax-exempt status, and those decisions were sufficiently uncertain to break the chain of causation between the plaintiffs’ injury and the challenged Government action. Id., at 40-46. See also Warth v. Seldin, supra. The chain of causation is even weaker in this case. It involves numerous third parties (officials of racially discriminatory schools receiving tax exemptions and the parents of children attending such schools) who may not even exist in respondents’ communities and whose independent decisions may not collectively have a significant effect on the ability of public school students to receive a desegregated education.
The idea of separation of powers that underlies standing doctrine explains why our cases preclude the conclusion that respondents’ alleged injury “fairly can be traced to the challenged action” of the IRS. Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Org., supra, at 41. That conclusion would pave the way generally for suits challenging, not specifically identifiable Government violations of law, but the particular programs agencies establish to carry out their legal obligations. Such suits, even when premised on allegations of several instances of violations of law, are rarely if ever appropriate for federal-court adjudication.
“Carried to its logical end, [respondents’] approach would have the federal courts as virtually continuing monitors of the wisdom and soundness of Executive action; such a role is appropriate for the Congress acting through its committees and the ‘power of the purse’; it is not the role of the judiciary, absent actual present or immediately threatened injury resulting from unlawful governmental action.” Laird v. Tatum, 408 U. S., at 15.
See also Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U. S. 1, 14 (1973) (Blackmun, J., concurring).
The same concern for the proper role of the federal courts is reflected in cases like O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U. S. 488 (1974), Rizzo v. Goode, 423 U. S. 362 (1976), and Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U. S. 95 (1983). In all three cases plaintiffs sought injunctive relief directed at certain systemwide law enforcement practices. The Court held in each case that, absent an allegation of a specific threat of being subject to the challenged practices, plaintiffs had no standing to ask for an injunction. Animating this Court’s holdings was the principle that “[a] federal court... is not the proper forum to.press” general complaints about the way in which government goes about its business. Id., at 112.
Case-or-controversy considerations, the Court observed in O’Shea v. Littleton, supra, at 499, “obviously shade into those determining whether the complaint states a sound basis for equitable relief.” The latter set of considerations should therefore inform our judgment about whether respondents have standing. Most relevant to this case is the principle articulated in Rizzo v. Goode, supra, at 378-379:
“When a plaintiff seeks to enjoin the activity of a government agency, even within a unitary court system, his case must contend with ‘the well-established rule that the Government has traditionally been granted the widest latitude in the “dispatch of its own internal affairs,” Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 896 (1961),’ quoted in Sampson v. Murray, 415 U. S. 61, 83 (1974).”
When transported into the Art. Ill context, that principle, grounded as it is in the idea of separation of powers, counsels against recognizing standing in a case brought, not to enforce specific legal obligations whose violation works a direct harm, but to seek a restructuring of the apparatus established by the Executive Branch to fulfill its legal duties. The Constitution, after all, assigns to the Executive Branch, and not to the Judicial Branch, the duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” U. S. Const., Art. II, §3. We could not recognize respondents’ standing in this case without running afoul of that structural principle.
C
The Court of Appeals relied for its contrary conclusion on Gilmore v. City of Montgomery, 417 U. S. 556 (1974), on Norwood v. Harrison, 413 U. S. 455 (1973), and on Coit v. Green, 404 U. S. 997 (1971), summarily aff’g Green v. Con- nally, 330 F. Supp. 1150 (DC). Respondents in this Court, though stressing a different injury from the one emphasized by the Court of Appeals, see supra, at 752-753, place principal reliance on those cases as well. None of the cases, however, requires that we find standing in this lawsuit.
In Gilmore v. City of Montgomery, supra, the plaintiffs asserted a constitutional right, recognized in an outstanding injunction, to use the city’s public parks on a nondiscriminatory basis. They alleged that the city was violating that equal protection right by permitting racially discriminatory private schools and other groups to use the public parks. The Court recognized plaintiffs’ standing to challenge this city policy insofar as the policy permitted the exclusive use of the parks by racially discriminatory private schools: the plaintiffs had alleged direct cognizable injury to their right to nondiscriminatory access to the public parks. Id., at 570-571, n. 10.
Standing in Gilmore thus rested on an allegation of direct deprivation of a right to equal use of the parks. Like the plaintiff in Heckler v. Mathews — indeed, like the plaintiffs having standing in virtually any equal protection case — the plaintiffs in Gilmore alleged that they were personally being denied equal treatment. 465 U. S., at 740-741, n. 9. The Gilmore Court did not rest its finding of standing on an abstract denigration injury, and no problem of attenuated causation attended the plaintiffs’ claim of injury.
In Norwood v. Harrison, supra, parents of public school children in Tunica County, Miss., filed a statewide class action challenging the State’s provision of textbooks to students attending racially discriminatory private schools in the State. The Court held the State’s practice unconstitutional because it breached “the State’s acknowledged duty to establish a unitary school system,” id., at 460-461. See id., at 463-468. The Court did not expressly address the basis for the plaintiffs’ standing.
In Gilmore, however, the Court identified the basis for standing in Norwood: “The plaintiffs in Norwood were parties to a school desegregation order and the relief they sought was directly related to the concrete injury they suffered.” 417 U. S., at 571, n. 10. Through the school-desegregation decree, the plaintiffs had acquired a right to have the State “steer clear” of any perpetuation of the racially dual school system that it had once sponsored. 413 U. S., at 467. The interest acquired was judicially cognizable because it was a personal interest, created by law, in having the State refrain from taking specific actions. Cf. Warth v. Seldin, 422 U. S., at 500 (standing may exist by virtue of legal rights created by statute). The plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that the State directly injured that interest by aiding racially discriminatory private schools. Respondents in this lawsuit, of course, have no injunctive rights against the IRS that are allegedly being harmed by the challenged IRS action.
Unlike Gilmore and Norwood, Coit v. Green, supra, cannot easily be seen to have based standing on an injury different in kind from any asserted by respondents here. The plaintiffs in Coit, parents of black schoolchildren in Mississippi, sued to enjoin the IRS grant of tax exemptions to racially discriminatory private schools in the State. Nevertheless, Coit in no way mandates the conclusion that respondents have standing.
First, the decision has little weight as a precedent on the law of standing. This Court's decision in Coit was merely a summary affirmance; for that reason alone it could hardly establish principles contrary to those set out in opinions issued after full briefing and argument. See Fusari v. Steinberg, 419 U. S. 379, 392 (1975) (Burger, C. J., concurring); see also Tully v. Griffin, Inc., 429 U. S. 68, 74 (1976). Moreover, when the case reached this Court, the plaintiffs and the IRS were no longer adverse parties; and the ruling that was summarily affirmed, Green v. Connolly, 330 F. Supp. 1150 (DC 1971), did not include a ruling on the issue of standing, which had been briefly considered in a prior ruling of the District Court, Green v. Kennedy, 309 F. Supp. 1127, 1132 (DC), appeal dism’d sub nom. Cannon v. Green, 398 U. S. 956 (1970). Thus, “the Court’s 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: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio. Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U. S. 1 (1964).
Mr. Justice Marshall 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 Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Last Term, we reiterated the holding of Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U. S. 154 (1994), that when “a capital defendant’s future dangerousness is at issue, and the only sentencing alternative to death available to the jury is life imprisonment without possibility of parole, due process entitles the defendant ‘to inform the jury of [his] parole ineligibility, either by a jury instruction or in arguments by counsel.’ ” Shafer v. South Carolina, 532 U. S. 36, 39 (2001) (quoting Ramdass v. Angelone, 530 U. S. 156, 165 (2000) (plurality opinion)). In this ease, the Supreme Court of South Carolina held Simmons inapposite for two reasons: state law provided the jury with a third sentencing alternative, and future dangerousness was not at issue. Each reason was error.
I
In 1996, the State of South Carolina indicted petitioner William Kelly for an extraordinarily brutal murder, kidnap-ing, and armed robbery, and for possession of a knife during the commission of a violent crime. The jury convicted Kelly on all charges.
The trial then proceeded to a separate sentencing phase calling for the jury to determine whether any aggravating factor had been shown and, if so, to choose between recommendations of death or life imprisonment. The prosecutor began by telling the jurors that “I hope you never in your lives again have to experience what you are experiencing right now. Being some thirty feet away from such a person. Murderer.” App. 64. He went on to present testimony that while in prison, Kelly had made a knife (or shank) and had taken part in an escape attempt, even to the point of planning to draw a female guard into his cell where he would hold her hostage. See id., at 129-132,140-141. The prosecutor’s cross-examination of a psychologist brought out evidence of Kelly’s sadism at an early age, see id., at 218, and his inclination to kill anyone who rubbed him the wrong way, see id., at 195.
After presentation of this evidence but before closing arguments, Kelly’s counsel relied on Simmons in requesting the judge to instruct the jurors that if Kelly received a sentence of life imprisonment, he would be ineligible for parole. The instruction she sought was a near-verbatim excerpt of S. C. Code Ann. § 16-3-20 (2000 Cum. Supp.):
“‘[L]ife imprisonment’ means imprisonment until the death of the offender. No person sentenced to life imprisonment is eligible for parole, community supervision, or any early release program, nor is the person eligible to receive any work credits, education credits, good conduct credits, or any other credits that would reduce the mandatory life imprisonment required by law.” 343 S. C. 350, 360, 540 S. E. 2d 851, 856 (2001).
The prosecutor objected that “I’m not going to argue future dangerous[ness]. So that takes it out of Simmons anyhow.” App. 245. The defense responded that “the State ha[d] already raised future dangerousness” through presentation of sentencing phase evidence, “calling correctional officers to testify to an escape attempt, to testify to the fact that [Kelly] had possession of a shank, by calling inmates who testified to [Kelly’s] behavior in the jail. . . [and] his plan to take a female guard hostage.” Ibid. Defense counsel argued that the State’s cross-examination of the psychologist reinforced the other evidentiary indications of Kelly’s future dangerousness. Id., at 245-246. The trial court denied the requested instruction, saying that the State’s evidence went to Kelly’s character and characteristics, not to future dangerousness. Id., at 249.
The sentencing proceeding then closed with arguments in which the prosecutor spoke of Kelly as “the butcher of Bates-burg,” “Bloody Billy,” and “Billy the Kid.” Id., at 267-268. The prosecutor told the jurors that “[Kelly] doesn’t have any mental illness. He’s intelligent. . . . He’s quick-witted. Doesn’t that make somebody a little more dangerous — ” id., at 269. Defense counsel interrupted the prosecutor in mid-sentence with an objection, presumably for raising Kelly’s future dangerousness. The prosecutor nonetheless went on immediately, “ — for this lady, this crime on January the 5th, doesn’t that make him more unpredictable for [the victim] Shirley Shealy.” Ibid. Kelly’s counsel did not renew her objection, and the trial court never ruled on the objection entered. The prosecutor continued that “murderers will be murderers. And he is the cold-blooded one right over there.” Id., at 272.
After the closing arguments, the trial judge instructed the jury that in choosing between recommendations of death and life imprisonment, it should consider the possible presence of five statutory aggravating circumstances, and three possible statutory mitigating circumstances. The judge explained “that the terms ‘life imprisonment’ and ‘death sentence’ are to be understood in this ordinary and plain meaning.” Id., at 289. But, in accordance with the earlier ruling, the court did not say that under South Carolina law, a convicted murderer sentenced to life imprisonment was ineligible for parole, nor did the court instruct that Kelly’s future dangerousness was not in issue. At the end of the charge, Kelly’s counsel renewed her objection to the court’s refusal to give her requested Simmons instruction or, in the alternative, to inform the jury that the State had stipulated that future dangerousness was not in issue in the case. App. 304. After deliberating for 43 minutes, the jury found five statutory aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt and returned a recommendation of death, id., at 305-307, to which the trial court acceded.
On appeal to the Supreme Court of South Carolina, Kelly assigned error to the trial court’s refusal to instruct that he would be ineligible for parole under a life sentence. The State Supreme Court ruled otherwise and gave two alternative grounds for affirming the sentence. First, it followed the trial court in saying that the State’s evidence at sentencing did not raise future dangerousness and so did not trigger Simmons: “[W]e agree with the trial court that the State’s evidence at sentencing did not implicate future dangerousness. ... In our opinion, the evidence presented by the State in the penalty phase was designed to show that Kelly would not adapt to prison life ....” 343 S. C., at 362, 540 S. E. 2d, at 857. Second, relying on its own ruling in State v. Shafer, 340 S. C. 291, 531 S. E. 2d 524 (2000), rev’d, Shafer v. South Carolina, 532 U. S. 36 (2001), the state court held that Simmons had no application to the sentencing regime in place at Kelly’s trial. 343 S. C., at 364, 540 S. E. 2d, at 858. The State Supreme Court committed error on each point. We granted certiorari, 533 U. S. 928 (2001), and now reverse.
HH HH
We take the State Supreme Court’s reasons out of order, for the second one can be answered with little more than citation to Shafer, in which we reversed a South Carolina judgment last Term. The state court said that “Simmons is inapplicable under [South Carolina’s] new sentencing scheme because life without the possibility of parole is not the only legally available sentence alternative to death.” 343 S. C., at 364, 540 S. E. 2d, at 858. That statement mistakes the relationship of Simmons to the state sentencing scheme. It is true that a defendant charged with murder carrying the possibility of a death sentence can, under some circumstances, receive a sentence less than life imprisonment. But, as we explained in Shafer, under the South Carolina sentencing scheme a jury now makes a sentencing recommendation only if the jurors find the existence of an aggravating circumstance. When they do make a recommendation, their only alternatives are death or life without parole. 532 U. S., at 49-50. We therefore hold, as we did in Shafer, that the state court’s reasoning is not to the point.
The State Supreme Court’s first ground, that Kelly’s future dangerousness was not “at issue,” is unsupportable on the record before us. It is not that the state court failed to pose the legal issue accurately, for in considering the applicability of Simmons it asked whether Kelly’s future dangerousness was “a logical inference from the evidence,” or was “injected into the case through the State’s closing argument.” 343 S. C., at 363, 540 S. E. 2d, at 857; see also Shafer, supra, at 54-55 (whether prosecutor’s evidence or argument placed future dangerousness in issue); Simmons, 512 U. S., at 165, 171 (plurality opinion) (future dangerousness in issue because “State raised the specter of... future dangerousness generally” and “advanced] generalized arguments regarding the [same]”); id., at 174 (Ginsburg, J., concurring); id., at 177 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment). The error, rather, was on the facts: the evidence and argument cited by the state court are flatly at odds with the view that “future dangerousness was not an issue in this case.” 343 S. C., at 363, 540 S. E. 2d, at 857.
The court acknowledged the prosecutor’s “[e]vidence that Kelly took part in escape attempts and carried a shank,” id., at 362, 540 S. E. 2d, at 857, and that “he had been caught carrying a weapon and planning or participating in escape attempts,” ibid. The court concluded, however, that this evidence was not the sort contemplated by Simmons, that is, evidence demonstrating future danger ‘“if released from prison.’ ” 343 S. C., at 362, n. 8, 540 S. E. 2d, at 857, n. 8 (quoting Simmons, supra, at 163) (emphasis added by state court). The court saw the evidence as going only to Kelly’s likely behavior in prison, or to his proclivity to escape from it; the state court said that Kelly was allowed to rebut this evidence of his inability to adapt to prison life, but that explaining parole ineligibility would do nothing to rebut evidence that Kelly was an escape risk. 343 S. C., at 362-363, 540 S. E. 2d, at 857.
Even if we confine the evidentiary consideration to the evidence discussed by the State Supreme Court, the court’s conclusion cannot be accepted. To the extent that it thought that “[e]vidence that Kelly took part in escape attempts and carried a shank ... is not the type of future dangerousness evidence contemplated by Simmons,” id., at 362, 540 S. E. 2d, at 857, it overlooked that evidence of violent behavior in prison can raise a strong implication of “generalized ... future dangerousness.” Simmons, supra, at 171. (And, of course, the state court’s reasoning says nothing about the evidence of the crime, or of Kelly’s sadism generally, and his mercurial thirst for vengeance.) A jury hearing evidence of a defendant’s demonstrated propensity for violence reasonably will conclude that he presents a risk of violent behavior, whether locked up or free, and whether free as a fugitive or as a parolee.
The fallacy of the State Supreme Court’s attempt to portray the thrust of the evidence as so unrealistically limited harks back to a comparable mistake by the trial judge, who spoke of the evidence as going, not to future dangerousness, but “to [Kelly’s] character and characteristics.” App. 249. The error in trying to distinguish Simmons this way lies in failing to recognize that evidence of dangerous “character” may show “characteristic” future dangerousness, as it did here. This, indeed, is the fault of the State’s more general argument before us, that evidence of future dangerousness counts under Simmons only when the State “introduces] evidence for which there is no other possible inference but future dangerousness to society.” Brief for Respondent 27 (emphasis in original). Evidence of future dangerousness under Simmons is evidence with a tendency to prove dangerousness in the future; its relevance to that point does not disappear merely because it might support other inferences or be described in other terms.
The prosecutor accentuated the clear implication of future dangerousness raised by the evidence and placed the case within the four corners of Simmons. He had already expressed his hope that the jurors would “never in [their] lives again have to experience . . . [b]eing some thirty feet away from such a person” as Kelly. App. 64. The State Supreme Court made no mention of this, despite its thrust: since the jurors were unlikely to be spending any time in prison, they would end up 30 feet away from the likes of Kelly only if he got out of prison, as he might if parole were possible. The argument thus echoed the one made in Simmons itself, that the imposition of the death penalty was an act of “self-defense.” Both statements “implied that petitioner would be let out eventually if the jury did not recommend a death sentence.” 512 U. S., at 178 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment) (emphasis in original).
And there was more. The state court to be sure considered the prosecutor’s comparison of Kelly to a notorious serial killer, variously calling him a “dangerous” “bloody” "butcher.” The court nonetheless thought it could somehow cordon off these statements as raising nothing more than a call for retribution. 343 S. C., at 363, 540 S. E. 2d, at 857. But the import of the argument simply cannot be compartmentalized this way. Characterizations of butchery did go to retribution, but that did not make them any the less arguments that Kelly would be dangerous down the road. They complemented the prosecutor’s submissions that Kelly was “more frightening than a serial killer,” App. 260, and that “murderers will be murderers,” id., at 272. Thus was Kelly’s jury, like its predecessor in Simmons, invited to infer “that petitioner is a vicious predator who would pose a continuing threat to the community.” Simmons, supra, at 176 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment).
Perhaps because this is so undeniable, the State in its argument before us takes a tack never pursued by the state court, in claiming there was no need for instruction on parole ineligibility, because “there is nothing whatsoever to indicate that the jurors were concerned at all with the possibility of [Kelly’s] future release when they decided death was appropriate.” Brief for Respondent 47. But it cannot matter that Kelly’s jury did not ask the judge for further instruction on parole eligibility, whereas the Simmons and Shafer juries did. See Shafer, 532 U. S., at 44; Simmons, supra, at 160. A trial judge’s duty is to give instructions sufficient to explain the law, an obligation that exists independently of any question from the jurors or any other indication of perplexity on their part. Cf. C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure §485, p. 375 (3d ed. 2000) (“It is the duty of the trial judge to charge the jury on all essential questions of law, whether requested or not”). Time after time appellate courts have found jury instructions to be insufficiently clear without any record that the jury manifested its confusion; one need look no further than Penry v. Johnson, 532 U. S. 782 (2001), for a recent example. While the jurors’ questions in Simmons and Shafer confirmed the inadequacy of the charges in those cases, in each case it was independently significant that “[displacement of ‘the longstanding practice of parole availability’ remains a relatively recent development [in South Carolina], and ‘common sense tells us that many jurors might not know whether a life sentence carries with it the possibility of parole.’ ” 532 U. S., at 52 (quoting Simmons, supra, at 177-178 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment)).
Nor is there any reason to believe that Kelly’s jury was better informed than Simmons’s or Shafer’s on the matter of parole eligibility. The State, to be sure, emphasizes defense counsel’s opening statement that the jury’s recommendation would be “the sentence actually imposed and the sentence that will actually be carried out,” Record 1660, as well as counsel’s closing, which stressed that Kelly would be in prison for the rest of his life and would “never see the light of daylight again,” id., at 2060. The State stresses that the judge told the jury that the terms “life imprisonment” and “death sentence” should be understood in their plain and ordinary meanings. App. 289.
But the same things could be said of Shafer, where we explicitly noted defense counsel’s statement to the jury that Shafer would “ ‘die in prison’ after ‘spending] his natural life there,’ ” as well as the trial judge’s instructions that “ ‘life imprisonment .means until the death of the defendant.’ ” 532 U. S., at 52 (emphasis deleted). We found these statements inadequate to convey a clear understanding of Shafer’s parole ineligibility, id., at 53-54, and Kelly, no less than Shafer, was entitled to his requested jury instruction.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of South Carolina is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Although the State Supreme Court referred to this portion of the prosecutor’s argument, it did not indicate that defense counsel had objected between the prosecutor’s description of Kelly as “dangerous” and his subsequent characterization of Kelly as dangerous to the victim. 343 S. C. 350, 360, 540 S. E. 2d 851, 856 (2001).
Under South Carolina law, capital jurors first must decide whether the State has proven the existence of any statutory aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. If the jury cannot agree unanimously on the presence of such a circumstance, it cannot make a sentencing recommendation; the judge is then charged with sentencing the defendant either to life imprisonment without parole or to a prison term of at least 30 years. S. C. Code Ann. §§ 16 — 8—20(B), (C) (2000 Cum. Supp.); State v. Starnes, 340 S. C. 312, 328, 531 S. E. 2d 907, 916 (2000). But, if the jury does unanimously find a statutory aggravating circumstance, it recommends one of two possible sentences: death or life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. §§ 16-3-20(A), (B). The jury has no other sentencing option.
The Chief Justice's dissent correctly notes that a required instruction on parole eligibility does not bar a prosecutor from arguing dangerousness in prison as a ground for choosing the death penalty. See post, at 261. The plurality acknowledged this possibility in Simmons v. South Carolina, 512 U. S. 154, 165, n. 5 (1994) (“[T]he fact that a defendant is parole ineligible does not prevent the State from arguing that the defendant poses a future danger”); see also id., at 177 (O’Connok, J., concurring in judgment) (when the defendant “bringfs] his parole ineligibility to the jury’s attention” “the prosecution is free to argue that the defendant would be dangerous in prison”). But the plurality also recognized that even if a “State [were] free to argue that the defendant will pose a danger to others in prison,” id., at 165, n. 5, the State was not free to “mislead the jury by concealing accurate information about the defendant’s parole ineligibility,” ibid.
As The Chief Justice says, see post, at 261 (dissenting opinion), it may well be that the evidence in a substantial proportion, if not all, capital cases will show a defendant likely to be dangerous in the future. See Simmons, supra, at 163 (plurality opinion) (noting that “prosecutors in South Carolina, like those in other States that impose the death penalty, frequently emphasize a defendant’s future dangerousness in their evidence and argument at the sentencing phase”). But this is not an issue here, nor is there an issue about a defendant’s entitlement to instruction on a parole ineligibility law when the State’s evidence shows future dangerousness but the prosecutor does not argue it. The only questions in this case are whether the evidence presented and the argument made at Kelly’s trial placed future dangerousness at issue. The answer to each question is yes, and we need go no further than Simmons in our discussion.
Nor, as the State Supreme Court thought, was evidence, elicited by the prosecution, that Kelly “took part in escape attempts,” 343 S. C., at 362, 540 S. E. 2d, at 857, somehow distinct from indications of dangerousness. It is true that evidence of propensity to escape does not necessarily put future dangerousness at issue, but here, the prosecution proffered evidence of at least one violent escape attempt. The evidence of Kelly’s plan to take a female guard hostage with a shank underscored a propensity for violence in addition to a predilection to escape.
The latter statement, in fact, speaks not to Kelly’s past conduct, but to his future deportment.
Whether this history of penology should suffice to require a Simmons instruction regardless of the details of evidence and argument going to future dangerousness is a question not raised by this case, in which evidence and argument did place dangerousness in issue.
If Kelly’s counsel had read the law verbatim to the jury with the judge’s manifest approval, that might have sufficed, but the State does not claim that defense counsel had any such opportunity, and conceded at oral argument that it is “very unlikely” that the trial judge would have permitted defense counsel to read to the jury the relevant section of the South Carolina Code. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 51.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
The question is whether the State of Idaho constitutionally may include within the taxable income of a nondomiciliary parent corporation doing some business in Idaho a portion of intangible income — such as dividend and interest payments, as well as capital gains from the sale of stock — that the parent receives from subsidiary corporations having no other connection with' the State.
I
This case involves corporate income taxes that appellee Idaho State Tax Commission sought to levy on appellant ASARCO Inc. for the years 1968,1969, and 1970. ASARCO is a corporation that mines, smelts, and refines in various States nonferrous metals such as copper, gold, silver, lead, and zinc. It is incorporated in New Jersey and maintains its headquarters and commercial domicile in New York. ASARCO’s primary Idaho business is the operation of a silver mine. It also mines and sells other metals and operates the administrative office of its northwest mining division in Idaho. According to the appellee’s tax calculations, approximately 2.5% of ASARCO’s total business activities take place in Idaho. App. 59a, 67a, and 75a.
During the years in question, ASARCO received three types of intangible income of relevance to this suit. First, it collected dividends from five corporations in which it owned major interests: M. I. M. Holdings, Ltd.; General Cable Corp.; Revere Copper and Brass, Inc.; ASARCO Mexicana, S. A.; and Southern Peru Copper Corp. Second, ASARCO received interest income from three sources: from Revere’s convertible debentures; from a note received in connection with a prior sale of Mexicana stock; and from a note received in connection with a sale of General Cable Stock. Third, ASARCO realized capital gains from the sale of General Cable and M. I. M. stock.
In 1965, Idaho adopted its version of the Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act (UDITPA). See Idaho Code §63-3027 (1976 and Supp. 1981); 7A U. L. A. 91 (1978). Under this statute, Idaho classifies corporate income from intangible property as either “business” or “nonbusiness” income. “Business” income is defined to include income from intangible property when “acquisition, management, or disposition [of the property] constitute^] integral or necessary parts of the taxpayers’ trade or business operations.” Idaho apportions such “business” income according to a three-factor formula and includes this apportioned share of “business” income in the taxpayer’s taxable Idaho income. “Nonbusiness” income, on the other hand, is defined as “all income other than business income.” Idaho Code § 63— 3027(a)(4) (Supp. 1981). Idaho allocates intangible “nonbusiness” income entirely to the State of the corporation’s commercial domicile instead of apportioning it among the States in which a corporate taxpayer owns property or carries on business.
Idaho is a member of the Multistate Tax Compact, an interstate taxation agreement concerning state taxation of multistate businesses. The Compact established the Multistate Tax Commission, which is composed of the tax administrators from the member States. Article VIII of the Compact provides that any member State may request that the Commission perform an audit on its behalf. See United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm’n, 434 U. S. 452, 457 (1978) (upholding the Compact against a facial attack on Compact and Commerce Clauses and Fourteenth Amendment grounds).
In 1971, the Multistate Tax Commission audited ASARCO’s tax returns for the years in question on behalf of six States, including Idaho. The auditor recommended adjusting ASARCO’s tax computations in several respects. As accepted by the Idaho State Tax Commission and as relevant to the present dispute, the auditor first “unitized” — or treated as one single corporation — ASARCO and six of its wholly owned subsidiaries. As a consequence of unitization, the auditor combined ASARCO’s income with that of these six subsidiaries and disregarded (as intracompany accounting transfers) the subsidiaries’ dividend payments to ASARCO. Cf. United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm'n, supra, at 473, n. 25. The auditor listed five factors thought to justify unitizing treatment. First, ASARCO owned a majority (in fact, all) of the stock of each subsidiary. Second, “ASARCO, with its subsidiaries, conducts a vertically integrated non-ferrous metals operation. This is evidenced by the flow from the mines to the smelters to the refineries and ultimately to the sales made by the New York office.” App. 88a. Third, “ASARCO and its subsidiaries have interlocking officers and directors, which enables ASARCO to control the major management decisions of each subsidiary.” Ibid. Fourth, sales between the companies were numerous, making it “apparent... that the companies supplied markets to each other....” Id., at 89a. And finally, various services were provided to the ASARCO group either by ASARCO or by subsidiaries specifically set up for such a purpose. The propriety of this treatment of the six wholly owned subsidiaries is not an issue before us.
The auditor found the situation to differ with respect to ASARCO’s interest in M. I. M., General Cable, Revere, Mexicana, and Southern Peru. This judgment planted the seed of the current dispute. As to these five companies, the auditor determined that the links with ASARCO were not sufficient to justify unitary treatment. Nonetheless, he found that ASARCO’s receipt of dividends from each of these did constitute “business” income to ASARCO. See n. 4, supra. The auditor similarly classified the interest and capital gains income at issue in this case. These categories of income also were added in ASARCO’s total income to be apportioned among the various States in which ASARCO was subjected to an income tax.
The Idaho State Tax Commission adopted the auditor’s adjustments in an unreported decision. App. to Juris. Statement 46a. In rejecting ASARCO’s challenge to the auditor’s unitized treatment of the six wholly owned corporations, see n. 8, supra, the Commission stated that it was “quite clear from the evidence produced at the hearing that [ASARCO’s] business activities are so inter-related as to defy measurement by separate accounting....” App. to Juris. Statement 49a-50a. The Commission likewise upheld the auditor’s conclusion that the dividends presently at issue were properly treated as apportionable “business” income. It consequently assessed tax deficiencies against ASARCO of $92,471.88 for 1968, $111,292.44 for 1969, and $121,750.76 for 1970, plus interest.
On ASARCO’s petition for review, the State District Court upheld the Commission's unitized treatment of the six subsidiaries in an unpublished opinion. The court, however, overruled the Commission’s determination that the disputed dividends, interest, and capital gains constituted “business” income, on the reasoning that this income did not come from property or activities that were “an integral part of [ASARCO’s] trade or business.” Idaho Code § 63-3027(a)(l) (Supp. 1981). In the court’s view, “if the dividend income from other corporations is an integral part of the business of [ASARCO]... they should be unitized and all matters considered and[,] if they are not[,]... the income is not business income but is [nonapportionable] non business income.” App. to Juris. Statement 37a.
The Commission, but not ASARCO, appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court. That court held that the trial court had erred by excluding from “business” income ASARCO’s receipt of dividends, interest, and capital gains as a result of its owning stock in the five corporations. American Smelting & Refining Co. v. Idaho State Tax Comm’n, 99 Idaho 924, 935-937, 592 P. 2d 39, 50-52 (1979). In response to ASARCO’s constitutional arguments, the court decided that this tax treatment withstood attack under the Commerce and Due Process Clauses. We vacated and remanded the case for reconsideration in light of our decision in Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes of Vermont, 445 U. S. 425 (1980). ASARCO Inc. v. Idaho State Tax Comm’n, 445 U. S. 939 (1980). The Idaho Supreme Court reinstated its previous opinion in a brief per curiam order on March 4, 1981. 102 Idaho 38, 624 P. 2d 946. We noted probable jurisdiction, 454 U. S. 812 (1981), and we now reverse.
II
As a general principle, a State may not tax value earned outside its borders. See, e. g., Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 303 U. S. 77, 80-81 (1938). The broad inquiry in a case such as this, therefore, is “whether the taxing power exerted by the state bears fiscal relation to protection, opportunities and benefits given by the state. The simple but controlling question is whether the state has given anything for which it can ask return.” Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co., 311 U. S. 435, 444 (1940).
Our application of this general principle in this case is guided by two of our recent decisions. In Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes of Vermont, supra, the taxpayer conducted “an integrated petroleum business,” 445 U. S., at 428, that included international petroleum exploration, production, refining, transportation, distribution, and sale of petroleum, as well as related chemical and mining enterprises. Much of its business abroad was conducted through wholly or partly owned subsidiaries. The State of Vermont imposed a corporate income tax on that portion of Mobil’s total income that the State attributed to Mobil’s Vermont activity, which was confined to the wholesale and retail marketing of petroleum. The State sought to include within Mobil’s apportion-able Vermont income its receipt of dividends from its subsidiaries and affiliates that operated abroad. Mobil protested that the State could not properly apportion and tax this “foreign source” dividend income.
For present purposes, our analysis in Mobil began with the observation that Mobil’s principal dividend payors were part of Mobil’s integrated petroleum business. Although Mobil was “unwilling to concede the legal conclusion” that activities by these dividend payors formed part of Mobil’s “‘unitary business,’ ” it “offered no evidence that would undermine the conclusion that most, if not all, of its subsidiaries and affiliates contribute^] to [Mobil’s] worldwide petroleum enterprise.” Id., at 435.
The Court next stated that due process limitations on Vermont’s attempted tax would be satisfied if there were “a ‘minimal connection’ between the interstate activities and the taxing State, and a rational relationship between the income attributed to the State and the intrastate values of the enterprise.” Id., at 436-437, citing Moorman Mfg. Co. v. Bair, 437 U. S. 267, 272-273 (1978); National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Illinois Dept. of Revenue, 386 U. S. 753, 756 (1967); Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. Missouri Tax Comm’n, 390 U. S. 317, 325 (1968). And we said that these limitations would not be contravened by state apportionment and taxation of income that were determined by geographic accounting to have arisen from a different State “so long as the intrastate and extrastate activities formed part of a single unitary business.” 445 U. S., at 438 (emphasis added).
The Mobil Court explicated the limiting “unitary business” principle by observing, that geographic accounting, in purporting to isolate income received in various States, “may fail to account for contributions to income resulting from functional integration, centralization of management, and economies of scale.” Ibid. The fact that “these factors of profitability arise from the operation of the business as a whole,” ibid., therefore could justify a State’s otherwise impermissible inclusion of corporate income derived from corporate activities beyond the State’s borders. The Court thus stated:
“[T]he linchpin of apportionability in the field of state income taxation is the unitary-business principle. In accord with this principle, what appellant must show, in order to establish that its dividend income is not subject to an apportioned tax in Vermont, is that the income was earned in the course of activities unrelated to the sale of petroleum products in that State. [Mobil] has made no effort to demonstrate that the foreign operations of its subsidiaries and affiliates are distinct in any business or economic sense from its petroleum sales activities in Vermont. Indeed, all indications in the record are to the contrary, since it appears that these foreign activities are part of [Mobil’s] integrated petroleum enterprise. In the absence of any proof of discrete business enterprise, Vermont was entitled to conclude that the dividend income’s foreign source did not destroy the requisite nexus with in-state activities.” Id., at 439-440 (emphasis added and footnote omitted).
We consequently rejected Mobil’s constitutional challenge to Vermont’s tax. In so doing, however, we cautioned that we did
“not mean to suggest that all dividend income received by corporations operating in interstate commerce is necessarily taxable in each State where that corporation does business. Where the business activities of the dividend payor have nothing to do with the activities of the recipient in the taxing State, due process considerations might well preclude apportionability, because there would be no underlying unitary business.” Id., at 441-442 (emphasis added).
We soon had occasion to reiterate these principles. Three months after Mobil, we decided Exxon Corp. v. Wisconsin Dept. of Revenue, 447 U. S. 207 (1980). In Exxon, “a vertically integrated petroleum company,” id., at 210, explored for, produced, refined, and marketed petroleum and related products. Although Exxon’s activities in Wisconsin were confined to marketing, the State sought to apportion and tax Exxon’s income from nonmarketing activities in the United States.
Exxon disputed the propriety of this treatment. The Wisconsin Tax Appeals Commission agreed with the objection on the basis of its conclusion that Exxon’s “three main functional operating departments — Exploration and Production, Refining, and Marketing — were separate unitary businesses.” Id., at 215 (emphasis added). The Commission found that the tax as applied “ ‘had the effect of imposing a tax on [Exxon’s] exploration and on its refining net income, all of which was derived solely from operations outside the State of Wisconsin and which had no integral relationship to [Exxon’s] marketing operations within Wisconsin.’” Ibid. On appeal, however, the Circuit Court for Dane County held that Exxon’s three main functional operating departments were all part of a single unitary business. The Wisconsin Supreme Court agreed.
In reviewing the case, this Court unanimously agreed with the State Commission and the two state courts that the decisive concept in the case was that of a unitary business. Significantly, we repeated Mobil’s teaching that “[t]he ‘linchpin of apportionability’ for state income taxation of an interstate enterprise is the ‘unitary-business principle.’” Id., at 223, quoting Mobil, 445 U. S., at 439. We also repeated:
“In order to exclude certain income from the apportionment formula, the company must prove that ‘the income was earned in the course of activities unrelated to the sale of petroleum products in that State.’... The court looks to the ‘underlying economic realities of a unitary business,’ and the income must derive from ‘unrelated business activity’ which constitutes a ‘discrete business enterprise,’ 445 U. S., at 441, 442, 439.” 447 U. S., at 223-224.
Examining the facts, the Court found that Exxon was “a highly integrated business which benefits from an umbrella of centralized management and controlled interaction.” Id., at 224. We rejected the company’s protest because “[w]e agree[d] with the Wisconsin Supreme Court that Exxon [was] such a unitary business and that Exxon has not carried its burden of showing that its functional departments are ‘discrete business enterprises’....” Ibid,.
Ill
In this case, ASARCO claims that it has succeeded, where the taxpayers in Mobil and Exxon failed, in proving that the dividend payors at issue are not part of its unitary business, but rather are “discrete business enterprises.” 447 U. S., at 224. We must test this contention on the record before us.
A
The closest question is posed by ASARCO’s receipt of dividends from Southern Peru. ASARCO is one of Southern Peru’s four shareholders, holding 51.5% of its stock. Southern Peru produces smelted but unrefined “blister copper” in Peru, and sells 20-30% of its output to the Southern Peru Copper Sales Corp. The remainder of Southern Peru’s output is sold under contracts to its shareholders in proportion to their ownership interests. Southern Peru sold about 35% of its output to ASARCO, App. 89a, at prices determined by reference to average representative trade prices quoted in a trade publication and over which the parties had no control. Id., at 125a-126a; 99 Idaho, at 928, 592 P. 2d, at 43.
ASARCO’s majority interest, if asserted, could enable it to control the management of Southern Peru. The Idaho State Tax Commission, however, found that Southern Peru’s “remaining three shareholders, owning the remainder of the stock, refuse[d] to participate in [Southern Peru] unless assured that they would have a way to assure that management would not be completely dominated by ASARCO.” App. to Juris. Statement 55. Consequently ASARCO entered a management agreement giving it the right to appoint 6 of Southern Peru’s 13 directors. The other three shareholders also appointed six directors. Ibid. The thirteenth and final director is appointed by the joint action of either the shareholders or the first 12 directors. Ibid.; App. 121a. Southern Peru’s bylaws provide that eight votes are required to pass any resolution, ibid, and its articles and bylaws can be changed only by unanimous consent of the four stockholders.
In its unreported opinion, the state trial court concluded that this management contract “insures that [ASARCO] will not be able to control [Southern Peru].” App. to Juris. Statement 43a. It likewise found that Southern Peru “operates independently of [ASARCO].” Id., at 42a. The court reached this conclusion after hearing testimony that ASARCO did not “control Southern Peru in any sense of that term,” App. 121a, and that Southern Peru did not “seek direction or approval from ASARCO on major decisions.” Id., at 124a. Idaho does not dispute any of these facts. In view of the findings and the undisputed facts, we conclude that ASARCO’s Idaho silver mining and Southern Peru’s autonomous business are insufficiently connected to permit the two companies to be classified as a unitary business.
B
Under the principles of our decisions, the relationship of each of the other four subsidiaries to ASARCO falls far short of bringing any of them within its unitary business. M. I. M. Holdings engages in the mining, milling, smelting, and refining of copper, lead, zinc, and silver in Australia. The company also operates a lead and zinc refinery in England. During the years in question M. I. M. sold only about 1% of its output to ASARCO, for sums in the range of $0.2 to $2.2 million. Id., at 43a-47a. It appears that these sales were on the open market at prevailing market rates. ASARCO owns 52.7% of M. I. M.’s stock, and the rest is widely held. Although ASARCO has the control potential to manage M. I. M., no claim is made that it has done so. As an ASARCO executive explained, it never even elected a member of M. I. M.’s board:
“This company has been very successful in staffing the corporation with Australian people and [they have] been able to run this company by themselves and, therefore, in consequence of the nationalistic feeling which develops in most of such developing countries we have not exercised any right we might have to elect a director to the board of the company.” Id., at 132a.
In addition to forgoing its right to elect directors, ASARCO similarly has taken no part in the selection of M. I. M.’s officers — a function of the board of directors. Nor do the two companies have any common directors or officers. Id., at 34a, 40a. The state trial court found that M. I. M. “operates entirely independently of and has minimal contact with” ASARCO. App. to Juris. Statement 43a. As the business relation also is nominal, it is clear that M. I. M. is merely an investment. See, e. g., Keesling & Warren, The Unitary Concept in the Allocation of Income, 12 Hastings L. J. 42, 52-53 (1960).
General Cable and Revere Copper, large publicly owned companies, fabricate metal products. Both are ASARCO customers. But ASARCO held only minority interests, owning approximately 34% of the outstanding common shares of each. The remaining shares — listed on the New York Stock Exchange — are widely held. App. 135a. The two companies occupy parallel positions with respect to ASARCO as a result of a 1961 Department of Justice antitrust suit against ASARCO. The suit was based on ASARCO’s interests in each. In 1967, ASARCO consented to a decree that prohibited it from maintaining common officers in these companies, voting its stock in them, selling the companies copper at prices below those quoted to their competition, and from acquiring stock in any other copper fabricator. Id., at 96a. Neither Revere’s nor General Cable’s management seeks direction or approval from ASARCO on operational or other management decisions. Id., at 137a.
Mexicana mines and smelts lead and copper in Mexico. Originally it was a wholly owned subsidiary of ASARCO, but a change in Mexican law required ASARCO to divest itself of 51% of Mexicana’s stock in 1965. This stock is now publicly held by Mexican nationals. The record does not reveal whether ASARCO and Mexicana have any common directors. The state trial court found, however, that Mexicana “operates independently of [ASARCO],” App. to Juris. Statement 43a, and the Idaho Supreme Court stated that “Mexicana does not seek approval from ASARCO concerning major policy decisions....” 99 Idaho, at 929, 592 P. 2d, at 44.
c
Idaho does not dispute the foregoing facts. Neither does it question that a unitary business relationship between ASARCO and these subsidiaries is a necessary prerequisite to its taxation of the dividends at issue. E. g., Brief for Appellee 10 (“When income is earned from activities which are part of a unitary business conducted in several states, then the requirement that the income bear relation to the benefits and privileges conferred by the several states has been met”). See also Tr. of Oral Arg. 25 (“[W]hen intangible assets such as, for example, shares of stock, are found to be a part of a taxpayer’s own unitary business,... there is no logical or constitutional reason why the income from those same intangibles should be treated any differently than any other business income that that taxpayer might earn”). Rather the State urges that we expand the concept of a “unitary business” to cover the facts of this case.
Idaho’s proposal is that corporate purpose should define unitary business. It argues that intangible income should be considered a part of a unitary business if the intangible property (the shares of stock) is “acquired, managed or disposed of for purposes relating or contributing to the taxpayer’s business.” Brief for Appellee 4. See also Tr. of Oral Arg. 25 (urging that income from intangible property be considered part of a unitary business when the intangibles “contribute to or relate to or are some way in furtherance of the taxpayer’s own trade or business”). Idaho asserts that “[i]t is this integration — i. e., between the business use of the intangible asset (the shares of stock) and ASARCO’s mining, smelting, and refining business — which makes the income part of the unitary business.” Brief for Appellee 4.
This definition of unitary business would destroy the concept. The business of a corporation requires that it earn money to continue operations and to provide a return on its invested capital. Consequently all of its operations, including any investment made, in some sense can be said to be “for purposes related to or contributing to the [corporation’s] business.” When pressed to its logical limit, this conception of the “unitary business” limitation becomes no limitation at all. When less ambitious interpretations are employed, the result is simply arbitrary.
We cannot accept, consistently with recognized due process standards, a definition of “unitary business” that would permit nondomiciliary States to apportion and tax dividends “[w]here the business activities of the dividend payor have nothing to do with the activities of the recipient in the taxing State....” Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes of Vermont, 445 U. S., at 442. In such a situation, it is not true that “the state has given anything for which it can ask return.” Wisconsin v. J. C. Penney Co., 311 U. S., at 444.
Justice Holmes stated long ago that “the possession of bonds secured by mortgages of lands in other States, or of a land-grant in another State or of other property that adds to the riches of the corporation but does not affect the [taxing State’s] part of the [business] is no sufficient ground for the increase of the tax — whatever it may be....” Wallace v. Hines, 253 U. S. 66, 69-70 (1920). In this case, it is plain that the five dividend-paying subsidiaries “add to the riches” of ASARCO. But it is also true that they are “discrete business enterprise[s]” that — in “any business or economic sense” — have “nothing to do with the activities” of ASARCO in Idaho. Mobil, supra, at 439-442. Therefore there is no “rational relationship between the [ASARCO dividend] income attributed to the State and the intrastate values of the enterprise. Moorman Mfg. Co. v. Bair, 437 U. S. 267, 272-273 (1978).” Mobil, supra, at 437. Idaho’s attempt to tax a portion of these dividends can be viewed as “a mere effort to reach profits earned elsewhere under the guise of legitimate taxation.” Bass, Ratcliff & Gretton, Ltd. v. State Tax Comm’n, 266 U. S. 271, 283 (1924). The Due Process Clause bars such an effort to levy upon income that is not properly “within the reach of [Idaho’s] taxing power.” Connecticut General Life Ins. Co. v. Johnson, 303 U. S., at 80.
IV
In addition to the disputed dividend income, Idaho also has sought to tax certain ASARCO interest and capital gains income. The interest income arose from a note ASARCO received from its sale of Mexicana stock and from a Revere convertible debenture, as well as in connection with ASARCO’s 1970 disposition of its General Cable stock. See n. 21, supra. The General Cable stock sale also generated capital gains for ASARCO, as did ASARCO’s sale of a portion of its stock in M. I. M.
Idaho and ASARCO agree that interest and capital gains income derived from these companies should be treated in the same manner as the dividend income. Brief for Appellant 27; Brief for Appellee 21. Cf. 99 Idaho, at 937, 592 P. 2d, at 52 (“In our view the same standard applies to the question whether gains from the sale of stock are business income as applies to the question whether dividends from the stock are business income”). We also agree. “One must look principally at the underlying activity, not at the form of investment, to determine the propriety of apportionability.” Mobil, 445 U. S., at 440. Changing the form of the income “works no change in the underlying economic realities of [whether] a unitary business [exists], and accordingly it ought not to affect the apportionability of income the parent receives.” Id., at 441. We therefore hold that Idaho’s attempt to tax this income also violated the Due Process Clause.
V
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Idaho is
Reversed.
ASARCO also received other intangible income, but the proper tax treatment of that income is not at issue in this case.
M. I. M. Holdings, Ltd., is a publicly owned corporation engaged in the mining, milling, smelting, and refining of nonferrous metals in Australia and England. ASARCO owned about 53% of M. I. M.’s stock during the period in question. General Cable Corp. and Revere Copper and Brass, Inc., are publicly owned companies that respectively fabricate cables and manufacture copper wares. ASARCO owned about 34% of the stock of each. ASARCO Mexicana, S. A., engages in Mexico in the same general line of business as does ASARCO in the United States. ASARCO owned 49% of Mexicana. Southern Peru Copper Corp. mines and smelts copper in Peru. ASARCO owned about 51.5% of Southern Peru during the time at issue.
The UDITPA is a tax allocation system approved in 1957 by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws and by the American Bar Association. See 7A U. L. A. 91 (1978). At least 23 States have adopted substantially all of the UDITPA to date. See id., at 10 (Supp. 1982); Brief for State of Illinois as Amicus Curiae 1-2. The UDITPA has been adopted as Article IV of the Multistate Tax Compact. See United States Steel Corp. v. Multistate Tax Comm’n, 434 U. S. 452, 457-458, n. 6 (1978).
Idaho Code § 63-3027(a)(l) (Supp. 1981). The complete definition provides that “ ‘[b]usiness income’ means income arising from transactions and activity in the regular course of the taxpayers’ trade or business and includes income from the acquisition, management, or disposition of tangible and intangible property when such acquisition, management, or disposition constitute[s] integral or necessary parts of the taxpayers’ trade or business operations. Gains or losses and dividend and interest income from stock and securities of any foreign or domestic corporation shall be presumed to be income from intangible property, the acquisition, management, or disposition of which constitute an integral part of the taxpayers’ trade or business; such presumption may only be overcome by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.” Ibid, (emphasis added). See UDITPA, § 1(a), 7A U. L. A. 93 (1978).
“All business income shall be apportioned to this state by multiplying the income by a fraction, the numerator of which is the property factor plus the payroll factor plus the sales factor, and the denominator of which is three (3).” Idaho Code § 63-3027(i) (Supp. 1981).
“The property factor is a fraction, the numerator of which is the average value of the taxpayer’s real and tangible personal property owned or rented and used in this state during the tax period and the denominator of which is the average value of all the taxpayer’s real and tangible personal property owned or rented and used during the tax period.” § 63 — 3027(j). “The payroll factor is a fraction, the numerator of which is the total amount paid in this state during the tax period by the taxpayer for compensation, and the denominator of which is the total compensation paid everywhere during the tax period.” § 63-3027(m). “The sales factor is a fraction, the numerator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer in this state during the tax period, and the denominator of which is the total sales of the taxpayer everywhere during the tax period.” § 63-3027(o).
“Capital gains and losses from sales of intangible personal property are allocable to this state if the taxpayer’s commercial domicile is in this state, unless such gains and losses constitute business income as defined in this section.” Idaho Code § 63 — 3027(f)(3) (Supp. 1981). “Interest and dividends are allocable to this state if the taxpayer’s commercial domicile is in this state unless such interest or dividends constitute business income as defined in this section.” § 63-3027(g).
Idaho defines “commercial domicile” as “the principal place from which the trade or business of the taxpayer is directed or managed.” § 63-3027(a) (2).
Presently 19 States and the District of Columbia have joined the Compact as full members. Eleven States have joined as associate members. Brief for Multistate Tax Commission and Participating States as Amici Curiae 2.
Idaho law provides that “two... or more corporations the voting stock of which is more than fifty percent... owned directly or indirectly by a common owner or owners may, when necessary to accurately reflect income, be considered a single corporation.” Idaho Code §63-3027(s) (Supp. 1981).
The six unitized subsidiaries are Federated Metals of Canada; ASARCO Mercantile Co.; Enthone, Inc.; International Mining Co.; Lone Star Lead Construction Corp.; and Northern Peru Mining Corp.
The auditor also stated that Southern Peru Copper Corp. and Southern Peru Copper Sales Corp. “were deemed unitary and were combined only for those states in which ownership of less than 80% presents no problem.” App. 88a. See Mobil Oil Corp. v. Commissioner of Taxes of Vermont, 445 U. S. 425, 435, n. 12 (1980). These two corporations were not “deemed unitary” in Idaho.
The auditor noted that ASARCO Mercantile bought and sold equipment for the subsidiaries and that International Metals acted as ASARCO’s foreign sales agent. He further observed that exploration, research and development, insurance procurement, and tax preparation were performed jointly for most or all of these companies. Finally, he stated that ASARCO’s audit staff examined the operations of these subsidiaries to enable “ASARCO to know whether the subsidiaries are operating along the lines set down by its management.” App. 90.
The Idaho Supreme Court also ruled that ASARCO’s receipt of certain rents and royalties, as well as its receipt of dividends from Compañía American Smelting, S. A., constituted apportionable “business” income. It further upheld the trial court’s “nonbusiness
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Murphy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case is a companion to Jones v. Liberty Glass Co., ante, p. 524.
The stipulated facts show that on March 16, 1936, the respondent taxpayer filed with the Collector of Internal Revenue a joint individual income tax return for himself and his wife for the calendar year 1935. This disclosed a tax liability of $8,017.01, which was duly paid. In the return the losses and gains from sales of capital assets by the taxpayer and his wife were reported together, the losses of the wife being deducted from the gains of the husband, resulting in a net loss in excess of $2,000. This amount (the allowable limit of loss) was deducted on the return.
On June 7, 1937, the taxpayer was advised at a conference with revenue agents that there was additional income tax due for the year 1935, aggregating $421.80. The taxpayer’s check, which was tendered for that amount, was later returned to him. Then by a letter dated June 11, 1937, a revenue agent notified the taxpayer that instead of a deficiency of $421.80 on the 1935 income tax return there was a deficiency of $19,973.93 and the taxpayer was furnished a computation showing the basis for such determination. The agent relied upon Article 117-5, Treasury Regulations 86, later declared void by this Court in Helvering v. Janney, 311 U. S. 189. After protest and further conference, the taxpayer gave the agent a check for $21,527.70, covering the then proposed deficiency assessment of $19,973.93, plus interest of $1,553.77. This check was remitted to the United States Treasury, after having been received by the Collector on July 21, 1937.
On July 14, 1937, the taxpayer and his wife executed an agreement waiving certain statutory restrictions in their favor and consenting to the immediate assessment and collection against them of 1935 income tax in the principal sum of $19,973.93, plus deficiency interest of $1,553.77, which the Commissioner thereafter assessed. The agreement specified in a footnote that it was not a final closing agreement under § 606 of the Revenue Act of 1928 and that it did not therefore preclude the assertion of a further deficiency if one should be determined, nor did it extend the statutory period of limitation for refund, assessment or collection of the tax.
On January 28, 1941, the taxpayer and his wife filed a claim for refund of $21,105.90, plus interest, on the ground that there had been an illegal assessment and collection since the revenue agents had “refused to allow the losses of one spouse against the gains of the other spouse in the joint return of husband and wife.” Reference was made to § 3313 of the Internal Revenue Code, specifying a four-year period of limitations. The Commissioner of Internal Revenue rejected this claim in reliance upon § 322 (b) (1) of the Revenue Act of 1934 (the same as § 322 (b) (1) of the Code), establishing a two-year period of limitations; it was pointed out that § 3313 specifically excludes income taxes from those for which a claim may be filed within four years after payment.
On July 12, 1941, the taxpayer filed his individual claim for refund of $21,527.70 paid with respect to the year 1935. The claim was on the same grounds as the claim previously filed by the taxpayer and his wife. This claim was returned with the request that the wife join in the execution of the claim; this request was refused and the claim was returned to the Collector; once again the claim was returned to the taxpayer.
The taxpayer then brought this suit against the Collector to recover the amount alleged to be due in the refund claim. The District Court held that the decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in United States v. Lederer Terminal W. Co., 139 F. 2d 679, controlled the case and made it clear that the four-year period of § 3313 was applicable. Summary judgment was therefore entered for the taxpayer. 66 F. Supp. 258. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed per curiam, 160 F. 2d 104, citing its previous decision in the Lederer Terminal case.
For reasons which we have set forth in Jones v. Liberty Glass Co., ante, p. 524, the decision below cannot stand. The two-year period provided by § 322 (b) (1), rather than the four-year period of § 3313, governs income tax refund claims. The overpayment which brings § 322 (b) (1) into operation occurs whenever the taxpayer has paid an amount over and above his true liability. Hence, if we assume that the deficiency assessment and collection in this case were without legal authority, the taxpayer’s payment of that illegal assessment was an overpayment within the meaning of § 322 (b) (1). And he had two years from the date of that payment within which to file a claim for refund. Since he did not file his claim until three and a half years after payment, the claim was out of time.
It may well be that the taxpayer’s refund claim was prompted by this Court’s decision in Helvering v. Janney, supra, which set aside the Treasury regulation upon which the deficiency assessment was based. That decision was rendered on December 9, 1940, and the taxpayer filed his first refund claim on January 28, 1941. But assuming that the Janney decision makes clear that the taxpayer here made an overpayment, the loss which he now suffers from an application of § 322 (b) (1) is a loss which is inherent in the application of any period of limitations. Such periods are established to cut off rights, justifiable or not, that might otherwise be asserted and they must be strictly adhered to by the judiciary. Rosenman v. United States, 323 U. S. 658, 661. Remedies for resulting inequities are to be provided by Congress, not the courts.
Moreover, it is not our province to speculate as to why Congress established a shorter period of limitations relative to the income tax than is the case of those taxes governed by § 3313. It is enough that § 322 (b) (1) creates a two-year period applicable to all income tax refund claims and that the claim in this case is of that type.
Reversed.
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: | 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 Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) filed a civil complaint alleging that a stockbroker violated both § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 891, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 78j(b), and the SEC’s Rule 10b-5, by selling his customer’s securities and using the proceeds for his own benefit without the customer’s knowledge or consent. The question presented is whether the alleged fraudulent conduct was "in connection with the purchase or sale of any security” within the meaning of the statute and the Rule.
I
Between 1987 and 1991, respondent was employed as a securities broker in the Maryland branch of a New York brokerage firm. In 1987, he persuaded William Wood, an elderly man in poor health, to open a joint investment account for himself and his mentally retarded daughter. According to . the SEC’s complaint, the "stated investment objectives for the account were ‘safety of principal and income.’” App. to Pet. for Cert. 27a. The Woods granted respondent discretion to manage their account and a general power of attorney to engage in securities transactions for their benefit without prior approval. Relying on respondent’s promise to “conservatively invest” their money, the Woods entrusted him with $419,255. Before Mr. Wood’s death in 1991, all of that money was gone.
In 1991, the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) conducted a routine examination of respondent’s firm and discovered that on over 25 separate occasions, money had been transferred from the Woods’ account to accounts controlled by respondent. In due course, respondent was indicted in the United States District Court for the District of Maryland on 13 counts of wire fraud in violation, of 18 U. S. C. §1343. App. to Pet. for Cert. 40a. The first count alleged that respondent sold securities in the Woods’ account and then made personal use of the proceeds. Id., at 42a. Each of the other counts alleged that he made wire transfers between Maryland and New York that enabled him to withdraw specified sums from the Woods’ accounts. Id., at 42a-50a. Some of those transfers involved respondent writing checks to himself from a mutual fund account held by the Woods, which required liquidating securities in order to redeem the checks. Respondent was convicted on all counts, sentenced to prison for 52 months, and ordered to pay $10,800 in restitution.
After respondent was indicted, the SEC filed a civil complaint in the same District Court alleging that respondent violated § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5 by engaging in a scheme to defraud the Woods and by misappropriating approximately $343,000 of the Woods’ securities without their knowledge or consent. Id., at 27a. The SEC moved for partial summary judgment after respondent’s criminal conviction, arguing that the judgment in the criminal case estopped respondent from contesting facts that established a violation of § 10(b). Respondent filed a motion seeking discovery on the question whether his fraud had the requisite “connection with” the purchase or sale of a security. The District Court refused to allow discovery and entered summary judgment against respondent. It enjoined him from engaging in future violations of the securities laws and ordered him to disgorge $343,000 in ill-gotten gains.
The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed the summary judgment and remanded with directions for the District Court to dismiss the complaint. 238 F. 3d 559 (2001). It first held that the wire fraud conviction, which only required two findings — (1) that respondent engaged in a scheme to defraud and (2) that he used interstate wire communications in executing the scheme — did not establish all the elements of a § 10(b) violation. Specifically, the conviction did not necessarily establish that his fraud was “in connection with” the sale of a security. Id., at 562. The court then held that the civil complaint did not sufficiently allege the necessary connection because the sales of the Woods’ securities were merely incidental to a fraud that “lay in absconding with the proceeds” of sales that were conducted in “a routine and customary fashion,” id., at 564. Respondent’s “scheme was simply to steal the Woods’ assets” rather than to engage “in manipulation of a particular security.” Id., at 565. Ultimately, the court refused “to stretch the language of the securities fraud provisions to encompass every conversion or theft that happens to involve securities.” Id., at 566. Adopting what amounts to a “fraud on the market” theory of the statute’s coverage, the court held that without some “relationship to market integrity or investor understanding,” there is no violation of § 10(b). Id., at 563.
We granted the SEC’s petition for a writ of certiorari, 534 U. S. 1015 (2001), to review the Court of Appeals’ construction of the phrase “in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.” Because the Court of Appeals ordered the complaint dismissed rather than remanding for reconsideration, we assume the allegations contained therein are true and affirm that disposition only if no set of facts would entitle petitioner to relief. See Hartford Fire Ins. Co. v. California, 509 U. S. 764, 811 (1993). We do not reach the question whether the record supports the District Court’s grant of summary judgment in the SEC’s favor — a question that requires all potential factual disputes to be resolved in respondent’s favor. We merely hold that the allegations of the complaint, if true, entitle the SEC to relief; therefore, the Court of Appeals should not have directed that the complaint be dismissed.
II
Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act makes it “unlawful for any person . . . [t]o use or employ, in connection with the purchase or sale of any security . . . , any manipulative or deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the [SEC] may prescribe.” 15 U. S. C. §78j. Rule 10b-5, which implements this provision, forbids the use, “in connection with the purchase or sale of any security,” of “any device, scheme, or artifice to defraud” or any other “act, practice, or course of business” that “operates ... as a fraud or deceit.” 17 CFR §240.10b-5 (2000). Among .Congress’ objectives in passing the Act was “to insure honest securities markets and thereby promote investor confidence” after the market crash of 1929. United States v. O’Hagan, 521 U. S. 642, 658 (1997); see also United States v. Naftalin, 441 U. S. 768, 775 (1979). More generally, Congress sought “ ‘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.’ ” Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, 406 U. S. 128, 151 (1972) (quoting SEC v. Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc., 375 U. S. 180, 186 (1963)).
Consequently, we have explained that the statute should be “construed ‘not technically and restrictively, but flexibly to effectuate its remedial purposes.’” 406 U. S., at 151 (quoting Capital Gains Research Bureau, Inc., 375 U. S., at 195). In its role enforcing the Act, the SEC has consistently adopted a broad reading of the phrase “in connection with the purchase or sale of any security.” It has maintained that a broker who accepts payment for securities that he never intends to deliver, or who sells customer securities with intent to misappropriate the proceeds, violates § 10(b) and Rule 10b-5. See, e.g., In re Bauer, 26 S. E. C. 770 (1947); In re Southeastern Securities Corp., 29 S. E. C. 609 (1949). This interpretation of the ambiguous text of § 10(b), in the context of formal adjudication, is entitled to deference if it is reasonable, see United States v. Mead Corp., 583 U. S. 218, 229-230, and n. 12 (2001). For the reasons set forth below, we think it is. While the statute must not be construed so broadly as to convert every common-law fraud that happens to involve securities into a violation of § 10(b), Marine Bank v. Weaver, 455 U. S. 551, 556 (1982) (“Congress, in enacting the securities laws, did not intend to provide a .broad federal remedy for all fraud”), neither the SEC nor this Court has ever held that there must be a misrepresentation about the value of a particular security in order to run afoul of the Act.
The SEC claims respondent engaged in a fraudulent scheme in which he made sales of his customer’s securities for his own benefit. Respondent submits that the sales themselves were perfectly lawful and that the subsequent misappropriation of the proceeds, though fraudulent, is not properly viewed as having the requisite connection with the sales; in his view, the alleged scheme is not materially different from a simple theft of cash or securities in an investment account. We disagree.
According to the complaint, respondent “engaged in a scheme to defraud” the Woods beginning in 1988, shortly after they opened their account, and that scheme continued throughout the 2-year period during which respondent made a series of transactions that enabled him to convert the proceeds of the sales of the Woods’ securities to his own use. App. to Pet. for Cert. 27a-29a. The securities sales and respondent’s fraudulent practices were not independent events. This is not a case in which, after a lawful transaction had been consummated, a broker decided to steal the proceeds and did so. Nor is it a case in which a thief simply invested the proceeds of a routine conversion in the stock market. Rather, respondent’s fraud coincided with the sales themselves.
Taking the allegations in the complaint as true, each sale was made to further respondent’s fraudulent scheme; each was deceptive because it was neither authorized by, nor disclosed to, the Woods. With regard to the sales of shares in the Woods’ mutual fund, respondent initiated these transactions by writing a check to himself from that account, knowing that redeeming the check would require the sale of securities. Indeed, each time respondent “exercised his power of disposition for his own benefit,” that conduct, “without more,” was a fraud. United States v. Dunn, 268 U. S. 121, 131 (1925). In the aggregate, the sales are properly viewed as a “course of business” that operated as a fraud or deceit on a stockbroker’s customer.
Insofar as the connection between respondent’s deceptive practices and his sale of the Woods’ securities is concerned, the case is remarkably similar to Superintendent of Ins. of N. Y. v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 404 U. S. 6 (1971). In that case the directors of Manhattan Casualty Company authorized the sale of the company’s portfolio of treasury bonds because they had been “duped” into believing that the company would receive the proceeds of the sale. Id., at 9. We held that “Manhattan was injured as an investor through a deceptive device which deprived it of any compensation for the sale of its valuable block of securities.” Id., at 10. In reaching this conclusion, we did not ask, as the Fourth Circuit did in this case, whether the directors were misled about the value of a security or whether the fraud involved “manipulation of a particular security.” 238 F. 3d, at 565. In fact, we rejected the Second Circuit’s position in Superintendent of Ins. of N. Y. v. Bankers Life & Casualty Co., 430 F. 2d 355, 361 (1970), that because the fraud against Manhattan did not take place within the context of a securities exchange it was not prohibited by § 10(b). 404 U. S., at 10. We refused to read the statute so narrowly, noting that it “must be read flexibly, not technically and restrictively.” Id., at 12. Although we recognized that the interest in “ ‘preserving the integrity of the securities markets’ ” was one of the purposes animating the statute, we rejected the notion that § 10(b) is limited to serving that objective alone. Ibid. (“We agree that Congress by § 10(b) did not seek to regulate transactions which constitute no more than internal corporate mismanagement. But we read § 10(b) to mean that Congress meant to bar deceptive devices and contrivances in the purchase or sale of securities whether conducted in the organized markets or face to face”).
Like the company directors in Bankers Life, the Woods were injured as investors through respondent’s deceptions, which deprived them of any compensation for the sale of their valuable securities. They were duped into believing respondent would “conservatively invest” their assets in the stock market and that any transactions made on their behalf would be for their benefit for the “ ‘safety of principal and income.’” App. to Pet. for Cert. 27a. The fact that respondent misappropriated the proceeds of the sales provides persuasive evidence that he had violated § 10(b) when he made the sales, but misappropriation is not an essential element of the offense. Indeed, in Bankers Life, we flatly stated that it was “irrelevant” that “the proceeds of the sale that were due the seller were misappropriated.” 404 U. S., at 10. It is enough that the scheme to defraud and the sale of securities coincide.
The Court of Appeals below distinguished Bankers Life on the ground that it involved an affirmative misrepresentation, whereas respondent simply failed to inform the Woods of his intent to misappropriate their securities. 238 F. 3d, at 566. We are not persuaded by this distinction. Respondent was only able to carry out his fraudulent scheme without making an affirmative misrepresentation because the Woods had trusted him to make transactions in their best interest without prior approval. Under these circumstances, respondent’s fraud represents an even greater threat to investor confidence in the securities industry than the misrepresentation in Bankers Life. Not only does such a fraud prevent investors from trusting that their brokers are executing transactions for their benefit, but it undermines the value of a discretionary account like that held by the Woods. The benefit of a discretionary account is that it enables individuals, like the Woods, who lack the time, capacity, or know-how to supervise investment decisions, to delegate authority to a broker who will make decisions in their best interests without prior approval. If such individuals cannot rely on a broker to exercise that discretion for their benefit, then the account loses its added value. Moreover, any distinction between omissions and misrepresentations is illusory in the context of a broker who has a fiduciary duty to her clients. See Chiarella v. United States, 445 U. S. 222,230 (1980) (noting that “silence in connection with the purchase or sale of securities may operate as a fraud actionable under § 10(b)” when there is “a duty to disclose arising from a relationship of trust and confidence between parties to a transaction”); Affiliated Ute Citizens of Utah v. United States, 406 U. S., at 153.
More recently, in Wharf (Holdings) Ltd. v. United Int’l Holdings, Inc., 532 U. S. 588 (2001), our decision that the seller of a security had violated § 10(b) focused on the secret intent of the seller when the sale occurred. The purchaser claimed “that Wharf sold it a security (the option) while secretly intending from the very beginning not to honor the option.” Id., at 597. Although Wharf did not specifically argue that the breach of contract underlying the complaint lacked the requisite connection with a sale of securities, it did assert that the case was merely a dispute over ownership of the option, and that interpreting § 10(b) to include such a claim would convert every breach of contract that happened to involve a security into a violation of the federal securities laws. Id., at 596. We rejected that argument because the purchaser’s claim was not that the defendant failed to carry out a promise to sell securities; rather, the claim was that the defendant sold a security while never intending to honor its agreement in the first place. Id., at 596-597. Similarly, in this case the SEC claims respondent sold the Woods’ securities while secretly intending from the very beginning to keep the proceeds. In Wharf, the fraudulent intent deprived the purchaser of the benefit of the sale whereas here the fraudulent intent deprived the seller of that benefit, but the connection between the deception and the sale in each case is identical.
In United States v. O’Hagan, 521 U. S. 642 (1997), we held that the defendant had committed fraud “in connection with” a securities transaction when he used misappropriated confidential information for trading purposes. We reasoned that “the fiduciary’s fraud is consummated, not when the fiduciary gains the confidential information, but when, without disclosure to his principal, he uses the information to purchase or sell securities. The securities transaction and the breach of duty thus coincide. This is so even though the person or entity defrauded is not the other party to the trade, but is, instead, the source of the nonpublic information.” Id., at 656. The Court of Appeals distinguished O’Hagan by reading it to require that the misappropriated information or assets not have independent value to the client outside the securities market, 238 F. 3d, at 565. We do not read O’Hagan as so limited. In the chief passage cited by the Court of Appeals for this proposition, we discussed the Government’s position that “[t]he misappropriation theory would not.,. apply to a ease in which a person defrauded a bank into giving him a loan or embezzled cash from another, and then used the proceeds of the misdeed to purchase securities,” because in that situation “the proceeds would have value to the malefactor apart from their use in a securities transaction, and the fraud would be complete as soon as the money was obtained.” 521 U. S., at 656 (internal quotation marks omitted). Even if this passage could be read to introduce a new requirement into § 10(b), it would not affect our analysis of this case, because the Woods’ securities did not have value for respondent apart from their use in a securities transaction and the fraud was not complete before the sale of securities occurred.
As in Bankers Life, Wharf, and O’Hagan, the SEC complaint describes a fraudulent scheme in which the securities transactions and breaches of fiduciary duty coincide. Those breaches were therefore “in connection with” securities sales within the meaning of § 10(b). Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The scope of Rule 10b-5 is coextensive with the coverage of § 10(b), see United States v. O’Hagan, 521 U. S. 642, 651 (1997); Ernst & Ernst v. Hochfelder, 425 U. S. 185, 214 (1976); therefore, we use § 10(b) to refer to both the statutory provision and the Rule.
The complaint also contained allegations that respondent had engaged in excessive trading, or “churning,” to generate commission income. App. to Pet. for Cert. 30a. That claim was originally excluded from the summary judgment motion, and later abandoned by the SEC.
A summary of the evidence in the Court of Appeals’ opinion affirming the judgment in respondent’s criminal case supports the conclusion that the verdict did not necessarily determine that the fraud was connected with the sale of a security:
“The Government presented ample direct and circumstantial evidence showing that Zandford had engaged in a scheme to defraud the Woods. It showed that: (1) Zandford had systematically transferred large sums of money from the Woods’ account to his own accounts over a nineteen month period; (2) prior to November 1987, the Woods had no relationship with Zandford; (3) Zandford, and not the Woods, benefited from the money transfers; (4) the Woods were vulnerable victims due to their physical and mental limitations; (5) the personal services agreement, the loan, and the vintage car restoration business were not only contrary to the Woods’ stated investment objectives, but they violated the rules of NASD and those of Zandford’s employer that prohibited brokers from engaging in such arrangements; and (6) vehicles owned as part of the vintage car restoration business were titled in the name of Zandford’s girlfriend as opposed to the Woods’ names. Additional evidence showing a scheme to defraud included Zandford’s failure to disclose to his employer the existence of the agreements and personal loans; his failure to report on his taxes or bank loan applications that he received income from acting as the personal representative; and his failure to disclose on his taxes his involvement in a vintage car restoration business. Zandford’s contention that there is insufficient evidence supporting that he had engaged in a scheme to defraud the Woods is meritless.” Id., at 36a-37a.
Nor do we review the District Court’s decision denying respondent discovery — a decision that may have been influenced by respondent’s frequent filings while incarcerated. The District Court noted that respondent “has been an active litigant before and during his incarceration.” Id., at 16a, n. 1 (citing Zandford v. NASD, 30 F. Supp. 2d 1 (DC 1998); Zandford v. NASD, 19 F. Supp. 2d 1 (DC 1998); Zandford v. NASD, 19 F. Supp. 2d 4 (DC 1998); Zandford v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc., 112 F. 3d 723 (CA4 1997); Zandford v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc., 111 F. 3d 963 (DC 1998) (judgt. order); Zandford v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc., Civ. Action No. 94-0036,1995 WL 507169 (D. D. C., Aug. 15, 1995); Zandford v. Prudential-Bache Securities, Inc., Civ. Action No. HAR-90-2568, 1994 WL 150918 (D. Md., Feb. 22, 1994); Zandford v. NASD, Civ. Action No. 93-1274, 1993 WL 580761 (D. D. C., Nov. 5, 1993)).
Contrary to the Court of Appeals’ prediction, 238 F. 3d 559, 566 (CA4 2001), our analysis does not transform every breach of fiduciary duty into a federal securities violation. If, for example, a broker embezzles cash from a client’s account or takes advantage of the fiduciary relationship to induce his client into a fraudulent real estate transaction, then the fraud would not include the requisite connection to a purchase or sale of securities. Tr. of Oral Arg. 16. Likewise, if the broker told his client he was stealing the client’s assets, that breach of fiduciary duty might be in connection with a sale of securities, but it would not involve a deceptive device or fraud. Cf. Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green, 430 U. S. 462, 474-476 (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: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Vinson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The parties to this case are the same gas workers’ union, many of the same officers of that union, the same gas companies and the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board involved in No. 438, decided this day, ante, p. 383. The instant proceeding began when, at the time of the strike described in No. 438, appellant gas workers filed suit in a federal district court against the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board and the gas company for declaratory and injunctive relief to the end that the Wisconsin Public Utility Anti-Strike Law be adjudged invalid for the reasons successfully advanced in No. 438.
The District Court of three judges, convened under 28 U. S. C. § 2281, did not reach the substantive issues, but relied on principles of res judicata, holding tha,t a prior state court judgment to which appellants were party conclusively barred them from raising any issues pertaining to the constitutionality of the Wisconsin Act. In that prior state court action, brought to test the statute before any strike had been threatened, appellants sought a declaratory judgment that the Wisconsin Act contravened the State Constitution and the Federal Due Process Clause and was in conflict with federal labor legislation. Except for the question of undue delegation of power under the state constitution, the issues sought to be raised in the state declaratory proceeding were the same as those raised in No. 438, ante, p. 383, and in the instant proceeding. In the prior state court action, the Circuit Court entered judgment against appellants on the merits on all issues. On appeal, the Wisconsin Supreme Court affirmed, but reached the merits only in respect to the delegation-of-power issue. As to the issues common to that case, the instant case and No. 438, the State Supreme Court held that a decision on the constitutional questions presented would be premature in the absence of a concrete factual record, and that courts should not decide constitutional issues in the abstract or as hypothetical questions. United Gas, Coke & Chemical Workers of America, Local 18, C. I. O. v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, 255 Wis. 154, 38 N. W. 2d 692 (1949). Certiorari to that decision was not sought in this Court, appellants contending that such a step would have been futile in view of the adequacy of the state grounds supporting the Wisconsin court’s refusal to adjudicate the issues presented.
Following this abortive attempt to secure a final adjudication of the federal questions, there occurred a strike and a state circuit court issued a restraining order, as described in the opinion in No. 438, ante, p. 383. In the resulting contempt proceeding, before us in No. 438, appellants attack the validity of the Wisconsin Act, raising the Due Process and Commerce Clause questions. Appellees urged in that case, as they do in this case, that the prior state declaratory judgment proceeding barred appellants’ further attack upon the act under the doctrine of res judicata. Appellees reason that since the State Circuit Court judgment in the prior action went against appellants on the merits and since the Wisconsin Supreme Court ordered that judgment "affirmed” the judgment barred further attack on the statute by appellants without regard to what the Wisconsin Supreme Court might have said in its opinion. The Federal District Court adopted this line of reasoning as to res judicata and held, one judge dissenting, that appellants are barred from attacking the Wisconsin Public Utility Anti-Strike Law. 90 F. Supp. 347 (1950). The case is properly here on appeal. 28 U. S. C. § 1253.
We need not linger over the propriety of invoking the doctrine of res judicata in this type of case, for we have a direct holding of the Wisconsin Supreme Court to show us that the District Court's interpretation of the state law as to res judicata in this particular case was erroneous. The State Circuit Court, in the contempt proceedings before this Court in No. 438, adopted the same theory of res judicata as did the District Court. That theory was urged upon the Wisconsin Supreme Court on appeal. Yet the highest state court did not hesitate in reaching and deciding on the merits the very issues which the State Circuit Court in that case and the District Court below held could not be raised by appellants. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board v. Milwaukee Gas Light Co., 258 Wis. 1, 44 N. W. 2d 547 (1950). This is the decision which we reversed this day in No. 438, ante, p. 383. Under such circumstances, justice requires that the judgment of the court below barring appellants from attacking the validity of the Wisconsin Public Utility Anti-Strike Law be vacated.
But there remains the question as to whether appellants are entitled to a federal court judgment restraining enforcement of the Wisconsin Act as prayed. Appellants seek only injunctive and declaratory relief looking to the future. In view of today’s decisions in Nos. 329 and 438, ante, p. 383, the latter case involving the very parties to this action, “we find no ground for supposing that the intervention of a federal court, in order to secure [appellants’] constitutional rights, will be either necessary or appropriate.” Douglas v. Jeannette, 319 U. S. 157, 165 (1943). For this reason, the judgment below is vacated and the ease remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the complaint.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Burton, and Mr. Justice Minton agree that the judgment of the State Court was not res judicata, but insofar as vacating the judgment below derives from the decisions in Nos. 329 and 438 they dissent for the reasons set forth in their dissenting opinion, ante, p. 399.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Granville C. Matise, a seaman, brought this suit alleging that upon his discharge from the S. S. American Hawk, petitioner, the ship’s owner, withheld $510 in wages from him. Matise claimed that, pursuant to Rev. Stat. § 4529, as amended, 46 U. S. C. § 596, he was entitled to two days’ pay for every day that payment of the $510 had been delayed.
Title 46 TJ. S. C. § 596 provides in relevant part;
“The master or owner of any vessel [making foreign voyages] shall pay to every seaman his wages... within twenty-four hours after the cargo has been discharged, or within four days after the seaman has been discharged, whichever first happens . . . . Every master or owner who refuses or neglects to make payment in the manner hereinbefore mentioned without sufficient cause shall pay to the seaman a sum equal to two days’ pay for each and every day during which payment is delayed beyond the respective periods, which sum shall be recoverable as wages in any claim made before the court.”
The parties to this case differ over the meaning of “sufficient cause” under § 596; they are in conflict, too, over whether the trial court can exercise any discretion in determining the amount of the award under § 596. But we need not address either of these questions today. We hold simply that in this case the District Court correctly concluded that petitioner-shipowner never “refuse [d] or neglect [ed] to make payment” to Matise. This being so, petitioner incurred no liability under § 596.
I
Granville Matise was hired on January 11, 1969, as a seaman aboard the S. S. American Hawk. Between February 14 and March 19, 1969, there were five occasions on which the ship’s master entered in the ship’s log reports that Matise either was absent from his duty position or, because of intoxication, was unable to fulfill his normal responsibilities. On the first four occasions relatively minor penalties of the loss of several days’ pay were imposed. On March 19, the date of the fifth log entry, the master decided that Matise should be discharged. With the ship docked in Saigon, South Vietnam, the master took Matise before the United States Vice Consul stationed in Saigon. The Vice Consul, whose duty in such situations is to “inquire carefully into the facts and circumstances, and [to] satisfy himself that good and substantial reasons exist for a discharge,” 22 CFR § 82.16, agreed with the master that Matise’s discharge was justified. He granted the discharge application without objection from Matise, and entered into the ship’s log a notation stating that he “agreed to remove [Matise] from the vessel on grounds of misconduct at the Master’s request and for the good of the vessel.” The Vice Consul also advised the master that, because the discharge resulted from repeated instances of misconduct by Matise, petitioner was not obligated to pay for Matise’s repatriation.
Petitioner did, of course, have an obligation to pay Matise the wages that he had earned prior to his discharge. See 46 U. S. C. § 696. But payment in a form enabling Matise to secure transportation back to the United States was no easy matter. South Vietnamese law prohibited American seamen from carrying American currency ashore, and required that any ship’s safe containing American currency be sealed while the ship was in port. An airline ticket to the United States, however, could be purchased only with American currency. Thus, Matise could not simply be put ashore with his wages and left there to secure transportation back to the United States for himself.
In order to resolve the resulting dilemma, Vietnamese Customs officials gave the ship’s master special permission to break the seal on the ship’s safe and to remove enough money to purchase an airline ticket to the United States. The ticket was purchased and given to Matise along with a wage voucher for $118.45 — a sum which, as indicated on the voucher itself, represented the amount of the wages due him, less the $510 paid for the airline ticket. When Matise arrived back in the United States, he signed off the ship’s articles, executed a mutual release, and, on March 24, 1969, received the $118.45 from petitioner.
Almost one year later Matise filed suit against petitioner in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. He claimed that petitioner had withheld from him $510 in wages, and that petitioner was liable to him for that amount and, as provided in § 596, for two days’ pay for every day that payment had been delayed. The District Court rejected Matise’s claim, finding that he had “consented to and approved the purchase of an airline ticket for his purposes with his money,” and concluding that “[t]he purchase of that ticket under those circumstances constituted the equivalent of payment of monies over to the seaman.” Having found that the purchase of the airline ticket for $510 constituted a partial payment of wages, the District Court concluded that petitioner had not “'refuse [d]. or neglect [ed]” to pay and had therefore incurred no liability under § 596.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. 488 F. 2d 469 (1974). It read § 596 as requiring that wage payments be paid directly to the seaman, and held that the $510 paid to the airline without ever having passed through Matise’s hands could not be regarded as a partial payment of wages. Citing this Court’s indication. in Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson, 343 U. S. 779 (1952), that only deductions and setoffs for derelictions of duty specifically provided for by Congress could lawfully be deducted from a seaman’s wages, the Court of Appeals concluded that since the statutory scheme does not provide for setoffs for return transportation expenses,, the “withholding” here at issue was improper and was without “sufficient'cause.” under § 596.
On remand, the District Court assessed damages in the amount of $510 for the wages “wrongfully withheld” and $29,462 in penalties, representing double wages calculated from March 24, 1969, four days after the discharge, until December 15, 1971, the date of the first District Court judgment in the case. Petitioner’s appeal from this assessment was dismissed by the Court of Appeals as frivolous, and this Court thereupon granted certiorari. 420 U. S. 971 (1975). We reverse.
II
The threshold question in this case is whether petitioner’s purchase and Matise’s receipt of the airline ticket constituted a partial payment of wages. If it was a partial payment, then there was no refusal or neglect to pay wages and there can be no double-wage liability under § 596. Only if the transaction was not a partial payment are we presented with the question whether the “withholding" of the $510 was without “sufficient cause” under § 596.
In Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson, supra, on which the Court of Appeals heavily relied, there was no question that what this Court was faced with was a refusal or neglect to make payment. There respondent, a seaman, had stabbed one of his shipmates while at sea. Over respondent’s objection, the shipowner deducted from his wages amounts spent for the medical care and hospitalization of the shipmate. We held that because the deductions were not provided for in the relevant statutes, they should not have been made — even though it might later have been determined that the shipowner had a valid claim for reimbursement against the respondent.
The situation before us today is quite different from that in Isbrandtsen. While the deductions in Isbrandt-sen were made over the seaman’s objection, the District Court in this case explicitly found that Matise “consented to and approved the purchase of an airline ticket for his purposes with his money.” Moreover, unlike the seaman in Isbrandtsen, Matise received a benefit from the petitioner’s expenditure that he simply could not have obtained through being paid in cash. Because of South Vietnamese currency regulations, it was only the procedure that was followed that allowed Matise to secure air transportation to the United States. Under such circumstances, it is evident that the shipowner did not refuse or neglect to make payment under § 596 as the shipowner in Isbrandtsen so clearly did; rather, the transaction in question constituted a partial payment of Matise’s wages.
The Court of Appeals rejected petitioner’s attempt to treat the giving of the plane ticket to Matise as a payment of wages. It viewed the purchase of the ticket as a payment to the airline, not to Matise, and observed that “the applicable statutes explicitly and unequivocally provide that the wages due are to be paid to the seaman, 46 U. S. C. §§ 596-597.” 488 F. 2d, at 471 (emphasis in original). The Court was evidently relying at this point on the following language in § 596: “The master . . . shall pay to every seaman his wages . . . within four days after the seaman has been discharged . . . .” (Emphasis added.)
The Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the “payment” went to the airline and not to Matise does not necessarily follow from the facts of this case. It could as easily be argued that “payment,” albeit in the form of an airline ticket rather than cash, was made to Matise. But even under the Court of Appeals’ characterization of the transaction, we are unwilling to say that the payment was precluded by the general language of § 596. A far more explicit statement would be required to bar such a payment under the peculiar circumstances of this case. The obvious concern of § 596 is that the shipowner not unlawfully withhold wages, and thereby unjustly enrich himself while wrongfully denying the seaman the benefits of his labor. In this case, there was neither unjust enrichment of the shipowner nor a denial of benefits to the seaman. The shipowner made in a timely manner all the expenditures for which it was obligated. And the seaman received full benefit from the $510 by consenting to have it applied in the fashion most useful to him — the purchase of an airline ticket.
Respondent advanced an alternative theory during oral argument to support the contention that petitioner neglected to make payment under § 596. Respondent argued that the master’s failure to enter into the ship’s logbook a notation that the $510 had been paid bars viewing the transaction as a partial payment of wages.
We find this argument unpersuasive. When crew members become liable for deductions from wages dis-ing a ship’s voyage, there is, it is true, a statutory requirement that “the master shall, during the voyage, enter the various matters in respect to which such deductions are made, with the amounts of the respective deductions as they occur, in the official log book.” 46 U. S. C. § 642. As we have indicated above, however, the airline ticket transaction in this case is not a “deduction from” Matise’s wages, but rather is itself a partial payment of wages. Section 642’s terms do not apply to payments of wages. The shipowner therefore acted properly in doing no more than rendering Matise a complete wage voucher that clearly noted the purchase of the airline ticket.
Ill
In reversing the decision of the Court of Appeals, we do not retreat from our view that the aim of § 596 is “to protect [seamen] from the harsh consequences of arbitrary and unscrupulous action [s] of their employers.” Collie v. Fergusson, 281 U. S. 52, 55 (1930). In this case, there was no impropriety either in the discharge itself or in the payment of wages to Matise. Nor do we today compromise our holding in Isbrandtsen that “only such deductions and set-offs for derelictions in the performance of . . . duties shall be allowed against. . . wages as are recognized in the statutes.” 343 U. S., at 787. We hold simply that, under the circumstances of this case, the transaction resulting in Matise’s receipt of an airline ticket purchased with money owed to him as wages constituted a payment of wages. There was therefore no refusal or neglect to make payment under § 596.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
While the Third and Ninth Circuits have found that the trial judge has no discretion in determining the amount of the penalty under § 596, Swain v. Isthmian Lines, Inc., 360 F. 2d 81 (CA3 1966); Escobar v. S. S. Washington Trader, 503 F. 2d 271 (CA9 1974), cert. pending sub nom. American Trading Transp. Co. v. Escobar, No. 74-1184, the First, Second, Fourth, and Fifth Circuits have concluded that the length of time to which the penalty applies — and hence its amount — is subject to the discretion of the District Court. Mavromatis v. United Greek Shipowners Corp., 179 F. 2d 310 (CA1 1950); Forster v. Oro Navigation Co., 228 F. 2d 319 (CA2 1955), aff’g 128 F. Supp. 113 (SDNY 1954); Southern Cross S. S. Co. v. Firipis, 285 F. 2d 651 (CA4 1960), cert. denied, 365 U. S. 869 (1961); Caribbean Federation Lines v. Dahl, 315 F. 2d 370 (CA5 1963).
See also 46 U. S. C. §682; 7 Foreign Affairs Manual §526.2.
Two Coast Guard officers with whom the master had earlier consulted concerning Matise’s misconduct were also present and concurred in the Vice Consul’s advice that there was no obligation of repatriation.
South Vietnamese currency regulations were apparently not the only barrier to simply discharging Matise with his full wages in cash in Saigon. The Court of Appeals noted that South Vietnamese law also required the shipowner to guarantee the removal from the country of all persons whom it had transported to South Vietnam. 488 F. 2d 469, 471-472.
Apart from the airline ticket expense, several deductions, none of them here at issue, were also reflected on the wage voucher.
Such a release is required by 46 U. S. C. § 644. Once such a release is signed, it “shall operate as a mutual discharge and settlement of all demands for wages between the parties thereto, on account of wages, in respect of the past voyage or engagement,” § 644, except that “any court having jurisdiction may upon good cause shown set aside such release and take such action as justice shall require.” § 597.
Granville Matise died during the pendency of the suit. Lillian M. Matise, respondent in this vase, was appointed by the State of Maryland to administer his estate. Pursuant to stipulation, the District Court substituted respondent as plaintiff in this action.
The District Court also held petitioner liable for interest on these sums, as well as for court costs in both the District Court and Court of Appeals.
The District Court assessment was made in conformity with Escobar v. S. S. Washington Trader. See n. 1, supra.
Respondent conceded as much at oral argument before this Court. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 27, 31.
46 U. S. C. §§ 659, 663, 701, 707.
The Court of Appeals rejected the District Court’s finding that Matise had consented to the purchase of the airline ticket with part of the wages due him, in part because of its conclusion that Matise was "compelled to sign the release and Wage Voucher in order to receive the remainder of his wages that admittedly were due.” 488 F. 2d, at 473. But there is nothing in the record to indicate that Matise's signing the wage voucher and release was the product of any such compulsion. Indeed, no claim is made that Matise registered any dissatisfaction whatsoever with either the form or amount of his wages until some months after signing the release. Nor was he the subject of any fraud or misrepresentation. See n. 14, infra. Accordingly, the District Court’s finding that Matise had consented to and approved the form and amount of his wage payment was not clearly erroneous and should have been respected by the Court of Appeals.
To the extent that the respondent in Isbrandtsen Co. v. Johnson, 343 U. S. 779 (1952), was ultimately liable for the expenses surrounding his shipmate’s injury, he too could be said to have benefited from the shipowner’s payment of those expenses. However, unlike the ease before us today, this was a “benefit” that he could have secured for himself had he been paid the wages directly.
Any suggestion that on Matise’s discharge petitioner had a repatriation obligation to him independent of the obligation to pay wages is without merit. That this is so follows from respondent’s concession that the discharge was validly based on Matise’s misconduct. A shipowner’s obligation to repatriate a seaman discharged in a foreign port depends on the circumstances of the discharge. For instance, there is a general obligation to repatriate seamen who, through causes other than their own misconduct, have been injured. See Ladzinski v. Sperling S. S. & Trading Corp., 300 F. Supp. 947, 956 (SDNY 1969); Miller v. United States, 51 F. Supp. 924 (SDNY 1943); The Centennial, 10 F. 397 (ED La. 1881); 1 M. Norris, The Law of Seamen §418 (1970). On the other hand, as the Court of Appeals recognized in this case, 488 F. 2d, at 471, there is no obligation to repatriate a seaman like Matise who has been discharged for misconduct. 1 Norris, supra, § 420. See Aguilar v. Standard Oil Co., 318 U. S. 724, 731 (1943).
Nothing in Isbrandtsen suggests that when a seaman concedes that his discharge for misconduct is warranted, the shipowner must pay for the seaman’s repatriation and only later claim reimbursement from him. It is true that Isbrandtsen indicated that, because of the importance of repatriation allowances to seamen, amounts not deductible from earned wages may not be deducted from a repatriation allowance that is owing to a seaman. 343 U. S., at 789 n. 12. But in this case, we are presented, not with a deduction from a repatriation allowance that was owed to Matise, but rather, because of the nature of Matise’s discharge, with the absence of any obligation at all on the part of the shipowner toward Matise to repatriate him. The Vice Consul’s advice to the master, see supra, at 153, that petitioner had no obligation — even of a temporary nature — to pay for Matise’s return to the United States was correct. It follows that Matise’s consent to partial payment was not, as the Court of Appeals indicated, 488 F. 2d, at 473, the product of misinformation.
The Court of Appeals’ reference to § 597 was apparently to the following language:
“Every seaman . . . shall be entitled to receive on demand from the master of the vessel to which he belongs one-half part of the balance of his wages ... at the time when such demand is made at every port where such vessel . . . shall load or deliver cargo before the voyage is ended . . . 46 U. S. C. § 597 (emphasis added).
For reasons identical to those presented with regard to § 596, we reject any reading of § 597 that bars the method of payment utilized in this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Export Clause of the Constitution states: “No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.’’ U. S. Const., Art. I, §9, cl. 5. We held in United States v. International Business Machines Corp., 517 U. S. 843 (1996) (IBM), that the Export Clause categorically bars Congress from imposing any tax on exports. The Clause, however, does not rule out a “user fee,” provided that the fee lacks the attributes of a generally applicable tax or duty and is, instead, a charge designed as compensation for Government-supplied services, facilities, or benefits. See Pace v. Burgess, 92 U. S. 372, 375-376 (1876). This case presents the question whether the Harbor Maintenance Tax (HMT), 26 U. S. C. 14461(a), as applied to goods loaded at United States ports for export, is an impermissible tax on exports or, instead, a legitimate user fee. We hold, in accord with the Federal Circuit, that the tax, which is imposed on an ad valo-rem basis, is not a fair approximation of services, facilities, or benefits furnished to the exporters, and therefore does not qualify as a permissible user fee.
I
The HMT, enacted as part of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, 26 U. S. C. §§4461-4462, imposes a uniform charge on shipments of commercial cargo through the Nation’s ports. The charge is currently set at 0.125 percent of the cargo’s value. Exporters, importers, and domestic shippers are liable for the HMT, § 4461(c)(1), which is imposed at the time of loading for exports and unloading for other shipments, § 4461(c)(2). The HMT is collected by the Customs Service and deposited in the Harbor Maintenance Trust Fund (Fund). Congress may appropriate amounts from the Fund to pay for harbor maintenance and development projects, including costs associated with the St. Lawrence Seaway, or related expenses. §9505.
Respondent United States Shoe Corporation (U. S. Shoe) paid the HMT for articles the company exported during the period April to June 1994 and then filed a protest with the Customs Service alleging the unconstitutionality of the toll to the extent it applies to exports. The Customs Service responded with a form letter stating that the HMT is a statutorily mandated fee assessment on port users, not an unconstitutional tax on exports. On November 3,1994, U. S. Shoe brought this action against the Government in the Court of International Trade (CIT). The company sought a refund on the ground that the HMT is unconstitutional as applied to exports.
Sitting as a three-judge court, the CIT held that its jurisdiction was properly invoked under 28 U. S. C. § 1581(f); on the merits, the CIT agreed with U. S. Shoe that the HMT qualifies as a tax. 907 F. Supp. 408 (1995). Rejecting the Government’s characterization of the HMT as a user fee rather than a tax, the CIT reasoned: “The Tax is assessed ad valorem directly upon the value of the cargo itself, not upon any services rendered for the cargo .... Congress could not have imposed the Tax any closer to exportation, or more immediate to the articles exported.” Id., at 418. Relying on the Export Clause, the CIT entered summary judgment for U. S. Shoe.
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, sitting as a five-judge panel, affirmed. 114 F. 3d 1564 (1997). On auxiliary questions, the Federal Circuit upheld the CIT’s exercise of jurisdiction under § 1581(f) and agreed with the lower court that the HMT applied to goods in export transit. Concluding that the HMT is not based on a fair approximation of port use, the Federal Circuit also agreed that the HMT imposes a tax, not a user fee. In making this determination, the Court of Appeals emphasized that the HMT does not depend on the amount or manner of port use, but is determined solely by the value of cargo. Judge Mayer dissented; in his view, Congress properly designed the HMT as a user fee, a toll on shippers that supplies funds not for the general support of government, but exclusively for the facilitation of commercial navigation.
Numerous cases challenging the constitutionality of the HMT as applied to exports are currently pending in the CIT and the Court of Federal Claims. We granted certiorari, 522 U. S. 944 (1997), to review the Federal Circuit’s determination that the HMT violates the Export Clause.
II
As an initial matter, we conclude that the CIT properly entertained jurisdiction in this case. The complaint alleged exclusive original jurisdiction in that tribunal under 28 U. S. C. § 1581(a) or, alternatively, § 1581(i). App. 26. We agree with the CIT and the Federal Circuit that § 1581(i) is the applicable jurisdictional prescription. The key directive is stated in 26 U. S. C. § 4462(f)(2), which instructs that for jurisdictional purposes, the HMT “shall be treated as if such tax were a customs duty.”
Section 1581(a) surely concerns customs duties. It confers exclusive original jurisdiction on the CIT in “any civil action commenced to contest the [Customs Service’s] denial of a protest.” A protest, as indicated in 19 U. S. C. § 1514, is an essential prerequisite when one challenges an actual Customs decision. As to the HMT, however, the Federal Circuit correctly noted that protests are not pivotal, for Customs “performs no active role,” it undertakes “no analysis [or adjudication],” “issues no directives,” “imposes no liabilities”; instead, Customs “merely passively collects” HMT payments. 114 F. 3d, at 1569.
Section 1581(i) describes the CIT’s residual jurisdiction over
“any civil action commenced against the United States ... that arises out of any law of the United States providing for —
“(1) revenue from imports or tonnage;
“(4) administration and enforcement with respect to the matters referred to in paragraphs (1) — (3) of this subsection . . . .”
This dispute, as the Federal Circuit stated, “involve[s] the ‘administration and enforcement’ of a law providing for revenue from imports because the HMT statute, although applied to exports here, does apply equally to imports.” 114 F. 3d, at 1571. True, § 1581(i) does not use the word “exports.” But that is hardly surprising in view of the Export Clause, which confines customs duties to imports. Revenue from imports and revenue from customs duties are thus synonymous in this setting. In short, as the CIT correctly concluded and the Federal Circuit correctly affirmed, “Congress [in § 4462(f)(2)] directed [that] the [HMT] be treated as a customs duty for purposes of jurisdiction. Such duties, by their very nature, provide for revenue from imports, and are encompassed within [§ ]1581(i)(1).” 907 F. Supp., at 421. Accordingly, CIT jurisdiction over controversies regarding the administration and enforcement of the HMT accords with §1581(i)(4).
Ill
Two Terms ago, in IBM, this Court considered the question whether a tax on insurance premiums paid to protect exports against loss violated the Export Clause. Distinguishing ease law developed under the Commerce Clause, 517 U. S., at 850-852, and the Import-Export Clause, id., at 857-861, the Court held that the Export Clause allows no room for any federal tax, however generally applicable or nondiscriminatory, on goods in export transit. Before this Court’s decision in IBM, the Government argued that the HMT, even if characterized as a “tax” rather than a “user fee,” should survive constitutional review “because it applies without discrimination to exports, imports and domestic commerce alike.” Reply Brief for United States 9, n. 2. Recognizing that IBM “rejected an indistinguishable contention,” the Government now asserts only that HMT is “ ‘a permissible user fee,’” Reply Brief for United States 9, n. 2, a toll within the tolerance of Export Clause precedent. Adhering to the Court’s reasoning in IBM, we reject the Government’s current position.
The HMT bears the indicia of a tax. Congress expressly described it as “a tax on any port use,” 26 U. S. C. § 4461(a) (emphasis added), and codified the HMT as part of the Internal Revenue Code. In like vein, Congress provided that, for administrative, enforcement, and jurisdictional purposes, the HMT should be treated “as if [it] were a customs duty.” §§ 4462(f)(1), (2). However, “we must regard-things rather than names,” Pace v. Burgess, 92 U. S., at 376, in determining whether an imposition on exports ranks as a tax. The crucial question is whether the HMT is a tax on exports in operation as well as nomenclature or whether, despite the label Congress has put on it, the exaction is instead a bona fide user fee.
In arguing that the HMT constitutes a user fee, the Government relies on our decisions in United States v. Sperry Corp., 493 U. S. 52 (1989), Massachusetts v. United States, 435 U. S. 444 (1978), and Evansville-Vanderburgh Airport Authority Dist. v. Delta Airlines, Inc., 405 U. S. 707 (1972). In those cases, this Court upheld flat and ad valorem charges as valid user fees. See United States v. Sperry Corp., 493 U. S., at 62 (lVz percent ad valorem fee applied to awards certified by the Iran-United States Claims Tribunal qualifies as a user fee and is not so excessive as to violate the Takings Clause); Massachusetts v. United States, 435 U, S., at 463-467 (flat federal registration fee imposed annually on all civil aircraft meets genuine user fee standards and, as applied to state-owned aircraft, does not dishonor State’s immunity from federal taxation); Evansville-Vanderburgh Airport Authority, 405 U. S., at 717-721 (flat charge for each passenger enplaning, levied for the maintenance of State’s airport facilities, does not run afoul of the dormant Commerce Clause). Those decisions involved constitutional provisions other than the Export Clause, however, and thus do not govern here.
IBM plainly stated that the Export Clause’s simple, direct, unqualified prohibition on any taxes or duties distinguishes it from other constitutional limitations on governmental taxing authority. The Court there emphasized that the “text of the Export Clause ... expressly prohibits Congress from laying any tax or duty on exports.” 517 U. S., at 852; see also id., at 861 (“[T]he Framers sought to alleviate ... concerns [that Northern States would tax exports to the disadvantage of Southern States] by completely denying to Congress the power to tax exports at all.”). Accordingly, the Court reasoned in IBM, “[o]ur decades-long struggle over the meaning of the nontextual negative command of the dormant Commerce Clause does not lead to the conclusion that our interpretation of the textual command of the Export Clause is equally fluid.” Id., at 851; see also id., at 857 (“We have good reason to hesitate before adopting the analysis of our recent Import-Export Clause cases into our Export Clause jurisprudence_[MJeaningfiil textual differences exist [between the two Clauses] and should not be overlooked.”). In Sperry, moreover, we noted that the Takings Clause imposes fewer constraints on user fees than does the dormant Commerce Clause. See 493 U. S., at 61, n. 7 (analysis under Takings Clause is less “exacting” than under the dormant Commerce Clause). A fortiori, therefore, the Takings Clause is less restrictive than the Export Clause.
The guiding precedent for determining what constitutes a bona fide user fee in the Export Clause context remains our time-tested decision in Pace. Pace involved a federal excise tax on tobacco. Congress provided that the tax would not apply to tobacco intended for export. To prevent fraud, however, Congress required that tobacco the manufacturer planned to export carry a stamp indicating that intention. Each stamp cost 25 cents (later 10 cents) per package of tobacco. Congress did not limit the quantity or value of the tobacco packaged for export or the size of the stamped package; “[t]hese were unlimited, except by the discretion of the exporter or the convenience of handling.” 92 U. S., at 375.
The Court upheld the charge, concluding that it was “in no sense a duty on exportation,” but rather “compensation given for services [in fact] rendered.” Ibid. In so ruling, the Court emphasized two characteristics of the charge: It “bore no proportion whatever to the quantity or value of the package on which [the stamp] was affixed”; and the fee was not excessive, taking into account the cost of arrangements needed both “to give to the exporter the benefit of exemption from taxation, and... to secure... against the perpetration of fraud.” Ibid.
Pace establishes that, under the Export Clause, the connection between a service the Government renders and the compensation it receives for that service must be closer than is present here. Unlike the stamp charge in Pace, the HMT is determined entirely on an ad valorem basis. The value of export cargo, however, does not correlate reliably with the federal harbor services used or usable by the exporter. As the Federal Circuit noted, the extent and manner of port use depend on factors such as the size and tonnage of a vessel, the length of time it spends in port, and the services it requires, for instance, harbor dredging. See 114 F. 3d, at 1572.
In sum, if we are “to guard against... the imposition of a [tax] under the pretext of fixing a fee,” Pace v. Burgess, 92 U. S., at 376, and resist erosion of the Court’s decision in IBM, we must hold that the HMT violates the Export Clause as applied to exports. This does not mean that exporters are exempt from any and all user fees designed to defray the cost of harbor development and maintenance. It does mean, however, that such a fee must fairly match the exporters’ use of port services and facilities.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit is
Affirmed.
The Government does not here challenge the determination that the HMT applies to goods in export transit.
According to the Government, some 4,000 cases raising this claim are currently stayed in the GIT, with more than 100 additional cases stayed in the Court of Federal Claims. See Brief for United States 4.
Because we determine that the CIT has exclusive jurisdiction over challenges to the HMT wider § 1581(i)(4), it follows that the Court of Federal Claims lacks jurisdiction over the challenges to the HMT currently pending there. See 28 U. S. C. § 1491(b). The plaintiffs in these challenges may invoke § 1631, which authorizes intereourt transfers, when “in the interest of justice,” to cure want of jurisdiction. See also § 610 (as used in Title 28, the term “court” includes the Court of Federal Claims and the CIT).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | L | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent John Jordan filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, individually and as a representative of a class, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against two former directors of the Illinois Department of Public Aid, the director of the Cook County Department of Public Aid, and the comptroller of Cook County. Respondent alleged that these state officials were administering the federal-state programs of Aid to the Aged, Blind, or Disabled (AABD) in a manner inconsistent with various federal regulations and with the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution.
AABD is one of the categorical aid programs administered by the Illinois Department of Public Aid pursuant to the Illinois Public Aid Code, Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 23, §§ 3-1 through 3-12 (1973). Under the Social Security Act, the program is funded by the State and the Federal Governments. 42 U. S. C. §§ 1381-1385. The Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW), which administers these payments for the Federal Government, issued regulations prescribing maximum permissible time standards within which States participating in the program had to process AABD applications. Those regulations, originally issued in 1968, required, at the time of the institution of this suit, that eligibility determinations must be made by the States within 30 days of receipt of applications for aid to the aged and blind, and within 45. days of receipt of applications for aid to the disabled. For those persons found eligible, the assistance check was required to be received by them within the applicable time period. 45 CFR §206.10 (a)(3).
During the period in which the federal regulations went into effect, Illinois public aid officials were administering the benefits pursuant to their own regulations as provided in the Categorical Assistance Manual of the Illinois Department of Public Aid. Respondent’s complaint charged that the Illinois defendants, operating under those regulations, were improperly authorizing grants to commence only with the month in which an application was approved and not including prior eligibility months for which an applicant was entitled to aid under federal law. The complaint also alleged that the Illinois defendants were not processing the applications within the applicable time requirements of the federal regulations; specifically, respondent alleged that his own application for disability benefits was not acted on by the Illlinois Department of Public Aid for almost four months. Such actions of the Illinois officials were alleged to violate federal law and deny the equal protection of the laws. Respondent's prayer requested declaratory and injunctive relief, and specifically requested “a permanent injunction enjoining the defendants to award to the entire class of plaintiffs all AABD benefits wrongfully withheld.”
In its judgment of March 15, 1972, the District Court declared § 4004 of the Illinois Manual to be invalid insofar as it was inconsistent with the federal regulations found in 45 CFR § 206.10 (a) (3), and granted a permanent injunction requiring compliance with the federal time limits for processing and paying AABD applicants. The District Court, in paragraph 5 of its judgment, also ordered the state officials to “release and remit AABD benefits wrongfully withheld to all applicants for AABD in the State of Illinois who applied between July 1, 1968 [the date of the federal regulations] and April 16, 197 [1] [the date of the preliminary injunction issued by the District Court] and were determined eligible....”
On appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, the Illinois officials contended, inter alia, that the Eleventh Amendment barred the award of retroactive benefits, that the judgment of inconsistency between the federal regulations and the provisions of the Illinois Categorical Assistance Manual could be given prospective effect only, and that the federal regulations in question were inconsistent with the Social Security Act itself. The Court of Appeals rejected these contentions and affirmed the judgment of the District Court. Jordan v. Weaver, 472 F. 2d 985 (1973). Because of an apparent conflict on the Eleventh Amendment issue with the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in Rothstein v. Wyman, 467 F. 2d 226 (1972), cert. denied, 411 U. S. 921 (1973), we granted the petition for certiorari filed by petitioner Joel Edelman, who is the present Director of the Illinois Department of Public Aid, and successor to the former directors sued below. 412 U. S. 937 (1973). The petition for certiorari raised the same contentions urged by the petitioner in the Court of Appeals. Because we believe the Court of Appeals erred in its disposition of the Eleventh Amendment claim, we reverse that portion of the Court of Appeals decision which affirmed the District Court’s order that retroactive benefits be paid by the Illinois state officials.
The historical basis of the Eleventh Amendment has been oft stated, and it represents one of the more dramatic examples of this Court’s effort to derive meaning from the document given to the Nation by the Framers nearly 200 years ago. A leading historian of the Court tells us:
“The right of the Federal Judiciary to summon a State as defendant and to adjudicate its rights and liabilities had been the subject of deep apprehension and of active debate at the time of the adoption of the Constitution; but the existence of any such right had been disclaimed by many of the most eminent advocates of the new Federal Government, and it was largely owing to their successful dissipation of the fear of the existence of such Federal power that the Constitution was finally adopted.” 1 C. Warren, The Supreme Court in United States History 91 (rev. ed. 1937).
Despite such disclaimers, the very first suit entered in this Court at its February Term in 1791 was brought against the State of Maryland by a firm of Dutch bankers as creditors. Vanstophorst v. Maryland, see 2 Dall. 401 and Warren, supra, at 91 n. 1. The subsequent year brought the institution of additional suits against other States, and caused considerable alarm and consternation in the country.
The issue was squarely presented to the Court in a suit brought at the August 1792 Term by two citizens of South Carolina, executors of a British creditor, against the State of Georgia. After a year's postponement for preparation on the part of the State of Georgia, the Court, after argument, rendered in February 1793, its short-lived decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419. The decision in that case, that a State was liable to suit by a citizen of another State or of a foreign country, literally shocked the Nation. Sentiment for passage of a constitutional amendment to override the decision rapidly gained momentum, and five years after Chisholm the Eleventh Amendment was officially announced by President John Adams. Unchanged since then, the Amendment provides:
“The judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.”
While the Amendment by its terms does not bar suits against a State by its own citizens, this Court has consistently held that an unconsenting State is immune from suits brought in federal courts by her own citizens as well as by citizens of another State. Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1 (1890); Duhne v. New Jersey, 251 U. S. 311 (1920); Great Northern Life Insurance Co. v. Read, 322 U. S. 47 (1944); Barden v. Terminal R. Co., 377 U. S. 184 (1964); Employees v. Department of Public Health and Welfare, 411 U. S. 279 (1973). It is also well established that even though a State is not named a party to the action, the suit may nonetheless be barred by the Eleventh Amendment. In Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, 323 U. S. 459 (1945), the Court said:
“[W]hen the action is in essence one for the recovery of money from the state, the state is the real, substantial party in interest and is entitled to invoke its sovereign immunity from suit even though individual officials are nominal defendants.” Id., at 464.
Thus the rule has evolved that a suit by private parties seeking to impose a liability which must be paid from public funds in the state treasury is barred by the Eleventh Amendment. Great Northern Life Insurance Co. v. Read, supra; Kennecott Copper Corp. v. State Tax Comm’n, 327 U. S. 573 (1946).
The Court of Appeals in this case, while recognizing that the Hans line of cases permitted the State to raise the Eleventh Amendment as a defense to suit by its own citizens, nevertheless concluded that the Amendment did not bar the award of retroactive payments of the statutory benefits found to have been wrongfully withheld. The Court of Appeals held that the above-cited cases, when read in light of this Court's landmark decision in Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908), do not preclude the grant of such a monetary award in the nature of equitable restitution.
Petitioner concedes that Ex parte Young, supra, is no bar to that part of the District Court’s judgment that prospectively enjoined petitioner’s predecessors from failing to process applications within the time limits established by the federal regulations. Petitioner argues, however, that Ex parte Young does not extend so far as to permit a suit which seeks the award of an accrued monetary liability which must be met from the general revenues of a State, absent consent or waiver by the State of its Eleventh Amendment immunity, and that therefore the award of retroactive benefits by the District Court was improper.
Ex parte Young was a watershed case in which this Court held that the Eleventh Amendment did not bar an action in the federal courts seeking to enjoin the Attorney General of Minnesota from enforcing a statute claimed to violate the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. This holding has permitted the Civil War Amendments to the Constitution to serve as a sword, rather than merely as a shield, for those whom they were designed to protect. But the relief awarded in Ex parte Young was prospective only; the Attorney General of Minnesota was enjoined to conform his future conduct of that office to the requirement of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such relief is analogous to that awarded by the District Court in the prospective portion of its order under review in this case.
But the retroactive portion of the District Court’s order here, which requires the payment of a very substantial amount of money which that court held should have been paid, but was not, stands on quite a different footing. These funds will obviously not be paid out of the pocket of petitioner Edelman. Addressing himself to a similar situation in Rothstein v. Wyman, 467 F. 2d 226 (CA2 1972), cert. denied, 411 U. S. 921 (1973), Judge McGowan observed for the court:
“It is not pretended that these payments are to come from the personal resources of these appellants. Appellees expressly contemplate that they will, rather, involve substantial expenditures from the public funds of the state....
“It is one thing to tell the Commissioner of Social Services that he must comply with the federal standards for the future if the state is to have the benefit of federal funds in the programs he administers. It is quite another thing to order the Commissioner to use state funds to make reparation for the past. The latter would appear to us to fall afoul of the Eleventh Amendment if that basic constitutional provision is to be conceived of as having any present force.” 467 F. 2d, at 236-237 (footnotes omitted).
We agree with Judge McGowan’s observations. The funds to satisfy the award in this case must inevitably come from the general revenues of the State of Illinois, and thus the award resembles far more closely the monetary award against the State itself, Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, supra, than it does the prospective injunctive relief awarded in Ex parte Young.
The Court of Appeals, in upholding the award in this case, held that it was permissible because it was in the form of “equitable restitution” instead of damages, and therefore capable of being tailored in such a way as to minimize disruptions of the state program of categorical assistance. But we must judge the award actually made in this case, and not one which might have been differently tailored in a different case, and we must judge it in the context of the important constitutional principle embodied in the Eleventh Amendment.
We do not read Ex parte Young or subsequent holdings of this Court to indicate that any form of relief may be awarded against a state officer, no matter how closely it may in practice resemble a money judgment payable out of the state treasury, so long as the relief may be labeled “equitable” in nature. The Court’s opinion in Ex parte Young hewed to no such line. Its citation of Hagood v. Southern, 117 U. S. 52 (1886), and In re Ayers, 123 U. S. 443 (1887), which were both actions against state officers for specific performance of a contract to which the State was a party, demonstrate that equitable relief may be barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
As in most areas of the law, the difference between the type of relief barred by the Eleventh Amendment and that permitted under Ex parte Young will not in many instances be that between day and night. The injunction issued in Ex parte Young was not totally without effect on the State's revenues, since the state law which the Attorney General was enjoined from enforcing provided substantial monetary penalties against railroads which did not conform to its provisions. Later cases from this Court have authorized equitable relief which has probably had greater impact on state treasuries than did that awarded in Ex parte Young. In Graham v. Richardson, 403 U. S. 365 (1971), Arizona and Pennsylvania welfare officials were prohibited from denying welfare benefits to otherwise qualified recipients who were aliens. In Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254 (1970), New York City welfare officials were enjoined from following New York State procedures which authorized the termination of benefits paid to welfare recipients without prior hearing. But the fiscal consequences to state treasuries in these cases were the necessary result of compliance with decrees which by their terms were prospective in nature. State officials, in order to shape their official conduct to the mandate of the Court’s decrees, would more likely have to spend money from the state treasury than if they had been left free to pursue their previous course of conduct. Such an ancillary effect on the state treasury is a permissible and often an inevitable consequence of the principle announced in Ex parte Young, supra.
But that portion of the District Court’s decree which petitioner challenges on Eleventh Amendment grounds goes much further than any of the cases cited. It requires payment of state funds, not as a necessary consequence of compliance in the future with a substantive federal-question determination, but as a form of compensation to those whose applications were processed on the slower time schedule at a time when petitioner was under no court-imposed obligation to conform to a different standard. While the Court of Appeals described this retroactive award of monetary relief as a form of “equitable restitution,” it is in practical effect indistinguishable in many aspects from an award of damages against the State. It will to a virtual certainty be paid from state funds, and not from the pockets of the individual state officials who were the defendants in the action. It is measured in terms of a monetary loss resulting from a past breach of a legal duty on the part of the defendant state officials.
Were we to uphold this portion of the District Court’s decree, we would be obligated to overrule the Court’s holding in Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, supra. There a taxpayer, who had, under protest, paid taxes to the State of Indiana, sought a refund of those taxes from the Indiana state officials who were charged with their collection. The taxpayer claimed that the tax had been imposed in violation of the United States Constitution. The term “equitable restitution” would seem even more applicable to the relief sought in that case, since the taxpayer had at one time had the money, and paid it over to the State pursuant to an allegedly unconstitutional tax exaction. Yet this Court had no hesitation in holding that the taxpayer’s action was a suit against the State, and barred by the Eleventh Amendment. We reach a similar conclusion with respect to the retroactive portion of the relief awarded by the District Court in this case.
The Court of Appeals expressed the view that its conclusion on the Eleventh Amendment issue was supported by this Court’s holding in Department of Employment v. United States, 385 U. S. 355 (1966). There the United States was held entitled to sue the Colorado Department of Employment in the United States District Court for refund of unemployment compensation taxes paid under protest by the American National Red Cross, an instrumentality of the United States. The discussion of the State’s Eleventh Amendment claim is confined to the following sentence in the opinion:
“With respect to appellants’ contention that the State of Colorado has not consented to suit in a federal forum even where the plaintiff is the United States, see Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U. S. 313 (1934), and Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908).” Id., at 358.
Monaco v. Mississippi, 292 U. S. 313 (1934), reaffirmed the principle that the Eleventh Amendment was no bar to a suit by the United States against a State. Id., at 329. In view of Mr. Chief Justice Hughes’ vigorous reaffirmation in Monaco of the principles of the Eleventh Amendment and sovereign immunity, we think it unlikely that the Court in Department of Employment v. United States, in citing Ex parte Young as well as Monaco, intended to foreshadow a departure from the rule to which we adhere today.
Three fairly recent District Court judgments requiring state directors of public aid to make the type of retroactive payment involved here have been summarily affirmed by this Court notwithstanding Eleventh Amendment contentions made by state officers who were appealing from the District Court judgment. Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618 (1969), is the only instance in which the Eleventh Amendment objection to such retroactive relief was actually presented to this Court in a case which was orally argued. The three-judge District Court in that case had ordered the retroactive payment of welfare benefits found by that court to have been unlawfully withheld because of residence requirements held viola-tive of equal protection. 270 F. Supp. 331, 338 n. 5 (Conn. 1967). This Court, while affirming the judgment, did not in its opinion refer to or substantively treat the Eleventh Amendment argument. Nor, of course, did the summary dispositions of the three District Court cases contain any substantive discussion of this or any other issues raised by the parties.
This case, therefore, is the first opportunity the Court has taken to fully explore and treat the Eleventh Amendment aspects of such relief in a written opinion. Shapiro v. Thompson and these three summary affirmances obviously are of precedential value in support of the contention that the Eleventh Amendment does not bar the relief awarded by the District Court in this case. Equally obviously, they are not of the same precedential value as would be an opinion of this Court treating the question on the merits. Since we deal with a constitutional question, we are less constrained by the principle of stare decisis than we are in other areas of the law. Having now had an opportunity to more fully consider the Eleventh Amendment issue after briefing and argument, we disapprove the Eleventh Amendment holdings of those cases to the extent that they are inconsistent with our holding today.
The Court of Appeals held in the alternative that even if the Eleventh Amendment be deemed a bar to the retroactive relief awarded respondent in this case, the State of Illinois had waived its Eleventh Amendment immunity and consented to the bringing of such a suit by participating in the federal AABD program. The Court of Appeals relied upon our holdings in Parden v. Terminal R. Co., 377 U. S. 184 (1964), and Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Comm’n, 359 U. S. 275 (1959), and on the dissenting opinion of Judge Bright in Employees v. Department of Public Health and Welfare, 452 F. 2d 820, 827 (CA8 1971). While the holding in the latter case was ultimately affirmed by this Court in 411 U. S. 279 (1973), we do not think that the answer to the waiver question turns on the distinction between Parden, supra, and Employees, supra. Both Parden and Employees involved a congressional enactment which by its terms authorized suit by designated plaintiffs against a general class of defendants which literally included States or state instrumentalities. Similarly, Petty v. Tennessee-Missouri Bridge Comm’n, supra, involved congressional approval, pursuant to the Compact Clause, of a compact between Tennessee and Missouri, which provided that each compacting State would have the power “to contract, to sue, and be sued in its own name." The question of waiver or consent under the Eleventh Amendment was found in those cases to turn on whether Congress had intended to abrogate the immunity in question, and whether the State by its participation in the program authorized by Congress had in effect consented to the abrogation of that immunity.
But in this case the threshold fact of congressional authorization to sue a class of defendants which literally includes States is wholly absent. Thus respondent is not only precluded from relying on this Court’s holding in Employees, but on this Court’s holdings in Parden and Petty as well.
The Court of Appeals held that as a matter of federal law Illinois had “constructively consented” to this suit by participating in the federal AABD program and agreeing to administer federal and state funds in compliance with federal law. Constructive consent is not a doctrine commonly associated with the surrender of constitutional rights, and we see no place for it here. In deciding whether a State has waived its constitutional protection under the Eleventh Amendment, we will find waiver only where stated “by the most express language or by such overwhelming implications from the text as [will] leave no room for any other reasonable construction.” Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co., 213 U. S. 151, 171 (1909). We see no reason to retreat from the Court's statement in Great Northern Life Insurance Co. v. Read, 322 U. S., at 54 (footnote omitted):
“[W]hen we are dealing with the sovereign exemption from judicial interference in the vital field of financial administration a clear declaration of the state’s intention to submit its fiscal problems to other courts than those of its own creation must be found.”
The mere fact that a State participates in a program through which the Federal Government provides assistance for the operation by the State of a system of public aid is not sufficient to establish consent on the part of the State to be sued in the federal courts. And while this Court has, in cases such as J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S. 426 (1964), authorized suits by one private party against another in order to effectuate a statutory purpose, it has never done so in the context of the Eleventh Amendment and a state defendant. Since Employees, supra, where Congress had expressly authorized suits against a general class of defendants and the only thing left to implication was whether the described class of defendants included States, was decided adversely to the putative plaintiffs on the waiver question, surely this respondent must also fail on that issue. The only language in the Social Security Act which purported to provide a federal sanction against a State which did not comply with federal requirements for the distribution of federal monies was found in former 42 U. S. C. § 1384 (now replaced by substantially similar provisions in 42 U. S. C. § 804), which provided for termination of future allocations of federal funds when a participating State failed to conform with federal law. This provision by its terms did not authorize suit against anyone, and standing alone, fell far short of a waiver by a participating State of its Eleventh Amendment immunity.
Our Brother Marshall argues in dissent, and the Court of Appeals held, that although the Social Security Act itself does not create a private cause of action, the cause of action created by 42 U. S. C. § 1983, coupled with the enactment of the AABD program, and the issuance by HEW of regulations which require the States to make corrective payments after successful “fair hearings” and provide for federal matching funds to satisfy federal court orders of retroactive payments, indicate that Congress intended a cause of action for public aid recipients such as respondent. It is, of course, true that Rosado v. Wyman, 397 U. S. 397 (1970), held that suits in federal court under § 1983 are proper to secure compliance with the provisions of the Social Security Act on the part of participating States. But it has not heretofore been suggested that § 1983 was intended to create a waiver of a State’s Eleventh Amendment immunity merely because an action could be brought under that section against state officers, rather than against the State itself. Though a § 1983 action may be instituted by public aid recipients such as respondent, a federal court’s remedial power, consistent with the Eleventh Amendment, is necessarily limited to prospective injunc-tive relief, Ex parte Young, supra, and may not include a retroactive award which requires the payment of funds from the state treasury, Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, supra.
Respondent urges that since the various Illinois officials sued in the District Court failed to raise the Eleventh Amendment as a defense to the relief sought by respondent, petitioner is therefore barred from raising the Eleventh Amendment defense in the Court of Appeals or in this Court. The Court of Appeals apparently felt the defense was properly presented, and dealt with it on the merits. We approve of this resolution, since it has been well settled since the decision in Ford Motor Co. v. Department of Treasury, supra, that the Eleventh Amendment defense sufficiently partakes of the nature of a jurisdictional bar so that it need not be raised in the trial court:
“[The Attorney General of Indiana] appeared in the federal District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals and defended the suit on the merits. The objection to petitioner’s suit as a violation of the Eleventh Amendment was first made and argued by Indiana in this Court. This was in time, however. The Eleventh Amendment declares a policy and sets forth an explicit limitation on federal judicial power of such compelling force that this Court will consider the issue arising under this Amendment in this case even though urged for the first time in this Court.” 323 U. S., at 466-467.
For the foregoing reasons we decide that the Court of Appeals was wrong in holding that the Eleventh Amendment did not constitute a bar to that portion of the District Court decree which ordered retroactive payment of benefits found to have been wrongfully withheld. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed and the cause remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
In his complaint in the District Court, respondent claimed that the Illinois Department of Public Aid was not complying with federal regulations in its processing of public aid applications, and also that its refusal to process and allow respondent’s claim for a period of four months, while processing and allowing the claims of those similarly situated, violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Respondent asserted that the District Court could exercise jurisdiction over the cause by virtue of 28 U. S. C. §§1331 and 1343 (3) and (4). Though not briefed by the parties before this Court, we think that under our decision in Hagans v. Lavine, ante, p. 528, the equal protection claim cannot be said to be “wholly insubstantial,” and that therefore the District Court was correct in exercising pendent jurisdiction over the statutory claim.
Effective January 1, 1974, this AABD program was replaced by a similar program. See 42 U. S. C. §§ 801-805 (1970 ed., Supp. II).
Title 45 CFR § 206.10 (a) (3) (1973) provides in pertinent part: “(a) State plan requirements. A State plan... shall provide that:
“(3) A decision shall be made promptly on applications, pursuant to reasonable State-established time standards not in excess of:
“ (i) 45 days [for aid to aged and blind]... ; and
“ (ü) 60 days... [for aid to disabled]. Under this requirement, the applicant is informed of the agency’s time standard in acting on applications, which covers the time from date of application under the State plan to the date that the assistance check, or notification of denial of assistance or change of award, or the eligibility decision with respect to medical assistance, is mailed to the applicant or recipient....”
When originally issued in 1968 the regulations provided that the applications for aid to the aged and blind be processed within 30 days and that aid to the disabled be processed within 45 days of receipt. They also provided that the person determined to be eligible must receive his assistance check within the applicable time period. The amendment to 60 days for aid to the disabled occurred in 1971, as did the change to require mailing instead of receipt of the assistance check within the applicable time period; effective Oct. 15, 1973, the time for processing aged and blind applications became 45 days.
In addition, at the time of institution of the suit, 45 CFR § 206.10 (a)(6) (1972) provided in pertinent part:
“(6) Entitlement will begin as specified in the State plan, which (i) for financial assistance must be no later than the date of authorization of payment...
The Illinois regulations, found in the Illinois Categorical Assistance Manual of the Illinois Department of Public Aid, provide in pertinent part:
“4004.1
“Except for [disability] cases which have a time standard of 45 days, the time standard for disposition of applications is 30 days from the date of application to the date the applicants are determined eligible and the effective date of their first assistance or are determined ineligible and receive a notice of denial of assistance....
“8255. Initial Awards
“Initial awards may be new grants, reinstatements, or certain types of resumptions. They can be effective for the month in which Form FO-550 is signed but for no prior period except [under conditions not relevant to this case].
“8255.1 New Grants
“A new grant is the first grant authorized after an application has been accepted in a case which has not previously received assistance under the same assistance program. It may be authorized for the month in which Form FO-550 is signed but not for any prior period unless it meets [exceptions not relevant to this case].”
Paragraph 5 of the District Court’s judgment provided:
“That the defendant EDWARD T. WEAVER, Director, Illinois Department of Public Aid, his agents, including all of the County Departments of Public Aid in the State of Illinois, and employees, and all persons in active concert and participation with them, are hereby enjoined to release and remit AABD benefits wrongfully withheld to all applicants for AABD in the State of Illlinois who applied between July 1, 1968 and April 16, 1972 [sic] [should read “1971”], and were determined eligible, as follows:
“(a) For those aged and blind applicants whose first full AABD check was not mailed within thirty days from the date of application, AABD assistance for the period beginning with the thirtieth day from the date of application to the date the applicant’s entitlement to AABD became effective;
“(b) (i) For those disabled applicants who applied between July 1, 1968 and December 31, 1970, whose first full AABD check was not mailed within forty-five days from the date of application, AABD assistance for the period beginning with the forty-fifth day from the date of application to the date the applicant’s entitlement became effective;
“(ii) For those disabled applicants who applied between January 1, 1971 and April 16, 1971, whose first full AABD cheek was not mailed within sixty days from the date of application, AABD assistance for the period beginning with the sixtieth day from the date of application to the date the applicant’s entitlement became effective.
“These AABD benefits shall be mailed to those persons currently receiving AABD within eight months with an explanatory letter, said letter having been first approved by plaintiffs’ attorney. Any AABD benefits received pursuant to this paragraph shall not be deemed income or resources under Article III of the Illinois Public Aid Code.
“For those persons not presently receiving AABD:
“(a) A certified letter (return receipt requested), said letter having been first approved by plaintiffs’ attorney, shall be sent to the last known address of the person, informing him in concise and easily understandable terms that he is entitled to a specified amount of AABD benefits wrongfully withheld, and that he may claim such amount by contacting the County Department of Public Aid at a specified address, within 45 days from the receipt of said letter.
“(b) If the County Department of Public Aid does not receive a claim for the AABD benefits within 45 days from the date of actual notice to the person, the right to said AABD benefits shall be forfeited and the file shall be closed. Persons who do not receive actual notice do not forfeit their rights to AABD benefits wrongfully withheld under this provision.”
Paragraph 6 of the District Court’s judgment provided:
“Within 15 days from the date of this decree, defendant EDWARD T. WEAVER, Director, Illlinois Department of Public Aid, shall submit to the court and the plaintiffs’ attorney a detailed statement as to the method for effectuating the relief required by paragraph 5, supra, of this Decree. Any disputes between the parties as to whether the procedures and steps outlined by the defendant WEAVER will fulfill the requirements of this Decree will be resolved by the Court.”
On July 19, 1973, the author of this opinion stayed until further order of this Court these two paragraphs of the District Court's judgment. 414 U. S. 1301.
Respondent appealed from the District Court’s judgment insofar as it held him not entitled to receive benefits from the date of his applications (as opposed to the date of authorization of benefits as provided by the federal regulations) and insofar as it failed to award punitive damages. The Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s decision against respondent on those points and they are not at issue here. 472 F. 2d 985, 997-999.
7 Citing Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U. S. 97 (1971), petitioner also contends in this Court that the Court of Appeals erred in refusing to give the District Court’s judgment prospective effect only. Brief for Petitioner 37, incorporating arguments made in Pet. for Cert. 18-22. The Court of Appeals concluded that this ground was “not presented to the district judge before the entry of judgment, so that it comes too late.” 472 F. 2d, at 995. The Court of Appeals went on, however, to conclude that “[e]ven if the ground had been timely presented, defendants’ contention would be meritless.” Ibid. Noting that one of three tests established by our decision in Hrnon for determining the retroactivity of court decisions was that “the decision to be applied nonretroactively must establish a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied... or [have decided] an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed...,” Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, supra, at 106, the Court of Appeals found that the petitioner had not satisfied this test,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 November 13, 1969, the petitioner was arraigned in a federal district court upon a charge of robbery of a federally insured bank. He executed a written waiver of his right to counsel and to a grand jury indictment, and pleaded guilty. Before accepting the plea, the trial judge, proceeding under Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 11, addressed the petitioner personally. The petitioner acknowledged in substance that his plea was given voluntarily and knowingly, that he understood the nature of the charge and the consequences of the plea, and that he was in fact guilty. See McCarthy v. United States, 394 U. S. 459, 464-467; cf. Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U. S. 238, 242. The judge then accepted the guilty plea and subsequently sentenced the petitioner to 20 years in prison.
On August 6, 1971, the petitioner filed a motion under 28 U. S. C. § 2255 to vacate his sentence on the ground that his plea of guilty had been induced by a combination of fear, coercive police tactics, and illness, including mental illness. The District Judge who had accepted the petitioner’s plea and sentenced him to prison considered the motion but denied it without an evidentiary hearing; the District Judge reasoned that since the requirements of Rule 11 had been met, this collateral attack was per se unavailable, stating: “When the trial court has so questioned the accused about pleading guilty, the petitioner cannot now be heard to collaterally attack the record and deny what was said in open court.” The Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed on the same grounds.
Petitioner seeks certiorari to review that judgment; he urges that under the plain wording of § 2255 and our decision in Machibroda v. United States, 368 U. S. 487, he was entitled to an evidentiary hearing on his claims. Petitioner’s motion for relief under § 2255 sets out detailed factual allegations regarding alleged circumstances occurring after his arrest and before his appearance in court. Those allegations describe physical abuse and illness from a recent gunshot wound that required hospitalization which was documented by records tendered in support of his petition. The records also showed that a month following the plea he was again hospitalized for heroin addiction, for aggravation of the earlier gunshot wound and for other severe illnesses. Petitioner further alleges that prolonged interrogation continued during the period preceding his plea. All of this, he claims, coerced his confession, his waiver of counsel, and the uncounseled plea of guilty. It is elementary that a coerced plea is open to collateral attack. Machibroda v. United States, supra, at 493. See also Waley v. Johnston, 316 U. S. 101; Walker v. Johnston, 312 U. S. 275; Diamond v. United States, 432 F. 2d 35, 39; Crow v. United States, 397 F. 2d 284, 285-286. It is equally clear that § 2255 calls for a hearing on such allegations unless “the motion and the files and records of the case conclusively show that the prisoner is entitled to no relief . . .
We need not take issue with the Government’s generalization that when a defendant expressly represents in open court, without counsel, that his plea is voluntary and that he waived counsel voluntarily, he “may not ordinarily” repudiate his statements to the sentencing judge. The objective of Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 11, of course, is to flush out and resolve all such issues, but like any procedural mechanism, its exercise is neither always perfect nor uniformly invulnerable to subsequent challenge calling for an opportunity to prove the allegations.
On this record, we cannot conclude with the assurance required by the statutory standard “conclusively show” that under no circumstances could the petitioner establish facts warranting relief under § 2255; accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand to that court to the end that the petitioner be afforded a hearing on his petition in the District Court.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice White dissents.
He had been arrested by state officers and had been in the custody of state police and in state jurisdiction until the time of the federal charge.
The petitioner has also urged in this Court that his plea must be vacated because the transcript of his pleading fails to disclose an intelligent waiver of counsel. But this claim was not raised in the Court of Appeals or in the petition for certiorari, and we accordingly express no view upon the 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: | 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.
Based on conflicting claims to the proceeds of a National Service Life Insurance policy, this is a companion case to United States v. Henning, ante, p. 66, decided today.
The controversy is bottomed on the following facts: At the time of the insured serviceman’s death in 1942, his policy designated John J. Peters, his uncle, as sole beneficiary. Challenging the uncle’s standing as a permissible beneficiary under the statute, William Baumet, the insured’s natural father, instituted an action to claim the proceeds. Before that action came to trial, John J. Peters died. After a subsequent trial of the cause, the District Court found that John J. Peters and his wife Julie Peters had stood in loco parentis to the insured from 1938 until his death, and that the natural father’s contemporaneous conduct had amounted to an abandonment of his son. Concluding that John J. Peters, as a person in loco parentis, was a validly designated beneficiary under the Act, it dismissed Baumet’s complaint. Accordingly, the court awarded the installments which had matured during John J. Peters’ lifetime to Julie Peters as his personal representative, and the installments thereafter maturing to Julie individually as a person in loco parentis who “last bore” the parental relationship to the insured. The Court of Appeals affirmed. It agreed that “after 1938 his father never saw him, manifested no interest in his career and contributed nothing toward his support”; in fact, there was “a permanent estrangement between them.” And it approved the District Court’s allocation of the policy’s proceeds. In so holding, the Court of Appeals assumed that estates of deceased beneficiaries were proper takers, and that the foster parents had long supplanted the natural father in the parental relationship to the insured. In any event, the court thought, “the insured can have but one maternal parent and one paternal parent.” We granted cer-tiorari, 343 U. S. 925.
For the reasons detailed in United States v. Henning, supra, we hold that estates of deceased beneficiaries may not take proceeds under the Act. The award to John J. Peters’ personal representative must therefore fall. In regard to the natural father’s claim, the District Court’s findings sharply reveal that William Baumet long before his son’s death had “abandoned his son” and ceased to be a parent in truth and fact. He may not now retrieve the discarded paternal robes to lay claim to the policy proceeds; to rule otherwise would foil the plain intent of the 1942 amendments. Since the foster parents, not he, “last bore” the parental relationship, he cannot qualify as a taker by devolution under § 602 (h) (3) (C) of the Act. For that reason we hold that the foster mother, Julie Peters, as the sole survivor of those who “last bore” the parental relationship, in her own right must take all accrued policy proceeds.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice Jackson, for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Jackson in United States v. Henning, ante, p. 79, decided this date, dissent from the Court’s refusal to permit the deceased beneficiary’s estate to share in the proceeds.
The insured’s natural mother died in 1936, and no claim is raised on her behalf. However, the infant half-brothers and half-sisters of the insured by their guardian ad litem filed a claim asserting that they followed their father William Baumet on the priority ladder of § 602 (h) (3); 38 U. S. C. § 802 (h) (3). But their standing under § 602 (h) (3) (D) is conditioned on the absence of takers qualifying under § 602 (h) (3) (C). Since we find such a taker, their claims need not be considered here.
Julie Peters, as John’s executrix, moved for substitution in his stead. The District Court denied the motion, on the ground that John J. Peters’ rights were extinguished by his death. 81 F. Supp. 1012 (S. D. N. Y. 1948). The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that accrued installments passed to a deceased beneficiary’s estate. 177 F. 2d 806 (2d Cir. 1949), cert. denied, 339 U. S. 923 (1950). A subsequent trial followed.
The District Court’s unreported findings and opinion are reprinted at pp. 10 to 24 of the Appendix to the Brief for the United States.
§§ 601 (f), 602 (g); 38 U. S. C. §§ 801 (f), 802 (g).
§ 602 (h) (3) (C); 38 U. S. C. § 802 (h) (3) (C).
Baumet v. United States, 191 F. 2d 194 (2d Cir. 1951).
Id., at 195-196.
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: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a direct appeal under the Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3731, from the District Court's order dismissing Count I of an indictment (225 F. Supp. 577) for failure to state an offense under § 10 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 734, 15 U. S. C. § 20. That section provides in relevant part:
“No common carrier engaged in commerce shall have any dealings in securities, supplies, or other articles of commerce, or shall make or have any contracts for construction or maintenance of any kind, to the amount of more than $50,000, in the aggregate, in any one year, with another corporation, firm, partnership, or association when the said common carrier shall have upon its board of directors or as its president, manager, or as its purchasing or selling officer, or agent in the particular transaction, any person who is at the same time a director, manager, or purchasing or selling officer of, or who has any substantial interest in, such other corporation, firm, partnership, or association, unless and except such purchases shall be made from, or such dealings shall be with, the bidder whose bid is the most favorable to such common carrier, to be ascertained by competitive bidding under regulations to be prescribed by rule or otherwise by the Interstate Commerce Commission. . . .” (Italics added.)
Count I charged that appellee railroad and the three other appellees, officers of the railroad, violated § 10 by the road’s sale on August 14,1958, of 10 coaches valued in excess of $50,000 to the International Railway Equipment Corp. in which the three officers had “a substantial interest,” competitive bidding not having been used. That count charged that appellee McGinnis knowingly voted for the sale and that all three appellee officers knowingly-directed the act. A bill of particulars described the “substantial interest” of those officers in the purchasing corporation as follows:
“The substantial interest of defendants McGinnis and Glacy in defendant International consisted of an understanding, agreement, relationship, arrangement and concert of action among the said defendants McGinnis, Glacy, and International, and others, for, among other things, the purpose of producing profits for International from dealings by it in property acquired from the B&M through the intervention, direction or assistance of defendants McGinnis, Glacy, and Benson, and pursuant to which defendants McGinnis, Glacy, and Benson were to and did receive substantial monies.”
The District Court held:
“The statute is limited to one who has a then present legal interest in the buying corporation and does not include one whose only interest is in the outcome of what may have been an illegal and illicit plan to siphon off for his personal benefit property of the Boston and Maine Railroad through the medium of International.” 225 F. Supp., at 578.
A criminal statute is to be construed strictly, not loosely. Such are the teachings of our cases from United States v. Wiltberger, 5 Wheat. 76, down to this day. Chief Justice Marshall said in that case:
“The rule that penal laws are to be construed strictly, is, perhaps, not much less old than construction itself. It is founded on the tenderness of the law for the rights of individuals; and on the plain principle that the power of punishment is vested in the legislative, not in the judicial department.” Id., p. 95.
The fact that a particular activity may be within the same general classification and policy of those covered does not necessarily bring it within the ambit of the criminal prohibition. United States v. Weitzel, 246 U. S. 533.
What is the reach of § 10? It is not strictly a conflict of. interest statute such as we dealt with in United States v. Mississippi Valley Co., 364 U. S. 520. In Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. United States, 361 U. S. 173, 190, we described § 10 as “an antitrust law.”
Section 10, indeed, has its roots in President Wilson’s message to Congress of January 20, 1914, on the subject of “trusts,” in which he denounced the abuses of “inter-lockings of the personnel of the directorates of great corporations.” 51 Cong. Rec. 1962-1964; H. R. Rep. No. 627, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 17-18. Section 10 started as part of § 9 of the House bill and forbade certain types of interlocking office-holding. See S. Doc. No. 584, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 10. The Senate made two main changes. First, it did not prohibit interlocking office-holding but seized rather on competitive bidding as the control. S. Rep. No. 698, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 47-48. Second, the Senate required competitive bidding not only when a director or other officer or agent of a common carrier was also a director or other officer of any firm with which the carrier had dealings to the amount of more than $50,000 in any one year, but also when the director or other officer of a common carrier had “any direct or indirect interest in” the other firm. S. Doc. No. 584, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., p. 13. The Conference changed the phrase “any direct or indirect interest in” to the present wording “any substantial interest in.” Id., pp. 13-14. As Senator Chilton, one of the Conferees, reported:
“. . . It not only prevents corporations which are interlocked by officers and directors, but it says: ‘Or who has any substantial interest in such of them.’
“The Senator will recall all we had before us, the ease by which interlocking directorates could be gotten around; in other words, you could have your son, or your cousin, or your lawyer, or your agent upon the corporation and accomplish the same thing as if you were on the board yourself. . . .
“... They can not dodge it by having a supply company, and even though they have discarded the form of interlocking directors, if there be the interest of the railroad or the common carrier in the supply company, as the Senator chooses to call it, then it is prohibited.” 51 Cong. Rec. 15943.
As we have seen, Count I charges a “transaction” to sell 10 coaches to International, and the bill of particulars suggests that it was agreed that the three individual appellees would receive “substantial monies” for their part in effecting the sale. It is earnestly urged that since those appellees stood to profit from the deal with International, they had a “substantial interest in” International within the meaning of § 10. It is pointed out that the railroad scandals of that age were not limited to interlocking directorates and multiple shareholding, but that suppliers of railroad materials had made substantial gifts to the railroad officials with whom they dealt. See In re Financial Transactions of the New York, N. H. <& H. R. Co., 31 I. C. C. 32. But we are confined by the words that Congress used in § 10. If the rule of strict construction is to be followed, the words “substantial interest in,” as used in § 10, presuppose either an existing investment of some kind in International, or the creation of International by the three individual appellees for their use, or a joint venture or continued course of dealings, licit or illicit, with International for profit sharing. But it is doubtful that this indictment, as illuminated by the bill of particulars, alleges anything more in substance than a bribe. Bribery might well be in the family of offenses covered under a conflict of interest statute. But it is more remote from an antitrust frame of reference. While history shows a rather wide pattern of railroad misconduct leading to § 10, that section is a rather narrow prohibition applicable to activity that is conceptually within the antitrust philosophy. We cannot broaden it to include the present case, unless we attribute to Congress a purpose to make it a more general panacea for conflict of interest activities; but neither do we take the same narrow view of the statute as the District Court.
Since the Government may choose to file, and the District Court may choose to allow, an amended bill of particulars, we vacate and remand the case, leaving open all questions except our construction of the statute.
Vacated and remanded.
This case was decided below and argued here on the assumption that, although the indictment itself was sufficient against a motion to dismiss, it became insufficient for that purpose by reason of the bill of particulars. We have held, however, that “the bill of particulars . . . forms no part of the record for the purposes of the demurrer.” United States v. Comyns, 248 U. S. 349, 353 (emphasis supplied) ; Dunlop v. United States, 165 U. S. 486. Since the parties have made no attempt to invoke this rule at any stage in this proceeding, we are not required to express any view as to whether this rule for demurrers is applicable on motions to dismiss under Rule 12, Fed. Rules Crim. Proc.
The Commission reported: “Purchases of cars and coal are two large expenditures that railroads make. The New Haven purchased cars almost exclusively from James B. Brady without competition and to the extent of some $37,000,000. Mr. Brady, as a witness, made no secret of his generosity to the officials with whom he had business. His methods were justified by him on the ground that the officers of the New Haven were old friends.” 31 I. C. C., at 61.
Rule 7 (f) of the Rules of Criminal Procedure provides, “A bill of particulars may be amended at any time subject to such conditions as justice requires.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner was charged in a Florida state court with having broken and entered a poolroom with intent to commit a misdemeanor. This offense is a felony under Florida law. Appearing in court without funds and without a lawyer, petitioner asked the court to appoint counsel for him, whereupon the following colloquy took place:
“The Court: Mr. Gideon, I am sorry, but I cannot appoint Counsel to represent you in this case. Under the laws of the State of Florida, the only time the Court can appoint Counsel to represent a Defendant is when that person is charged with a capital offense. I am sorry, but I will have to deny your request to appoint Counsel to defend you in this case.
“The Dependant: The United States Supreme Court says I am entitled to be represented by Counsel.”
Put to trial before a jury, Gideon conducted his defense about as well as could be expected from a layman. He made an opening statement to the jury, cross-examined the State’s witnesses, presented witnesses in his own defense, declined to testify himself, and made a short argument “emphasizing his innocence to the charge contained in the Information filed in this case.” The jury returned a verdict of guilty, and petitioner was sentenced to serve five years in the state prison. Later, petitioner filed in the Florida Supreme Court this habeas corpus petition attacking his conviction and sentence on the ground that the trial court’s refusal to appoint counsel for him denied him rights “guaranteed by the Constitution and the Bill of Rights by the United States Government.” Treating the petition for habeas corpus as properly before it, the State Supreme Court, “upon consideration thereof” but without an opinion, denied all relief. Since 1942, when Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455, was decided by a divided Court, the problem of a defendant’s federal constitutional right to counsel in a state court has been a continuing source of controversy and litigation in both state and federal courts. To give this problem another review here, we granted certiorari. 370 U. S. 908. Since Gideon was proceeding in forma pauperis, we appointed counsel to represent him and requested both sides to discuss in their briefs and oral arguments the following: “Should this Court’s holding in Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455, be reconsidered?”
I.
The facts upon which Betts claimed that he had been unconstitutionally denied the right to have counsel appointed to assist him are strikingly like the facts upon which Gideon here bases his federal constitutional claim. Betts was indicted for robbery in a Maryland state court. On arraignment, he told the trial judge of his lack of funds to hire a lawyer and asked the court to appoint one for him. Betts was advised that it was not the practice in that county to appoint counsel for indigent defendants except in murder and rape cases. He then pleaded not guilty, had witnesses summoned, cross-examined the State’s witnesses, examined his own, and chose not to testify himself. He was found guilty by the judge, sitting without a jury, and sentenced to eight years in prison. Like Gideon, Betts sought release by habeas corpus, alleging that he had been denied the right to assistance of counsel in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Betts was denied any relief, and on review this Court affirmed. It was held that a refusal to appoint counsel for an indigent defendant charged with a felony did not necessarily violate the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which for reasons given the Court deemed to be the only applicable federal constitutional provision. The Court said:
“Asserted denial [of due process] is to be tested by an appraisal of the totality of facts in a given case. That which may, in one setting, constitute a denial of fundamental fairness, shocking to the universal sense of justice, may, in other circumstances, and in the light of other considerations, fall short of such denial.” 316 U. S., at 462.
Treating due process as “a concept less rigid and more fluid than those envisaged in other specific and particular provisions of the Bill of Rights,” the Court held that refusal to appoint counsel under the particular facts and circumstances in the Betts case was not so “offensive to the common and fundamental ideas of fairness” as to amount to a denial of due process. Since the facts and circumstances of the two cases are so nearly indistinguishable, we think the Betts v. Brady holding if left standing would require us to reject Gideon’s claim that the Constitution guarantees him the assistance of counsel. Upon full reconsideration we conclude that Betts v. Brady should be overruled.
II.
The Sixth Amendment provides, “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right . . . to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” We have construed this to mean that in federal courts counsel must be provided for defendants unable to. employ counsel unless the right is competently and intelligently waived. Betts argued that this right is extended to indigent defendants in state courts by the Fourteenth Amendment. In response the Court stated that, while the Sixth Amendment laid down “no rule for the conduct of the States, the question recurs whether the constraint laid by the Amendment upon the national courts expresses a rule so fundamental and essential to a fair trial, and so, to due process of law, that it is made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.” 316 U. S., at 465. In order to decide whether the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of counsel is of this fundamental nature, the Court in Betts set out and considered “[r]elevant data on the subject.. . afforded by constitutional and statutory provisions subsisting in the colonies and the States prior to the inclusion of the Bill of Rights in the national Constitution, and in the constitutional, legislative, and judicial history of the States to the present date.” 316 U. S., at 465. On the basis of this historical data the Court concluded that “appointment of counsel is not a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial.” 316 U. S., at 471. It was for this reason the Betts Court refused to accept the contention that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of counsel for indigent federal defendants was extended to or, in the words of that Court, “made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Plainly, had the Court concluded that appointment of counsel for an indigent criminal defendant was “a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial,” it would have held that the Fourteenth Amendment requires appointment of counsel in a state court, just as the Sixth Amendment requires in a federal court.
We think the Court in Betts had ample precedent for acknowledging that those guarantees of the Bill of Rights which are fundamental safeguards of liberty immune from federal abridgment are equally protected against state invasion by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. This same principle was recognized, explained, and applied in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45 (1932), a case upholding the right of counsel, where the Court held that despite sweeping language to the contrary in Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516 (1884), the Fourteenth Amendment “embraced” those “ ‘fundamental principles of liberty and justice which lie at the base of all our civil and political institutions/ ” even though they had been “specifically dealt with in another part of the federal Constitution.” 287 U. S., at 67. In many cases other than Powell and Betts, this Court has looked to the fundamental nature of original Bill of Rights guarantees to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment makes them obligatory on the States. Explicitly recognized to be of this “fundamental nature” and therefore made immune from state invasion by the Fourteenth, or some part of it, are the First Amendment’s freedoms of speech, press, religion, assembly, association, and petition for redress of grievances. For the same reason, though not always in precisely the same terminology, the Court has made obligatory on the States the Fifth Amendment’s command that private property shall not be taken for public use without just compensation, the Fourth Amendment’s prohibition of unreasonable searches and seizures, and the Eighth’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment. On the other hand, this Court in Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319 (1937), refused to hold that the Fourteenth Amendment made the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment obligatory on the States. In so refusing, however, the Court, speaking through Mr. Justice Cardozo, was careful to emphasize that “immunities that are valid as against the federal government by force of the specific pledges of particular amendments have been found to be implicit in the concept of ordered liberty, and thus, .through the Fourteenth Amendment, become valid as against the states” and that guarantees “in their origin . . . effective against the federal government alone” had by prior cases “been taken over from the earlier articles of the federal bill of rights and brought within the Fourteenth Amendment by a process of absorption.” 302 U. S., at 324-325, 326.
We accept Betts v. Brady’s assumption, based as it was on our prior cases, that a provision of the Bill of Rights which is “fundamental and essential to a fair trial” is made obligatory upon the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. We think the Court in Betts was wrong, however, in concluding that the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of counsel is not one of these fundamental rights. Ten years before Betts v. Brady, this Court, after full consideration of all the historical data examined in Betts, had unequivocally declared that “the right to the aid of counsel is of this fundamental character.” Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 68 (1932). While the Court at the close of its Powell opinion did by its language, as this Court frequently does, limit its holding to the particular facts and circumstances of that case, its conclusions about the fundamental nature of the right to counsel are unmistakable. Several years later, in 1936, the Court reemphasized what it had said about the fundamental nature of the right to counsel in this language:
“We concluded that certain fundamental rights, safeguarded by the first eight amendments against federal action, were also safeguarded against state action by the due process of law clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and among them the fundamental right of the accused to the aid of counsel in a criminal prosecution.” Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233, 243-244 (1936).
And again in 1938 this Court said:
“[The assistance of counsel] is one of the safeguards of the Sixth Amendment deemed necessary to insure fundamental human rights of life and liberty. . . . The Sixth Amendment stands as a constant admonition that if the constitutional safeguards it provides be lost, justice will not 'still be done.’ ” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 462 (1938). To the same effect, see Avery v. Alabama, 308 U. S. 444 (1940), and Smith v. O’Grady, 312 U. S. 329 (1941).
In light of these and many other prior decisions of this Court, it is not surprising that the Betts Court, when faced with the contention that “one charged with crime, who is unable to obtain counsel, must be furnished counsel by the State,” conceded that “[expressions in the opinions of this court lend color to the argument . . . 316 U. S., at 462-463. The fact is that in deciding as it did— that “appointment of counsel is not a fundamental right, essential to a fair trial” — the Court in Betts v. Brady made an abrupt break with its own well-considered precedents. In returning to these old precedents, sounder we believe than the new, we but restore constitutional principles established to achieve a fair system of justice. Not only these precedents but also reason and reflection require us to recognize that in our adversary system of criminal justice, any person haled into court, who is too poor to hire a lawyer, cannot be assured a fair trial unless counsel is provided for him. This seems to us to be an obvious truth. Governments, both state and federal, quite properly spend vast sums of money to establish machinery to try defendants accused of crime. Lawyers to prosecute are everywhere deemed essential to protect the public’s interest in an orderly society. Similarly, there are few defendants charged with crime, few indeed, who fail to hire the best lawyers they can get to prepare and present their defenses. That government hires lawyers to prosecute and defendants who have the money hire lawyers to defend are the strongest indications of the widespread belief that lawyers in criminal courts are necessities, not luxuries. The right of one charged with crime to counsel may not be deemed fundamental and essential to fair trials in some countries, but it is in ours. From the very beginning, our state and national constitutions and laws have laid great emphasis on procedural and substantive safeguards designed to assure fair trials before impartial tribunals in which every defendant stands equal before the law. This noble ideal cannot be realized if the poor man charged with crime has to face his accusers without a lawyer to assist him. A defendant’s need for a lawyer is nowhere better stated than in the moving words of Mr. Justice Sutherland in Powell v. Alabama:
“The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel. Even the intelligent and educated layman has small and sometimes no skill in the science of law. If charged with crime, he is incapable, generally, of determining for himself whether the indictment is good or bad. He is unfamiliar with the rules of evidence. Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible. He lacks both the skill and knowledge adequately to prepare his defense, even though he have a perfect one. He requires the guiding hand of counsel at every step in the proceedings against him. Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence.” 287 U. S., at 68-69.
The Court in Betts v. Brady departed from the sound wisdom upon which the Court’s holding in Powell v. Alabama rested. Florida, supported by two other States, has asked that Betts v. Brady be left intact. Twenty-two States, as friends of the Court, argue that Betts was “an anachronism when handed down” and that it should now be overruled. We agree.
The judgment is reversed and the cause is remanded to the Supreme Court of Florida for further action not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Douglas.
While I join the opinion of the Court, a brief historical resume of the relation between the Bill of Rights and the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment seems pertinent. Since the adoption of that Amendment, ten Justices have felt that it protects from infringement by the States the privileges, protections, and safeguards granted by the Bill of Rights.
Justice Field, the first Justice Harlan, and probably Justice Brewer, took that position in O’Neil v. Vermont, 144 U. S. 323, 362-363, 370-371, as did Justices Black, Douglas, Murphy and Rutledge in Adamson v. California, 332 U. S. 46, 71-72, 124. And see Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497, 515-522 (dissenting opinion). That view was also expressed by Justices Bradley and Swayne in the Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 118-119, 122, and seemingly was accepted by Justice Clifford when he dissented with Justice Field in Walker v. Sauvinet, 92 U. S. 90, 92. Unfortunately it has never commanded a Court. Yet, happily, all constitutional questions are always open. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64. And what we do today does not foreclose the matter.
My Brother Harlan is of the view that a guarantee of the Bill of Rights that is made applicable to the States by reason of the Fourteenth Amendment is a lesser version of that same guarantee as applied to the Federal Government. Mr. Justice Jackson shared that view. But that view has not prevailed and rights protected against state invasion by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment are not watered-down versions of what the Bill of Rights guarantees.
Later in the petition for habeas corpus, signed and apparently prepared by petitioner himself, he stated, “I, Clarence Earl Gideon, claim that I was denied the rights of the 4th, 5th and 14th amendments of the Bill of Rights.”
Of the many such cases to reach this Court, recent examples are Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U. S. 506 (1962); Hudson v. North Carolina, 363 U. S. 697 (1960); Moore v. Michigan, 355 U. S. 155 (1957). Illustrative cases in the state courts are Artrip v. State, 136 So. 2d 574 (Ct. App. Ala. 1962); Shaffer v. Warden, 211 Md. 635, 126 A. 2d 573 (1956). For examples of commentary, see Allen, The Supreme Court, Federalism, and State Systems of Criminal Justice, 8 De Paul L. Rev. 213 (1959); Kamisar, The Right to Counsel and the Fourteenth Amendment: A Dialogue on “The Most Pervasive Right” of an Accused, 30 U. of Chi. L. Rev. 1 (1962); The Right to Counsel, 45 Minn. L. Rev. 693 (1961).
Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458 (1938).
E. g., Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. 652, 666 (1925) (speech and press); Lovell v. City of Griffin, 303 U. S. 444, 450 (1938) (speech and press); Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U. S. 313, 321 (1958) (speech); Grosjean v. American Press Co., 297 U. S. 233, 244 (1936) (press); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 303 (1940) (religion); De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, 364 (1937) (assembly); Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479, 486, 488 (1960) (association); Louisiana ex rel. Gremillion v. NAACP, 366 U. S. 293, 296 (1961) (association); Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229 (1963) (speech, assembly, petition for redress of grievances).
E. g., Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, 235-241 (1897); Smyth v. Ames, 169 U. S. 466, 522-526 (1898).
E. g., Wolf v. Colorado, 338 U. S. 25, 27-28 (1949); Elkins v. United States, 364 U. S. 206, 213 (1960); Mapp v. Ohio, 367 U. S. 643, 655 (1961).
Robinson v. California, 370 U. S. 660, 666 (1962).
Justices Bradley, Swayne and Field emphasized that the first eight Amendments granted citizens of the United States certain privileges and immunities that were protected from abridgment by the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. See Slaughter-House Cases, supra, at 118-119; O’Neil v. Vermont, supra, at 363. Justices Harlan and Brewer accepted the same theory in the O’Neil case (see id., at 370-371), though Justice Harlan indicated that all “persons,” not merely “citizens,” were given this protection. Ibid. In Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, 117, Justice Harlan's position was made clear:
“In my judgment, immunity from self-incrimination is protected against hostile state action, not only by ... . [the Privileges and Immunities Clause], but [also] by . . . [the Due Process Clause].”
Justice Brewer, in joining the opinion of the Court, abandoned the view that the entire Bill of Bights applies to the States in Maxwell v. Dow, 176 U. S. 581.
See Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 501, 506; Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147, 169.
Beauharnais v. Illinois, 343 U. S. 250, 288. Cf. the opinions of Justices Holmes and Brandéis in Gitlow v. New York, 268 U. S. 652, 672, and Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 35.7, 372.
The cases are collected by Mr. Justice Black in Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 530. And see, Eaton v. Price, 364 U. S. 263, 274-276.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
[562 U.S. 41]
The judgment is affirmed by an equally divided Court.
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: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Marshall
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion in which The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Black, and Mr. Justice Harlan join.
In late December 1966, appellant was arrested and charged with being found in a state of intoxication in a public place, in violation of Texas Penal Code, Art. 477 (1952), which reads as follows:
“Whoever shall get drunk or be found in a state of intoxication in any public place, or at any private house except his own, shall be fined not exceeding one hundred dollars.”
Appellant was tried in the Corporation Court of Austin, Texas, found guilty, and fined $20. He appealed to the County Court at Law No. 1 of Travis County, Texas, where a trial de novo was held. His counsel urged that appellant was “afflicted with the disease of chronic alcoholism,” that “his appearance in public [while drunk was]... not of his own volition,” and therefore that to punish him criminally for that conduct would be cruel and unusual, in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
The trial judge in the county court, sitting without a jury, made certain findings of fact, infra, at 521, but ruled as a matter of law that chronic alcoholism was not a defense to the charge. He found appellant guilty, and fined him $50. There being no further right to appeal within the Texas judicial system, appellant appealed to this Court; we noted probable jurisdiction. 389 U. S. 810 (1967).
I.
The principal testimony was that of Dr. David Wade, a Fellow of the American Medical Association, duly certificated in psychiatry. His testimony consumed a total of 17 pages in the trial transcript. Five of those pages were taken up with a recitation of Dr. Wade’s qualifications. In the next 12 pages Dr. Wade was examined by appellant’s counsel, cross-examined by the State, and reexamined by the defense, and those 12 pages contain virtually all the material developed at trial which is relevant to the constitutional issue we face here. Dr. Wade sketched the outlines of the “disease” concept of alcoholism; noted that there is no generally accepted definition of “alcoholism”; alluded to the ongoing debate within the medical profession over whether alcohol is actually physically “addicting” or merely psychologically “habituating”; and concluded that in either case a “chronic alcoholic” is an “involuntary drinker,” who is “powerless not to drink,” and who “loses his self-control over his drinking.” He testified that he had examined appellant, and that appellant is a “chronic alcoholic,” who “by the time he has reached [the state of intoxication]... is not able to control his behavior, and [who]... has reached this point because he has an uncontrollable compulsion to drink.” Dr. Wade also responded in the negative to the question whether appellant has “the willpower to resist the constant excessive consumption of alcohol.” He added that in his opinion jailing appellant without medical attention would operate neither to rehabilitate him nor to lessen his desire for alcohol.
On cross-examination, Dr. Wade admitted that when appellant was sober he knew the difference between right and wrong, and he responded affirmatively to the question whether appellant’s act of taking the first drink in any given instance when he was sober was a “voluntary exercise of his will.” Qualifying his answer, Dr. Wade stated that “these individuals have a compulsion, and this compulsion, while not completely overpowering, is a very strong influence, an exceedingly strong influence, and this compulsion coupled with the firm belief in their mind that they are going to be able to handle it from now on causes their judgment to be somewhat clouded.”
Appellant testified concerning the history of his drinking problem. He reviewed his many arrests for drunkenness; testified that he was unable to stop drinking; stated that when he was intoxicated he had no control over his actions and could not remember them later, but that he did not become violent; and admitted that he did not remember his arrest on the occasion for which he was being tried. On cross-examination, appellant admitted that he had had one drink on the morning of the trial and had been able to discontinue drinking. In relevant part, the cross-examination went as follows:
“Q. You took that one at eight o’clock because you wanted to drink?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. And you knew that if you drank it, you could keep on drinking and get drunk?
“A. Well, I was supposed to be here on trial, and I didn’t take but that one drink.
“Q. You knew you had to be here this afternoon, but this morning you took one drink and then you knew that you couldn’t afford to drink any more and come to court; is that right?
“A. Yes, sir, that’s right.
“Q. So you exercised your will power and kept from drinking anything today except that one drink?
“A. Yes, sir, that’s right.
“Q. Because you knew what you would do if you kept drinking, that you would finally pass out or be picked up?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. And you didn’t want that to happen to you today?
“A. No, sir.
“Q. Not today?
“A. No, sir.
“Q. So you only had one drink today?
“A. Yes, sir.”
On redirect examination, appellant’s lawyer elicited the following:
“Q. Leroy, isn’t the real reason why you just had one drink today because you just had enough money to buy one drink?
“A. Well, that was just give to me.
“Q. In other words, you didn’t have any money with which you could buy any drinks yourself?
“A. No, sir, that was give to me.
“Q. And that’s really what controlled the amount you drank this morning, isn’t it?
“A. Yes, sir.
“Q. Leroy, when you start drinking, do you have any control over how many drinks you can take?
“A. No, sir.”
Evidence in the case then closed. The State made no effort to obtain expert psychiatric testimony of its own, or even to explore with appellant’s witness the question of appellant’s power to control the frequency, timing, and location of his drinking bouts, or the substantial disagreement within the medical profession concerning the nature of the disease, the efficacy of treatment and the prerequisites for effective treatment. It did nothing to examine or illuminate what Dr. Wade might have meant by his reference to a “compulsion” which was “not completely overpowering,” but which was “an exceedingly strong influence,” or to inquire into the question of the proper role of such a “compulsion” in constitutional adjudication. Instead, the State contented itself with a brief argument that appellant had no defense to the charge because he “is legally sane and knows the difference between right and wrong.”
Following this abbreviated exposition of the problem before it, the trial court indicated its intention to disallow appellant’s claimed defense of “chronic alcoholism.” Thereupon defense counsel submitted, and the trial court entered, the following “findings of fact” :
“(1) That chronic alcoholism is a disease which destroys the afflicted person’s will power to resist the constant, excessive consumption of alcohol.
“(2) That a chronic alcoholic does not appear in public by his own volition but under a compulsion symptomatic of the disease of chronic alcoholism.
“(3) That Leroy Powell, defendant herein, is a chronic alcoholic who is afflicted with the disease of chronic alcoholism.”
Whatever else may be said of them, those are not “findings of fact” in any recognizable, traditional sense in which that term has been used in a court of law; they are the premises of a syllogism transparently designed to bring this case within the scope of this Court’s opinion in Robinson v. California, 370 U. S. 660 (1962). Nonetheless, the dissent would have us adopt these “findings” without critical examination; it would use them as the basis for a constitutional holding that “a person may not be punished if the condition essential to constitute the defined crime is part of the pattern of his disease and is occasioned by a compulsion symptomatic of the disease.” Post, at 569.
The difficulty with that position, as we shall show, is that it goes much too far on the basis of too little knowledge. In the first place, the record in this case is utterly inadequate to permit the sort of informed and responsible adjudication which alone can support the announcement of an important and wide-ranging new constitutional principle. We know very little about the circumstances surrounding the drinking bout which re-suited in this conviction, or about Leroy Powell's drinking problem, or indeed about alcoholism itself. The trial hardly reflects the sharp legal and evidentiary clash between fully prepared adversary litigants which is traditionally expected in major constitutional cases. The State put on only one witness, the arresting officer. The defense put on three — a policeman who testified to appellant’s long history of arrests for public drunkenness, the psychiatrist, and appellant himself.
Furthermore, the inescapable fact is that there is no agreement among members of the medical profession about what it means to say that “alcoholism” is a “disease.” One of the principal works in this field states that the major difficulty in articulating a “disease concept of alcoholism” is that “alcoholism has too many definitions and disease has practically none.” This same author concludes that “a disease is what the medical profession recognizes as such.” In other words, there is widespread agreement today that “alcoholism” is a “disease,” for the simple reason that the medical profession has concluded that it should attempt to treat those who have drinking problems. There the agreement stops. Debate rages within the medical profession as to whether “alcoholism” is a separate “disease” in any meaningful biochemical, physiological or psychological sense, or whether it represents one peculiar manifestation in some individuals of underlying psychiatric disorders.
Nor is there any substantial consensus as to the “manifestations of alcoholism.” E. M. Jellinek, one of the outstanding authorities on the subject, identifies five different types of alcoholics which predominate in the United States, and these types display a broad range of different and occasionally inconsistent symptoms. Moreover, wholly distinct types, relatively rare in this country, predominate in nations with different cultural attitudes regarding the consumption of alcohol. Even if we limit our consideration to the range of alcoholic symptoms more typically found in this country, there is substantial disagreement as to the manifestations of the “disease” called “alcoholism.” Jellinek, for example, considers that only two of his five alcoholic types can truly be said to be suffering from “alcoholism” as a “disease,” because only these two types attain what he believes to be the requisite degree of physiological dependence on alcohol. He applies the label “gamma alcoholism” to “that species of alcoholism in which (1) acquired increased tissue tolerance to alcohol, (2) adaptive cell metabolism..., (3) withdrawal symptoms and ‘craving/ i. e., physical dependence, and (4) loss of control are involved.” A “delta” alcoholic, on the other hand, “shows the first three characteristics of gamma alcoholism as well as a less marked form of the fourth characteristic — that is, instead of loss of control there is inability to abstain.” Other authorities approach the problems of classification in an entirely different manner and, taking account of the large role which psycho-social factors seem to play in “problem drinking,” define the “disease” in terms of the earliest identifiable manifestations of any sort of abnormality in drinking patterns.
Dr. Wade appears to have testified about appellant’s “chronic alcoholism” in terms similar to Jellinek’s “gamma” and “delta” types, for these types are largely defined, in their later stages, in terms of a strong compulsion to drink, physiological dependence and an inability to abstain from drinking. No attempt was made in the court below, of course, to determine whether Leroy Powell could in fact properly be diagnosed as a “gamma” or “delta” alcoholic in Jellinek’s terms. The focus at the trial, and in the dissent here, has been exclusively upon the factors of loss of control and inability to abstain. Assuming that it makes sense to compartmentalize in this manner the diagnosis of such a formless “disease,” tremendous gaps in our knowledge remain, which the record in this case does nothing to fill.
The trial court’s “finding” that Powell “is afflicted with the disease of chronic alcoholism,” which “destroys the afflicted person’s will power to resist the constant, excessive consumption of alcohol” covers a multitude of sins. Dr. Wade’s testimony that appellant suffered from a compulsion which was an “exceedingly strong influence,” but which was “not completely overpowering” is at least more carefully stated, if no less mystifying. Jellinek insists that conceptual clarity can only be achieved by distinguishing carefully between “loss of control” once an individual has commenced to drink and “inability to abstain” from drinking in the first place. Presumably a person would have to display both characteristics in order to make out a constitutional defense, should one be recognized. Yet the “findings” of the trial court utterly fail to make this crucial distinction, and there is serious question whether the record can be read to support a finding of either loss of control or inability to abstain.
Dr. Wade did testify that once appellant began drinking he appeared to have no control over the amount of alcohol he finally ingested. Appellant’s own testimony concerning his drinking on the day of the trial would certainly appear, however, to cast doubt upon the conclusion that he was without control over his consumption of alcohol when he had sufficiently important reasons to exercise such control. However that may be, there are more serious factual and conceptual difficulties with reading this record to show that appellant was unable to abstain from drinking. Dr. Wade testified that when appellant was sober, the act of taking the first drink was a “voluntary exercise of his will,” but that this exercise of will was undertaken under the “exceedingly strong influence” of a “compulsion” which was “not completely overpowering.” Such concepts, when juxtaposed in this fashion, have little meaning.
Moreover, Jellinek asserts that it cannot accurately be said that a person is truly unable to abstain from drinking unless he is suffering the physical symptoms of withdrawal. There is no testimony in this record that Leroy Powell underwent withdrawal symptoms either before he began the drinking spree which resulted in the conviction under review here, or at any other time. In attempting to deal with the alcoholic’s desire for drink in the absence of withdrawal symptoms, Jellinek is reduced to unintelligible distinctions between a “compulsion” (a “psychopathological phenomenon” which can apparently serve in some instances as the functional equivalent of a “craving” or symptom of withdrawal) and an “impulse” (something which differs from a loss of control, a craving or a compulsion, and to which Jellinek attributes the start of a new drinking bout for a “gamma” alcoholic). Other scholars are equally unhelpful in articulating the nature of a “compulsion.”
It is one thing to say that if a man is deprived of alcohol his hands will begin to shake, he will suffer agonizing pains and ultimately he will have hallucinations; it is quite another to say that a man has a “compulsion” to take a drink, but that he also retains a certain amount of “free will” with which to resist. It is simply impossible, in the present state of our knowledge, to ascribe a useful meaning to the latter statement. This definitional confusion reflects, of course, not merely the undeveloped state of the psychiatric art but also the conceptual difficulties inevitably attendant upon the importation of scientific and medical models- into a legal system generally predicated upon a different set of assumptions.
II.
Despite the comparatively primitive state of our knowledge On the subject, it cannot be denied that the destructive use of alcoholic beverages is one of our principal social and public health problems. The lowest current informed estimate places the number of “alcoholics” in America (definitional problems aside) at 4,000,000, and most authorities are inclined to put the figure considerably higher. The problem is compounded by the fact that a very large percentage of the alcoholics in this country are “invisible” — they possess the means to keep their drinking problems secret, and the traditionally uncharitable attitude of our society toward alco-holies causes many of them to refrain from seeking treatment from any source. Nor can it be gainsaid that the legislative response to this enormous problem has in general been inadequate.
There is as yet no known generally effective method for treating the vast number of alcoholics in our society. Some individual alcoholics have responded to particular forms of therapy with remissions of their symptomatic dependence upon the drug. But just as there is no agreement among doctors and social workers with respect to the causes of alcoholism, there is no consensus as to why particular treatments have been effective in particular cases and there is no generally agreed-upon approach to the problem of treatment on a large scale. Most psychiatrists are apparently of the opinion that alcoholism is far more difficult to treat than other forms of behavioral disorders, and some believe it is impossible to cure by means of psychotherapy; indeed, the medical profession as a whole, and psychiatrists in particular, have been severely criticised for the prevailing reluctance to undertake the treatment of drinking problems. Thus it is entirely possible that, even were the manpower and facilities available for a full-scale attack upon chronic alcoholism, we would find ourselves unable to help the vast bulk of our “visible” — let alone our “invisible”— alcoholic population.
However, facilities for the attempted treatment of indigent alcoholics are woefully lacking throughout the country. It would be tragic to return large numbers of helpless, sometimes dangerous and frequently unsanitary inebriates to the streets of our cities without even the opportunity to sober up adequately which a brief jail term provides. Presumably no State or city will tolerate such a state of affairs. Yet the medical profession cannot, and does not, tell us with any assurance that, even if the buildings, equipment and trained personnel were made available, it could provide anything more than slightly higher-class jails for our indigent habitual inebriates. Thus we run the grave risk that nothing will be accomplished beyond the hanging of a new sign— reading “hospital” — over one wing of the jailhouse.
One virtue of the criminal process is, at least, that the duration of penal incarceration typically has some outside statutory limit; this is universally true in the case of petty offenses, such as public drunkenness, where jail terms are quite short on the whole. “Therapeutic civil commitment” lacks this feature; one is typically committed until one is “cured.” Thus, to do otherwise than affirm might subject indigent alcoholics to the risk that they may be locked up for an indefinite period of time under the same conditions as before, with no more hope than before of receiving effective treatment and no prospect of periodic “freedom.”
Faced with this unpleasant reality, we are unable to assert that the use of the criminal process as a means of dealing with the public aspects of problem drinking can never be defended as rational. The picture of the penniless drunk propelled aimlessly and endlessly through the law’s “revolving door” of arrest, incarceration, release and re-arrest is not a pretty one. But before we condemn the present practice across-the-board, perhaps we ought to be able to point to some clear promise of a better world for these unfortunate people. Unfortunately, no such promise has yet been forthcoming. If, in addition to the absence of a coherent approach to the problem of treatment, we consider the almost complete absence of facilities and manpower for the implementation of a rehabilitation program, it is difficult to say in the present context that the criminal process is utterly lacking in social value. This Court has never held that anything in the Constitution requires that penal sanctions be designed solely to achieve therapeutic or rehabilitative effects, and it can hardly be said with assurance that incarceration serves such purposes any better for the general run of criminals than it does for public drunks.
Ignorance likewise impedes our assessment of the deterrent effect of criminal sanctions for public drunkenness. The fact that a high percentage of American alcoholics conceal their drinking problems, not merely by avoiding public displays of intoxication but also by shunning all forms of treatment, is indicative that some powerful deterrent operates to inhibit the public revelation of the existence of alcoholism. Quite probably this deterrent effect can be largely attributed to the harsh moral attitude which our society has traditionally taken toward intoxication and the shame which we have associated with alcoholism. Criminal conviction represents the degrading public revelation of what Anglo-American society has long condemned as a moral defect, and the existence of criminal sanctions may serve to reinforce this cultural taboo, just as we presume it serves to reinforce other, stronger feelings against murder, rape, theft, and other forms of antisocial conduct.
Obviously, chronic alcoholics have not been deterred from drinking to excess by the existence of criminal sanctions against public drunkenness. But all those who violate penal laws of any kind are by definition undeterred. The long-standing and still raging debate over the validity of the deterrence justification for penal sanctions has not reached any sufficiently clear conclusions to permit it to be said that such sanctions are ineffective in any particular context or for any particular group of people who are able to appreciate the consequences of their acts. Certainly no effort was made at the trial of this case, beyond a monosyllabic answer to a perfunctory one-line question, to determine the effectiveness of penal sanctions in deterring Leroy Powell in particular or chronic alcoholics in general from drinking at all or from getting drunk in particular places or at particular times.
III.
Appellant claims that his conviction on the facts of this case would violate the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause of the Eighth Amendment as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. The primary purpose of that clause has always been considered, and properly so, to be directed at the method or kind of punishment imposed for the violation of criminal statutes; the nature of the conduct made criminal is ordinarily relevant only to the fitness of the punishment imposed. See, e. g., Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86 (1958); Louisiana ex rel. Francis v. Resweber, 329 U. S. 459 (1947); Weems v. United States, 217 U. S. 349 (1910).
Appellant, however, seeks to come within the application of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause announced in Robinson v. California, 370 U. S. 660 (1962), which involved a state statute making it a crime to “be addicted to the use of narcotics.” This Court held there that “a state law which imprisons a person thus afflicted [with narcotic addiction] as a criminal, even though he has never touched any narcotic drug within the State or been guilty of any irregular behavior there, inflicts a cruel and unusual punishment. ” Id., at 667.
On its face the present case does not fall within that holding, since appellant was convicted, not for being a chronic alcoholic, but for being in public while drunk on a particular occasion. The State of Texas thus has not sought to punish a mere status, as California did in Robinson; nor has it attempted to regulate appellant’s behavior in the privacy of his own home. Rather, it has imposed upon appellant a criminal sanction for public behavior which may create substantial health and safety hazards, both for appellant and for members of the general public, and which offends the moral and esthetic sensibilities of a large segment of the community. This seems a far cry from convicting one for being an addict, being a chronic alcoholic, being “mentally ill, or a leper....” Id., at 666.
Robinson so viewed brings this Court but a very small way into the substantive criminal law. And unless Robinson is so viewed it is difficult to see any limiting principle that would serve to prevent this Court from becoming, under the aegis of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause, the ultimate arbiter of the standards of criminal responsibility, in diverse areas of the criminal law, throughout the country.
It is suggested in dissent that Robinson stands for the “simple” but “subtle” principle that “[criminal penalties may not be inflicted upon a person for being in a condition he is powerless to change.” Post, at 567. In that view, appellant’s “condition” of public intoxication was “occasioned by a compulsion symptomatic of the disease” of chronic alcoholism, and thus, apparently, his behavior lacked the critical element of mens rea. Whatever may be the merits of such a doctrine of criminal responsibility, it surely cannot be said to follow from Robinson. The entire thrust of Robinson’s interpretation of the Cruel and Unusual Punishment Clause is that criminal penalties may be inflicted only if the accused has committed some act, has engaged in some behavior, which society has an interest in preventing, or perhaps in historical common law terms, has committed some actus reus. It thus does not deal with the question of whether certain conduct cannot constitutionally be punished because it is, in some sense, “involuntary” or “occasioned by a compulsion.”
Likewise, as the dissent acknowledges, there is a substantial definitional distinction between a “status;” as in Robinson, and a “condition,” which is said to be involved in this case. Whatever may be the merits of an attempt to distinguish between behavior and a condition, it is perfectly clear that the crucial element in this case, so far as the dissent is concerned, is whether or not appellant can legally be held responsible for his appearance in public in a state of intoxication. The only relevance of Robinson to this issue is that because the Court interpreted the statute there involved as making a “status” criminal, it was able to suggest that the statute would cover even a situation in which addiction had been acquired involuntarily. 370 U. S., at 667, n. 9. That this factor was not determinative in the case is shown by the fact that there was no indication of how Robinson himself had become an addict.
Ultimately, then, the most troubling aspects of this case, were Robinson to be extended to meet it, would be the scope and content of what could only be a constitutional doctrine of criminal responsibility. In dissent it is urged that the decision could be limited to conduct which is “a characteristic and involuntary part of the pattern of the disease as it afflicts” the particular individual, and that “[i]t is not foreseeable” that it would be applied “in the case of offenses such as driving a car while intoxicated, assault, theft, or robbery.” Post, at 559, n. 2. That is limitation by fiat. In the first place, nothing in the logic of the dissent would limit its application to chronic alcoholics. If Leroy Powell cannot be. convicted of public intoxication, it is difficult to see how a State can convict an individual for murder, if that individual, while exhibiting normal behavior in all other respects, suffers from a “compulsion” to kill, which is an “exceedingly strong influence,” but “not.completely overpowering.” Even if we limit our consideration to chronic alcoholics, it would seem impossible to confine the principle within the arbitrary bounds which the dissent seems to envision.
It is not difficult to imagine a case involving psychiatric testimony to the effect that an individual suffers from some aggressive neurosis which he is able to control when sober; that very little alcohol suffices to remove the inhibitions which normally contain these aggressions, with the result that the individual engages in assaultive behavior without becoming actually intoxicated; and that the individual suffers from a very strong desire to drink, which is an “exceedingly strong influence” but “not completely overpowering.” Without being untrue to the rationale of this case, should the principles advanced in dissent be accepted here, the Court could not avoid holding such an individual constitutionally unaccountable for his assaultive behavior.
Traditional common-law concepts of personal accountability and essential considerations of federalism lead us to disagree with appellant. We are unable to conclude, on the state of this record or on the current state of medical knowledge, that chronic alcoholics in general, and Leroy Powell in particular, suffer from such an irresistible compulsion to drink and to get drunk in public that they are utterly unable to control their performance of either or both of these acts and thus cannot be deterred at all from public intoxication. And in any event this Court has never articulated a general constitutional doctrine of mens rea.
We cannot cast aside the centuries-long evolution of the collection of interlocking and overlapping concepts which the common law has utilized to assess the moral accountability of an individual for his antisocial deeds. The doctrines of actus reus, mens rea, insanity, mistake, justification, and duress have historically provided the tools for a constantly shifting adjustment of the tension between the evolving aims of the criminal law and changing religious, moral, philosophical, and medical views of the nature of man. This process of adjustment has always been thought to be the province of the States.
Nothing could be less fruitful than for this Court to be impelled into defining some sort of insanity test in constitutional terms. Yet, that task would seem to follow inexorably from an extension of Robinson to this case. If a person in the “condition” of being a chronic alcoholic cannot be criminally punished as a constitutional matter for being drunk in public, it would seem to follow that a person who contends that, in terms of one test, “his unlawful act was the product of mental disease or mental defect,” Durham v. United States, 94 U. S. App. D. C. 228, 241, 214 F. 2d 862, 875 (1954), would state an issue of constitutional dimension with regard to his criminal responsibility had he been tried under some different and perhaps lesser standard, e. g., the right-wrong test of M‘Naghten’s Case. The experimentation of one jurisdiction in that field alone indicates the magnitude of the problem. See, e. g., Carter v. United States, 102 U. S. App. D. C. 227, 252 F. 2d 608 (1957); Blocker v. United States, 107 U. S. App. D. C. 63, 274 F. 2d 572 (1959); Blocker v. United States, 110 U. S. App. D. C. 41, 288 F. 2d 853 (1961) (en banc); McDonald v. United States, 114 U. S. App. D. C. 120, 312 F. 2d 847 (1962) (en banc); Washington v. United States, - U. S. App. D. C. -, 390 F. 2d 444 (1967). But formulating a constitutional rule would reduce, if not eliminate, that fruitful experimentation, and freeze the developing productive dialogue between law and psychiatry into a rigid constitutional mold. It is simply not yet the time to write into the Constitution formulas cast in terms whose meaning, let alone relevance, is not yet clear either to doctors or to lawyers.
Affirmed.
Tex. Code Crim. Proc., Art. 4.03 (1966).
E. Jellinek, The Disease Concept of Alcoholism 11 (1960).
Id., at 12 (emphasis in original).
See, e. g., Joint Information Serv. of the Am. Psychiatric Assn. & the Nat. Assn. for Mental Health, The Treatment of Alcoholism — A Study of Programs and Problems 6-8 (1967) (hereafter cited as Treatment of Alcoholism).
Jellinek, supra, n. 2, at 35-41.
For example, in nations where large quantities of wine are customarily consumed with meals, apparently there are many people who are completely unaware that they have a “drinking problem”— they rarely if ever show signs of intoxication, they display no marked symptoms of behavioral disorder, and are entirely capable of limiting their alcoholic intake to a reasonable amount — and yet who display severe withdrawal symptoms, sometimes including delirium tremens, when deprived of their daily portion of wine. M. Block, Alcoholism — Its Facets and Phases 27 (1965); Jellinek, supra, n. 2, at 17, See generally id., at 13-32.
Jellinek, supra, n. 2, at 40.
Jellinek, supra, n. 2, at 37.
Id., at 38.
See Block, supra, n. 6, at 19-49.
Jellinek, supra, n. 2, at 41-42.
Id., at 43.
Id., at 41-44.
Dr. Wade did not clarify matters when he testified at trial that a chronic alcoholic suffers from “the same type of compulsion” as a “compulsive eater.”
See, e. g., Block, supra, n. 6, at 40, 55, 308; Treatment of Alcoholism 6-8; Note, Alcoholism, Public Intoxication and the Law, 2 Col. J. Law & Soc. Prob. 109, 112-114 (1966).
See Washington v. United States, - U. S. App. D. C. -, ---, 390 F. 2d 444, 446-456 (1967).
See generally Block, supra, n. 6, at 19-30, 43-49.
See Treatment of Alcoholism 11.
Block, supra, n. 6, at 43-44; Blum & Braunstein, Mindaltering Drugs and Dangerous Behavior: Alcohol, in President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: Drunkenness 29, 30 (1967); Note, 2 Col. J. Law & Soc. Prob. 109 (1966).
See Block, supra, n. 6, at 74-81; Note, 2 Col. J. Law & Soc. Prob. 109 (1966).
See Treatment of Alcoholism 13-17.
Id., at 18-26.
Encouraging pilot projects do exist. See President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: Drunkenness 50-64, 82-108 (1967). But the President’s Commission concluded that the “strongest barrier” to the abandonment of the current use of the criminal process to deal with public intoxication “is that there presently are no clear alternatives for taking into custody and treating those who are now arrested as drunks.” President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society 235 (1967). Moreover, even if massive expenditures for physical plants were forthcoming, there is a woeful shortage of trained personnel to man them. One study has concluded that:
"[T]here is little likelihood that the number of workers in these fields could be sufficiently increased to treat even a large minority of problem drinkers. In California, for instance, according to the best estimate available, providing all problem drinkers with weekly contact with a psychiatrist and once-a-month contact with a social worker would require the full time work of every psychiatrist and every trained social worker in the United States.” Cooperative Commission on Study of Alcoholism, Alcohol Problems 120 (1967) (emphasis in original).
For the inadequate response in the District of Columbia following Easter v. District of Columbia, 124 U. S. App. D. C. 33, 361 F. 2d 50 (1966), which held on constitutional and statutory grounds that a chronic alcoholic could not be punished for public drunkenness, see President's Commission on Crime in the District of Columbia, Report 486-490 (1966).
Counsel for amici curiae ACLU et al., who has been extremely active in the recent spate of litigation dealing with public intoxication statutes and the chronic inebri
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
For the first time since the National Labor Relations Board (Board or NLRB) was established in 1935, the Board has promulgated a substantive rule defining the employee units appropriate for collective bargaining in a particular line of commerce. The rule is applicable to acute care hospitals and provides, with three exceptions, that eight, and only eight, units shall be appropriate in any such hospital. The three exceptions are for cases that present extraordinary circumstances, cases in which nonconforming units already exist, and cases in which labor organizations seek to combine two or more of the eight specified units. The extraordinary circumstances exception applies automatically to hospitals in which the eight-unit rule will produce a unit of five or fewer employees. See 29 CFR § 103.30 (1990).
Petitioner, American Hospital Association, brought this action challenging the facial validity of the rule on three grounds: First, petitioner argues that § 9(b) of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or Act) requires the Board to make a separate bargaining unit determination “in each case” and therefore prohibits the Board from using general rules to define bargaining units; second, petitioner contends that the rule that the Board has formulated violates a congressional admonition to the Board to avoid the undue proliferation of bargaining units in the health care industry; and, finally, petitioner maintains that the rule is arbitrary and capricious.
The United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois agreed with petitioner’s second argument and enjoined enforcement of the rule. 718 F. Supp. 704 (1989). The Court of Appeals found no merit in any of the three arguments and reversed. 899 F. 2d 651 (CA7 1990). Because of the importance of the case, we granted certiorari, 498 U. S. 894 (1990). We now affirm.
I
Petitioner’s first argument is a general challenge to the Board’s rulemaking authority in connection with bargaining unit determinations based on the terms of the NLRA, 49 Stat. 449, 29 U. S. C. §151 et seq., as originally enacted in 1935. In § 1 of the NLRA Congress made the legislative finding that the “inequality of bargaining power” between unorganized employees and corporate employers had adversely affected commerce and declared it to be the policy of the United States to mitigate or eliminate those adverse effects “by encouraging the practice and procedure of collective bargaining and by protecting the exercise by workers of full freedom of association, self-organization, and designation of representatives of their own choosing, for the purpose of negotiating the terms and conditions of their employment or other mutual aid or protection.” 29 U. S. C. § 151. The central purpose of the Act was to protect and facilitate employees’ opportunity to organize unions to represent them in collective-bargaining negotiations.
Sections 3, 4, and 5 of the Act created the Board and generally described its powers. §§ 153-155. Section 6 granted the Board the “authority from time to time to make, amend, and rescind . . . such rules and regulations as may be necessary to carry out the provisions” of the Act. § 156. This grant was unquestionably sufficient to authorize the rule at issue in this case unless limited by some other provision in the Act.
Petitioner argues that § 9(b) provides such a limitation because this section requires the Board to determine the appropriate bargaining unit “in each case.” § 159(b). We are not persuaded. Petitioner would have us put more weight on these three words than they can reasonably carry.
Section 9(a) of the Act provides that the representative “designated or selected for the purposes of collective bargaining by the majority of the employees in a unit appropriate for such purposes” shall be the exclusive bargaining representative for all the employees in that unit. § 159(a). This section, read in light of the policy of the Act, implies that the initiative in selecting an appropriate unit resides with the employees. Moreover, the language suggests that employees may seek to organize “a unit” that is “appropriate” — not necessarily the single most appropriate unit. See, e. g., Trustees of Masonic Hall and Asylum Fund v. NLRB, 699 F. 2d 626, 634 (CA2 1983); State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. v. NLRB, 411 F. 2d 356, 358 (CA7) (en banc), cert. denied, 396 U. S. 832 (1969); Friendly Ice Cream Corp. v. NLRB, 705 F. 2d 570, 574 (CA1 1983); Local 627, Int’l Union of Operating Engineers v. NLRB, 194 U. S. App. D. C. 37, 41, 595 F. 2d 844, 848 (1979); NLRB v. Western & Southern Life Ins. Co., 391 F. 2d 119, 123 (CA3), cert. denied, 393 U. S. 978 (1968). Thus, one union might seek to represent all of the employees in a particular plant, those in a particular craft, or perhaps just a portion thereof.
Given the obvious potential for disagreement concerning the appropriateness of the unit selected by the union seeking recognition by the employer — disagreements that might involve rival unions claiming jurisdiction over contested segments of the work force as well as disagreements between management and labor — § 9(b) authorizes the Board to decide whether the designated unit is appropriate. See Hearings on S. 1958 before the Senate Committee on Education and Labor, p. 82 (1935) (hereinafter Hearings), 1 Legislative History of the National Labor Relations Act 1935, p. 1458 (hereinafter Legislative History) (testimony of Francis Biddle, Chairman of Board); H. R. Rep. No. 972, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 20 (1935), 2 Legislative History 2976. Section 9(b) provides:
“The Board shall decide in each case whether, in order to insure to employees the full benefit of their right to self-organization and to collective bargaining, and otherwise to effectuate the policies of this Act, the unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining shall be the employer unit, craft unit, plant unit, or subdivision thereof.” (Emphasis added.)
Petitioner reads the emphasized phrase as a limitation on the Board’s rulemaking powers. Although the contours of the restriction that petitioner ascribes to the phrase are murky, petitioner’s reading of the language would prevent the Board from imposing any industry-wide rule delineating the appropriate bargaining units. We believe petitioner’s reading is inconsistent with the natural meaning of the language read in the context of the statute as a whole.
The more natural reading of these three words is simply to indicate that whenever there is a disagreement about the appropriateness of a unit, the Board shall resolve the dispute. Under this reading, the words “in each case” are synonymous with “whenever necessary” or “in any case in which there is a dispute.” Congress chose not to enact a general rule that would require plant unions, craft unions, or industry-wide unions for every employer in every line of commerce, but also chose not to leave the decision up to employees or employers alone. Instead, the decision “in each case” in which a dispute arises is to be made by the Board.
In resolving such a dispute, the Board’s decision is presumably to be guided not simply by the basic policy of the Act but also by the rules that the Board develops to circumscribe and to guide its discretion either in the process of case-by-case adjudication or by the exercise of its rulemaking authority. The requirement that the Board exercise its discretion in every disputed case cannot fairly or logically be read to command the Board to exercise standardless discretion in each case. As a noted scholar on administrative law has observed: “[T]he mandate to decide ‘in each case’ does not prevent the Board from supplanting the original discretionary chaos with some degree of order, and the principal instruments for regularizing the system of deciding ‘in each case’ are classifications, rules, principles, and precedents. Sensible men could not refuse to use such instruments and a sensible Congress would not expect them to.” K. Davis, Administrative Law Text, § 6.04, p. 145 (3d ed. 1972).
This reading of the “in each case” requirement comports with our past interpretations of similar provisions in other regulatory statutes. See United States v. Storer Broadcasting Co., 351 U. S. 192, 205 (1956); FPC v. Texaco, Inc., 377 U. S. 33, 41-44 (1964); Heckler v. Campbell, 461 U. S. 458, 467 (1983). These decisions confirm that, even if a statutory scheme requires individualized determinations, the decision-maker has the authority to rely on rulemaking to resolve certain issues of general applicability unless Congress clearly expresses an intent to withhold that authority.
Even petitioner acknowledges that “the Board could adopt rules establishing general principles to guide the required case-by-case bargaining unit determinations.” Brief for Petitioner 19. Petitioner further acknowledges that the Board has created many such rules in the half-century during which it has adjudicated bargaining unit disputes. Reply Brief for Petitioner 8-11. Petitioner contends, however, that a rule delineating the appropriate bargaining unit for an entire industry is qualitatively different from these prior rules, which at most established rebuttable presumptions that certain units would be considered appropriate in certain circumstances.
We simply cannot find in the three words “in each case” any basis for the fine distinction that petitioner would have us draw. Contrary to petitioner’s contention, the Board’s rule is not an irrebuttable presumption; instead, it contains an exception for “extraordinary circumstances.” Even if the rule did establish an irrebuttable presumption, it would not differ significantly from the prior rules adopted by the Board. As with its prior rules, the Board must still apply the rule “in each case.” For example, the Board must decide in each case, among a host of other issues, whether a given facility is properly classified as an acute care hospital and whether particular employees are properly placed in particular units.
Our understanding that the ordinary meaning of the statutory language cannot support petitioner’s construction is reinforced by the structure and the policy of the NLRA. As a matter of statutory drafting, if Congress had intended to curtail in a particular area the broad rulemaking authority granted in § 6, we would have expected it to do so in language expressly describing an exception from that section or at least referring specifically to the section. And, in regard to the Act’s underlying policy, the goal of facilitating the organization and recognition of unions is certainly served by rules that define in advance the portions of the work force in which organizing efforts may properly be conducted.
The sparse legislative history of the provision affords petitioner no assistance. That, history reveals that the phrase was one of a group of “small amendments” suggested by the Secretary of Labor “for the sake of clarity.” See Senate Committee on Education and Labor, Memorandum Comparing S. 2926 and S. 1958, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (Comm. Print 1935), 1 Legislative History 1332, Hearings, 1442,1445; Hearings on H. R. 6288 before the House Committee on Labor, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 283-284 (1935), 2 Legislative History 2757-2758. If this amendment had been intended to place the important limitation on the scope of the Board’s rulemaking powers that petitioner suggests, we would expect to find some expression of that intent in the legislative history. Cf. Harrison v. PPG Industries, Inc., 446 U. S. 578, 600-601 (1980) (Rehnquist, J., dissenting).
The only other relevant legislative history adds nothing to the meaning conveyed by the text that was enacted. Petitioner relies on a comment in the House Committee on Labor Report that the matter of the appropriate unit “is obviously one for determination in each individual case, and the only possible workable arrangement is to authorize the impartial government agency, the Board, to make that determination.” H. R. Rep. No. 972, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 20 (1935), 2 Legislative History 2976. This comment, however, simply restates our reading of the statute as requiring that the Board decide the appropriate unit in every case in which there is a dispute. The Report nowhere suggests that the Board cannot adopt generally applicable rules to guide its “determination in each individual case.”
In sum, we believe that the meaning of §9(b)’s mandate that the Board decide the appropriate bargaining unit “in each case” is clear and contrary to the meaning advanced by petitioner. Even if we could find any ambiguity in § 9(b) after employing the traditional tools of statutory construction, we would still defer to the Board’s reasonable interpretation of the statutory text. Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842-843 (1984). We thus conclude that § 9(b) does not limit the Board’s rulemaking authority under § 6.
I — I I — I
Consideration of petitioner’s second argument requires a brief historical review of the application of federal labor law to acute care hospitals. Hospitals were “employers” under the terms of the NLRA as enacted in 1935, but in 1947 Congress excepted not-for-profit hospitals from the coverage of the Act. See 29 U. S. C. § 152(2) (1970 ed.) (repealed, 1974). In 1960, the Board decided that proprietary hospitals should also be excepted, see Flatbush General Hospital, 126 N. L. R. B. 144, 145, but this position was reversed in 1967, see Butte Medical Properties, 168 N. L. R. B. 266, 268.
In 1973, Congress addressed the issue and considered bills that would have extended the Act’s coverage to all private health care institutions, including not-for-profit hospitals. The proposed legislation was highly controversial, largely because of the concern that labor unrest in the health care industry might be especially harmful to the public. Moreover, the fact that so many specialists are employed in the industry created the potential for a large number of bargaining units, in each of which separate union representation might multiply management’s burden in negotiation and might also increase the risk of strikes. Motivated by these concerns, Senator Taft introduced a bill that would have repealed the exemption for hospitals, but also would have placed a limit of five on the number of bargaining units in nonprofit health care institutions. S. 2292, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. (1973). Senator Taft’s bill did not pass.
In the second session of the same Congress, however, the National Labor Relations Act Amendments of 1974 were enacted. See 88 Stat. 395. These amendments subjected all acute care hospitals to the coverage of the Act but made no change in the Board’s authority to determine the appropriate bargaining unit in each case. See ibid. Both the House and the Senate Committee Reports on the legislation contained this statement:
“EFFECT ON EXISTING LAW
“Bargaining Units
“Due consideration should be given by the Board to preventing proliferation of bargaining units in the health care industry. In this connection, the Committee notes with approval the recent Board decisions in Four Seasons Nursing Center, 208 NLRB No. 50, 85 LRRM 1093 (1974), and Woodland Park Hospital, 205 NLRB No. 144, 84 LRRM 1075 (1973), as well as the trend toward broader units enunciated in Extendicare of West Virginia, 203 NLRB No. 170, 83 LRRM 1242 (1973).
See S. Rep. No. 93-766, p. 5 (1974); H. R. Rep. No. 93-1051, pp. 6-7 (1974).
Petitioner does not — and obviously could not — contend that this statement in the Committee Reports has the force of law, for the Constitution is quite explicit about the procedure that Congress must follow in legislating. Nor, in view of the fact that Congress refused to enact the Taft bill that would have placed a limit of five on the number of hospital bargaining units, does petitioner argue that eight units necessarily constitute proliferation. Rather, petitioner’s primary argument is that the admonition, when coupled with the rejection of a general rule imposing a five-unit limit, evinces Congress’ intent to emphasize the importance of the “in each case” requirement in § 9(b).
We find this argument no more persuasive than petitioner’s reliance on § 9(b) itself. Assuming that the admonition was designed to emphasize the requirement that the Board determine the appropriate bargaining unit in each case, we have already explained that the Board’s rule does not contravene this mandate. See Part I, supra.
Petitioner also suggests that the admonition “is an authoritative statement of what Congress intended when it extended the Act’s coverage to include nonproprietary hospitals.” Brief for Petitioner 30. Even if we accepted this suggestion, we read the admonition as an expression by the Committees of their desire that the Board give “due consideration” to the special problems that “proliferation” might create in acute care hospitals. Examining the record of the Board’s rulemaking proceeding, we find that it gave extensive consideration to this very issue. See App. 20, 78-84, 114, 122, 131, 140, 158-159, 191-194, 246-254.
In any event, we think that the admonition in the Committee Reports is best understood as a form of notice to the Board that if it did not give appropriate consideration to the problem of proliferation in this industry, Congress might respond with a legislative remedy. So read, the remedy for noncompliance with the admonition is in the hands of the body that issued it. Cf. Public Employees Retirement System of Ohio v. Betts, 492 U. S. 158, 168 (1989) (legislative history that cannot be tied to the enactment of specific statutory language ordinarily carries little weight injudicial interpretation of the statute). If Congress believes that the Board has not given “due consideration” to the issue, Congress may fashion an appropriate response.
III
Petitioners final argument is that the rule is arbitrary and capricious because “it ignores critical differences among the more than 4,000 acute-care hospitals in the United States, including differences in size, location, operations, and workforce organization.” Brief for Petitioner 39. Petitioner supports this argument by noting that in at least one earlier unit determination, the Board had commented that the diverse character of the health care industry precluded generalizations about the appropriateness of any particular bargaining unit. See St. Francis Hospital, 271 N. L. R. B. 948, 953, n. 39 (1984), remanded sub nom. Electrical Workers v. NLRB, 259 U. S. App. D. C. 168, 814 F. 2d 697 (1987).
The Board responds to this argument by relying on the extensive record developed during the rulemaking proceedings, as well as its experience in the adjudication of health care cases during the 13-year period between the enactment of the health care amendments and its notice of proposed rule-making. Based on that experience, the Board formed the “considered judgment” that “acute care hospitals do not differ in substantial, significant ways relating to the appropriateness of units.” App. 188-189. Moreover, the Board argues, the exception for “extraordinary circumstances” is adequate to take care of the unusual case in which a particular application of the rule might be arbitrary.
We do not believe that the challenged rule is inconsistent with the Board’s earlier comment on diversity in the health care industry. The comment related to the entire industry whereas the rule does not apply to many facilities, such as nursing homes, blood banks, and outpatient clinics. See St. Francis, 271 N. L. R. B., at 953, n. 39. Moreover, the Board’s earlier discussion “anticipate^] that after records have been developed and a number of cases decided from these records, certain recurring factual patterns will emerge and illustrate which units are typically appropriate.” See ibid.
Given the extensive notice and comment rulemaking conducted by the Board, its careful analysis of the comments that it received, and its well-reasoned justification for the new rule, we would not be troubled even if there were inconsistencies between the current rule and prior NLRB pronouncements. The statutory authorization “from time to time to make, amend, and rescind” rules and regulations expressly contemplates the possibility that the Board will reshape its policies on the basis of more information and experience in the administration of the Act. See 29 U. S. C. § 156. The question whether the Board has changed its view about certain issues or certain industries does not undermine the validity of a rule that is based on substantial evidence and supported by a “reasoned analysis.” See Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Assn. of United States, Inc. v. State Farm Mut. Automobile Ins. Co., 463 U. S. 29, 42, 67 (1983).
The Board’s conclusion that, absent extraordinary circumstances, “acute care hospitals do not differ in substantial, significant ways relating to the appropriateness of units,” App. 189, was based on a “reasoned analysis” of an extensive record. See 463 U. S., at 57. The Board explained that diversity among hospitals had not previously affected the results of bargaining unit determinations and that diversification did not make rulemaking inappropriate. See App. 55-59. The Board justified its selection of the individual bargaining units by detailing the factors that supported generalizations as to the appropriateness of those units. See, e. g., id., at 93-94, 97, 98, 101, 118-120, 123-129, 133-140.
The fact that petitioner can point to a hypothetical case in which the rule might lead to an arbitrary result does not render the rule “arbitrary or capricious.” This case is a challenge to the validity of the entire rule in all its applications. We consider it likely that presented with the case of an acute care hospital to which its application would be arbitrary, the Board would conclude that “extraordinary circumstances” justified a departure from the rule. See 29 CFR §§ 103.30(a), (b) (1990). Even assuming, however, that the Board might decline to do so, we cannot conclude the the entire rule is invalid on its face. See Illinois Commerce Commission v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 249 U. S. App. D. C. 389, 393-394, 776 F. 2d 355, 359-360 (1985) (Scalia, J.); Aberdeen & Rockfish R. Co. v. United States, 682 F. 2d 1092, 1105 (CA5 1982); cf. FDIC v. Mallen, 486 U. S. 230, 247 (1988) (“A statute such as this is not to be held unconstitutional simply because it may be applied in an arbitrary or unfair way in some hypothetical case not before the Court”).
In this opinion, we have deliberately avoided any extended comment on the wisdom of the rule, the propriety of the specific unit determinations, or the importance of avoiding work stoppages in acute care hospitals. We have pretermitted such discussion not because these matters are unimportant but because they primarily concern the Board’s exercise of its authority rather than the limited scope of our review of the legal arguments presented by petitioner. Because we find no merit in any of these legal arguments, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
“*By our reference to Extendicare, we do not necessarily approve all of the holdings of that decision.”
We further note that the Board’s rule is fully consistent with the two NLRB case holdings expressly approved by the admonition. In one of those cases, the Board refused to approve a bargaining unit composed of only x-ray technicians and instead ruled that all technical workers should be grouped together. See Woodland Park Hospital, Inc., 205 N. L. R. B. 888-889 (1973). In the other case, the Board refused to permit a unit of only two employees. See Four Seasons Nursing Center of Joliet, 208 N. L. R. B. 403 (1974). The current rule authorizes a single unit for all technical workers and prohibits units of fewer than five employees. See 29 CFR § 103.30(a) (1990).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
I
Respondent Lionel Gentry was convicted in California state court of assault with a deadly weapon for stabbing his girlfriend, Tanaysha Handy. Gentry claimed he stabbed her accidentally during a dispute with a drug dealer.
Handy testified for the prosecution. She stated that she recalled being stabbed but could not remember the details of the incident. The prosecution then confronted Handy with her testimony from a preliminary hearing that Gentry had placed his hand around her throat before stabbing her twice.
Albert Williams, a security guard in a neighboring building, testified that he saw Gentry, Handy, and another man from his third-floor window. According to Williams, Gentry swung his hand into Handy’s left side with some object, causing her to lean forward and scream. Williams was inconsistent about the quality of light at the time, stating variously that it was “pretty dark” or “getting dark,” that “it wasn’t that dark,” and that the area of the stabbing was “lighted up.” See Gentry v. Roe, 320 F. 3d 891, 896-897 (CA9 2003).
Gentry testified in his own defense that he had stabbed Handy accidentally while pushing her out of the way. When asked about prior convictions, he falsely stated that he had been convicted only once; evidence showed he had been separately convicted of burglary, grand theft, battery on a peace officer, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. He attributed his error to confusion about whether a plea bargain counted as a conviction.
In her closing argument, the prosecutor expressed sympathy for Handy’s plight as a pregnant, drug-addicted mother of three and highlighted her damaging preliminary hearing testimony. She accused Gentry of telling the jury a “pack of lies.” See id., at 897-898. Defense counsel responded with the following closing argument:
“ ‘I don’t have a lot. to say today. Just once I’d like to find a prosecutor that doesn’t know exactly what happened. Just once I’d like to find a D. A. that wasn’t there and that can tell and they can stand up here and be honest and say I don’t know who is lying and who is not ’cause she wasn’t there, ladies and gentlemen. [I] wasn’t there. None of the 12 of you were there. None of the other people in this courtroom were there except those two people and that one guy who saw parts of it, or saw it all. Pretty dark. Dark. It was light. Those are the three versions of his testimony with regard to what he saw and what he saw. I don’t know what happened. I can’t tell you. And if I sit here and try to tell you what happened, I’m lying to you. I don’t know. I wasn’t there. I don’t have to judge. I don’t have to decide. You heard the testimony come from the truth chair. You heard people testify. You heard good things that made you feel good. You heard bad things that made you feel bad.
“ T don’t care that Tanaysha is pregnant. I don’t care that shé has three children. I don’t know why that had to be brought out in closing. What does that have to do with this case? She was stabbed.
“ ‘The question is, did he intend to stab her? He said he did it by accident. If he’s lying and you think he’s lying then you have to convict him. If you don’t think he’s lying, bad person, lousy drug addict, stinking thief, jail bird, all that to the contrary, he’s not guilty. It’s as simple as that. I don’t care if he’s been in prison. And for the sake of this thing you ought not care because that doesn’t have anything to do with what happened on April 30th, 1994.
Didn’t understand the term conviction. That is not inconsistent with this whole thing of being spoken and doing all this other crime stuff as opposed to going to school. I don’t know. I can’t judge the man. The reason that they bring 12 jurors from all different walks of life, let them sit here and listen to people testify, and the reason that the court will give you instructions with regard to not having your life experience, leaving it at the door, is because you can’t just assume that because a guy has done a bunch of bad things that he’s now done this thing.
“ T don’t know if thievery your are all in the same pot. I don’t know if just because of the fact that you stole some things in the past that means you must have stabbed your girlfriend. That sounds like a jump to me, but that’s just [me], I’m not one of the 12 over there.
“‘All I ask you to do is to look at the evidence and listen to everything you’ve heard and then make a decision. Good decision or bad decision, it’s still a decision. I would like all 12 of you to agree; but if you don’t, I can’t do anything about that either.
“ ‘You heard everything just like all of us have heard it. I don’t know who’s lying. I don't know if anybody is lying. And for someone to stand here and tell you that they think someone is lying and that they know that lying goes on, ladies and gentlemen, if that person was on the witness stand I’d be objecting that they don’t have foundation because they weren’t there. And that’s true. The defense attorney and the prosecutor, no different than 12 of you.
“ ‘So I’d ask you to listen to what you’ve heard when you go back, ask you to take some time to think about it, and be sure that’s what you want to do, then come out and do it.
“‘Thank you.’” Id., at 898-899 (one paragraph break omitted).
After deliberating for about six hours, the jury convicted.
On direct appeal, Gentry argued that his trial counsel’s closing argument deprived him of his right to effective assistance of counsel. The California Court of Appeal rejected that contention, and the California Supreme Court denied review. Gentry’s petition for federal habeas relief was denied by the District Court, but the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. We grant the State’s petition for a writ of certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed informa pauperis and reverse.
II
The Sixth Amendment guarantees criminal defendants the effective assistance of counsel. That right is denied when a defense attorney’s performance falls below an objective standard of reasonableness and thereby prejudices the defense. Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U. S. 510, 521 (2003); Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668, 687 (1984). If a state court has already rejected an ineffective-assistance claim, a federal court may grant habeas relief if the decision was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal-law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1). Where, as here, the state court’s application of governing federal law is challenged, it must be shown to be not only erroneous, but objectively unreasonable. Wiggins, supra, at 520-521; Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U. S. 19, 24-25 (2002) (per curiam); Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, 409 (2000).
The right to effective assistance extends to closing arguments. See Bell v. Cone, 535 U. S. 685, 701-702 (2002); Herring v. New York, 422 U. S. 853, 865 (1975). Nonetheless, counsel has wide latitude in deciding how best to represent a client, and deference to counsel’s tactical decisions in his closing presentation is particularly important because of the broad range of legitimate defense strategy at that stage. Closing arguments should “sharpen and clarify the issues for resolution by the trier of fact,” id., at 862, but which issues to sharpen and how best to clarify them are questions with many reasonable answers. Indeed, it might sometimes make sense to forgo closing argument altogether. See Bell, supra, at 701-702. Judicial review of a defense attorney’s summation is therefore highly deferential — and doubly deferential when it is conducted through the lens of federal habeas.
In light of these principles, the Ninth Circuit erred in finding the California Court of Appeal’s decision objectively unreasonable. The California court’s opinion cited state case law setting forth the correct federal standard for evaluating ineffective-assistance claims and concluded that counsel’s performance was not ineffective. That conclusion was supported by the record. The summation for the defense made several key points: that Williams’s testimony about the quality of light was inconsistent; that Handy’s personal circumstances were irrelevant to Gentry’s guilt; that the case turned on whether the stabbing was accidental, and the jury had to acquit if it believed Gentry’s version of events; that Gentry’s criminal history was irrelevant to his guilt, particularly given the seriousness of the charge compared to his prior theft offenses; and that Gentry’s misstatement of the number of times he had been convicted could be explained by his lack of education. Woven through these issues was a unifying theme — that the jury, like the prosecutor and defense counsel himself, were not at the scene of the crime and so could only speculate about what had happened and who was lying.
The Ninth Circuit rejected the state court’s conclusion in large part because counsel did not highlight various other potentially exculpatory pieces of evidence: that Handy had used drugs on the day of the stabbing and during the early morning hours of the day of her preliminary hearing; that Williams’s inability to see the stabbing clearly was relevant to the issue of intent; that Gentry’s testimony was consistent with Williams’s in some respects; that the government did not call as a witness Williams’s co-worker, who also saw the stabbing; that the stab wound was only one inch deep, suggesting it may have been accidental; that Handy testified she had been stabbed twice, but only had one wound; and that Gentry, after being confronted by Williams, did not try to retrieve his weapon but instead moved toward Handy while repeating, “she’s my girlfriend.” See 320 F. 3d, at 900-901.
These other potential arguments do not establish that the state court’s decision was unreasonable. Some of the omitted items, such as Gentry’s reaction to Williams, are thoroughly ambiguous. Some of the others might well have backfired. For example, although Handy claimed at trial she had used drugs before the preliminary hearing, she testified at the hearing that she was not under the influence and could remember exactly what had happened the day of the stabbing. And, although Handy’s wound was only one inch deep, it still lacerated her stomach and diaphragm, spilling the stomach’s contents into her chest cavity and requiring almost two hours of surgery. These are facts that the prosecutor could have exploited to great advantage in her rebuttal.
Even if some of the arguments would unquestionably have supported the defense, it does not follow that counsel was incompetent for failing to include them. Focusing on a small number of key points may be more persuasive than a shotgun approach. As one expert advises: “The number of issues introduced should definitely be restricted. Research suggests that there is an upper limit to the number of issues or arguments an attorney can present and still have persuasive effect.” R. Matlon, Opening Statements/Closing Arguments 60 (1993) (citing Calder, Insko, & Yandell, The Relation of Cognitive and Memorial Process to Persuasion in a Simulated Jury Trial, 4 J. Applied Social Psychology 62 (1974)). Another authority says: “The advocate is not required to summarize or comment upon all the facts, opinions, inferences, and law involved in a case. A decision not to address an issue, an opponent’s theory, or a particular fact should be based on an analysis of the importance of that subject and the ability of the advocate and the opponent to explain persuasively the position to the fact finder.” R. Haydock & J. Sonsteng, Advocacy: Opening and Closing §3.10, p. 70 (1994). In short, judicious selection of arguments for summation is a core exercise of defense counsel’s discretion.
When counsel focuses on some issues to the exclusion of others, there is a strong presumption that he did so for tactical reasons rather than through sheer neglect. See Strickland, 466 U. S., at 690 (counsel is “strongly presumed” to make decisions in the exercise of professional judgment). That presumption has particular force where a petitioner bases his ineffective-assistance claim solely on the trial record, creating a situation in which a court “may have no way of knowing whether a seemingly unusual or misguided action by counsel had a sound strategic motive.” Massaro v. United States, 538 U. S. 500, 505 (2003). Moreover, even if an omission is inadvertent, relief is not automatic. The Sixth Amendment guarantees reasonable competence, not perfect advocacy judged with the benefit of hindsight. See Bell, 535 U. S., at 702; Kimmelman v. Morrison, 477 U. S. 365, 382 (1986); Strickland, supra, at 689; United States v. Cronic, 466 U. S. 648, 656 (1984). To recall the words of Justice (and former Solicitor General) Jackson: “I made three arguments of every case. First came the one that I planned — as I thought, logical, coherent, complete. Second was the one actually presented — interrupted, incoherent, disjointed, disappointing. The third was the utterly devastating argument that I thought of after going to bed that night.” Advocacy Before the Supreme Court, 37 A. B. A. J. 801, 803 (1951). Based on the record in this case, a state court could reasonably conclude that Gentry had failed to rebut the presumption of adequate assistance. Counsel plainly put to the jury the centerpiece of his case: that the only testimony regarding what had happened that the jury heard “come from the truth chair” was conflicting; that none of his client’s testimony was demonstrably a lie; and that the testimony contradicting his client came in “three versions.” See 320 F. 3d, at 898. The issues counsel omitted were not so clearly more persuasive than those he discussed that their omission can only be attributed to a professional error of constitutional magnitude.
The Ninth Circuit found other flaws in counsel’s presentation. It criticized him for mentioning “a host of details that hurt his client’s position, none of which mattered as a matter of law.” Id., at 900. Of course the reason counsel mentioned those details was precisely to remind the jury that they were legally irrelevant. That was not an unreasonable tactic. See F. Bailey & H. Rothblatt, Successful Techniques for Criminal Trials § 19:23, p. 461 (2d ed. 1985) (“Face up to [the defendant’s] defects ... [and] call upon the jury to disregard everything not connected to the crime with which he is charged”). The Ninth Circuit singled out for censure counsel’s argument that the jury must acquit if Gentry was telling the truth, even though he was a “bad person, lousy drug addict, stinking thief, jail bird.” See 320 F. 3d, at 900. It apparently viewed the remark as a gratuitous swipe at Gentry’s character. While confessing a client’s shortcomings might remind the jury of facts they otherwise would have forgotten, it might also convince them to put aside facts they would have remembered in any event. This is precisely the sort of calculated risk that lies at the heart of an advocate’s discretion. By candidly acknowledging his client’s shortcomings, counsel might have built credibility with the jury and persuaded it to focus on the relevant issues in the case. See J. Stein, Closing Argument §204, p. 10 (1992-1996) (“[I]f you make certain concessions showing that you are earnestly in search of the truth, then your comments on matters that are in dispute will be received without the usual apprehension surrounding the remarks of an advocate”). As Judge Kleinfeld pointed out in dissenting from denial of rehearing en banc, the court’s criticism applies just as well to Clarence Darrow’s closing argument in the Leopold and Loeb case: “ ‘I do not know how much salvage there is in these two boys.... [Y]our Honor would be merciful if you tied a rope around their necks and let them die; merciful to them, but not merciful to civilization, and not merciful to those who would be left behind.’ ” 320 F. 3d, at 895 (quoting Famous American Jury Speeches 1086 (F. Hicks ed. 1925) (reprint 1990)).
The Ninth Circuit rebuked counsel for making only a passive request that the jury reach some verdict, rather than an express demand for acquittal. But given a patronizing and overconfident summation by a prosecutor, a low-key strategy that stresses the jury’s autonomy is not unreasonable. One treatise recommends just such a technique: “Avoid challenging the jury to find for your client, or phrasing your argument in terms suggesting what their finding must be. . . . [Scientific research indicates that jurors will react against a lawyer who they think is blatantly trying to limit their freedom of thought.” Stein, supra, §206, at 15.
The Ninth Circuit faulted counsel for not arguing explicitly that the government had failed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Counsel’s entire presentation, however, made just that point. He repeatedly stressed that no one— not the prosecutor, the jury, nor even himself — could be sure who was telling the truth. This is the very essence of a reasonable-doubt argument. To be sure, he did not insist that the existence of a reasonable doubt would require the jury to acquit — but he could count on the judge’s charge to remind them of that requirement, and by doing so he would preserve his strategy of appearing as the friend of jury autonomy.
Finally, the Ninth Circuit criticized counsel’s approach on the ground that, by confessing that he too could not be sure of the truth, counsel “implied that even he did not believe Gentry’s testimony.” 320 F. 3d, at 900. But there is nothing wrong with a rhetorical device that personalizes the doubts anyone but an eyewitness must necessarily have. Winning over an audience by empathy is a technique that dates back to Aristotle. See P. Lagarias, Effective Closing Argument §§2.05-2.06, pp. 99-101 (1989) (citing Aristotle’s Rhetoric for the point that “[a] speech should indicate to the audience that the speaker shares the attitudes of the listener, so that, in turn, the listener will respond positively to the views of the speaker”); id., §3.03, at 112 (deriving from this principle the advice that “counsel may couch his arguments in terms of ‘we,’ rather than ‘you, the jury’ ”).
To be sure, Gentry’s lawyer was no Aristotle or even Clarence Darrow. But the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion — not only that his performance was deficient, but that any disagreement with that conclusion would be objectively unreasonable — gives too little deference to the state courts that have primary responsibility for supervising defense counsel in state criminal trials.
* * *
The judgment of the Ninth Circuit is reversed.
Iiis. 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 Alito
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an action brought by respondent under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, against state law enforcement officers who conducted a warrantless search of his house incident to his arrest for the sale of methamphetamine to an undercover informant whom he had voluntarily admitted to the premises. The Court of Appeals held that petitioners were not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. Following the procedure we mandated in Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S. 194 (2001), the Court of Appeals held, first, that respondent adduced facts sufficient to make out a violation of the Fourth Amendment and, second, that the unconstitutionality of the officers’ conduct was clearly established. In granting review, we required the parties to address the additional question whether the mandatory procedure set out in Saucier should be retained.
We now hold that the Saucier procedure should not be regarded as an inflexible requirement and that petitioners are entitled to qualified immunity on the ground that it was not clearly established at the time of the search that their conduct was unconstitutional. We therefore reverse.
I
A
The Central Utah Narcotics Task Force is charged with investigating illegal drug use and sales. In 2002, Brian Bartholomew, who became an informant for the task force after having been charged with the unlawful possession of methamphetamine, informed Officer Jeffrey Whatcott that respondent Afton Callahan had arranged to sell Bartholomew methamphetamine later that day.
That evening, Bartholomew arrived at respondent’s residence at about 8 p.m. Once there, Bartholomew went inside and confirmed that respondent had methamphetamine available for sale. Bartholomew then told respondent that he needed to obtain money to make his purchase and left.
Bartholomew met with members of the task force at about 9 p.m. and told them that he would be able to buy a gram of methamphetamine for $100. After concluding that Bartholomew was capable of completing the planned purchase, the officers searched him, determined that he had no controlled substances on his person, gave him a marked $100 bill and a concealed electronic transmitter to monitor his conversations, and agreed on a signal that he would give after completing the purchase.
The officers drove Bartholomew to respondent’s trailer home, and respondent’s daughter let him inside. Respondent then retrieved a large bag containing methamphetamine from his freezer and sold Bartholomew a gram of methamphetamine, which he put into a small plastic bag. Bartholomew gave the arrest signal to the officers who were monitoring the conversation, and they entered the trailer through a porch door. In the enclosed porch, the officers encountered Bartholomew, respondent, and two other persons, and they saw respondent drop a plastic bag, which they later determined contained methamphetamine. The officers then conducted a protective sweep of the premises. In addition to the large bag of methamphetamine, the officers recovered the marked bill from respondent and a small bag containing methamphetamine from Bartholomew, and they found drug syringes in the residence. As a result, respondent was charged with the unlawful possession and distribution of methamphetamine.
B
The trial court held that the warrantless arrest and search were supported by exigent circumstances. On respondent’s appeal from his conviction, the Utah attorney general conceded the absence of exigent circumstances, but urged that the inevitable discovery doctrine justified introduction of the fruits of the warrantless search. The Utah Court of Appeals disagreed and vacated respondent’s conviction. See State v. Callahan, 2004 UT App. 164, 93 P. 3d 103. Respondent then brought this damages action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 in the United States District Court for the District of Utah, alleging that the officers had violated the Fourth'Amendment by entering his home without a warrant. See Callahan v. Millard Cty., No. 2:04-CV-00952, 2006 WL 1409130 (2006).
In granting the officers’ motion for summary judgment, the District Court noted that other courts had adopted the “consent-once-removed” doctrine, which permits a warrant-less entry by police officers into a home when consent to enter has already been granted to an undercover officer or informant who has observed contraband in plain view. Believing that this doctrine was in tension with our intervening decision in Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U. S. 103 (2006), the District Court concluded that “the simplest approach is to assume that the Supreme Court will ultimately reject the [consent-once-removed] doctrine and find that searches such as the one in this case are not reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” 2006 WL 1409130, *8. The court then held that the officers were entitled to qualified immunity because they could reasonably have believed that the consent-once-removed doctrine authorized their conduct.
On appeal, a divided panel of the Tenth Circuit held that petitioners’ conduct violated respondent’s Fourth Amendment rights. Callahan v. Millard Cty., 494 F. 3d 891, 895-899 (2007). The panel majority stated that “[t]he ‘consent-once-removed’ doctrine applies when an undercover officer enters a house at the express invitation of someone with authority to consent, establishes probable cause to arrest or search, and then immediately summons other officers for assistance.” Id., at 896. The majority took no issue with application of the doctrine when the initial consent was granted to an undercover law enforcement officer, but the majority disagreed with decisions that “broade[n] this doctrine to grant informants the same capabilities as undercover officers.” Ibid.
The Tenth Circuit panel further held that the Fourth Amendment right that it recognized was clearly established at the time of respondent’s arrest. Id., at 898-899. “In this case,” the majority stated, “the relevant right is the right to be free in one’s home from unreasonable searches and arrests.” Id., at 898. The Court determined that, under the clearly established precedents of this Court and the Tenth Circuit, “warrantless entries into a home are per se unreasonable unless they satisfy the established exceptions.” Id., at 898-899. In the panel’s words, “the Supreme Court and the Tenth Circuit have clearly established that to allow police entry into a home, the only two exceptions to the warrant requirement are consent and exigent circumstances.” Id., at 899. Against that backdrop, the panel concluded, petitioners could not reasonably have believed that their conduct was lawful because petitioners “knew (1) they had no warrant; (2) [respondent] had not consented to their entry; and (3) [respondent’s] consent to the entry of an informant could not reasonably be interpreted to extend to them.” Ibid.
In dissent, Judge Kelly argued that “no constitutional violation occurred in this case” because, by inviting Bartholomew into his house and participating in a narcotics transaction there, respondent had compromised the privacy of the residence and had assumed the risk that Bartholomew would reveal their dealings to the police. Id., at 903. Judge Kelly further concluded that, even if petitioners’ conduct had been unlawful, they were nevertheless entitled to qualified immunity because the constitutional right at issue — “the right to be free from the warrantless entry of police officers into one’s home to effectuate an arrest after one has granted voluntary, consensual entry to a confidential informant and undertaken criminal activity giving rise to probable cause” — was not “clearly established” at the time of the events in question. Id., at 903-904.
As noted, the Court of Appeals followed the Saucier procedure. The Saucier procedure has been criticized by Members of this Court and by lower court judges, who have been required to apply the procedure in a great variety of cases and thus have much firsthand experience bearing on its advantages and disadvantages. Accordingly, in granting certiorari, we directed the parties to address the question whether Saucier should be overruled. 552 U. S. 1279 (2008).
II
A
The doctrine of qualified immunity protects government officials “from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, 818 (1982). Qualified immunity balances two important interests — the need to hold public officials accountable when they exercise power irresponsibly and the need to shield officials from harassment, distraction, and liability when they perform their duties reasonably. The protection of qualified immunity applies regardless of whether the government official’s error is “a mistake of law, a mistake of fact, or a mistake based on mixed questions of law and fact.” Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U. S. 551, 567 (2004) (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (quoting Butz v. Economou, 438 U. S. 478, 507 (1978), for the proposition that qualified immunity covers “mere mistakes in judgment, whether the mistake is one of fact or one of law”).
Because qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability... it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial.” Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511, 526 (1985) (emphasis deleted). Indeed, we have made clear that the “driving force” behind creation of the qualified immunity doctrine was a desire to ensure that “ ‘insubstantial claims’ against government officials [will] be resolved prior to discovery.” Anderson v. Creighton, 483 U. S. 635, 640, n. 2 (1987). Accordingly, “we repeatedly have stressed the importance of resolving immunity questions at the earliest possible stage in litigation.” Hunter v. Bryant, 502 U. S. 224, 227 (1991) (per curiam).
In Saucier, 533 U. S. 194, this Court mandated a two-step sequence for resolving government officials’ qualified immunity claims. First, a court must decide whether the facts that a plaintiff has alleged (see Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6), (c)) or shown (see Rules 50, 56) make out a violation of a constitutional right. 533 U. S., at 201. Second, if the plaintiff has satisfied this first step, the court must decide whether the right at issue was “clearly established” at the time of defendant’s alleged misconduct. Ibid. Qualified immunity is applicable unless the official’s conduct violated a clearly established constitutional right. Anderson, supra, at 640.
Our decisions prior to Saucier had held that “the better approach to resolving cases in which the defense of qualified immunity is raised is to determine first whether the plaintiff has alleged a deprivation of a constitutional right at all.” County of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U. S. 833, 841, n. 5 (1998). Saucier made that suggestion a mandate. For the first time, we held that whether “the facts alleged show the officer’s conduct violated a constitutional right... must be the initial inquiry” in every qualified immunity case. 533 U. S., at 201 (emphasis added). Only after completing this first step, we said, may a court turn to “the next, sequential step,” namely, “whether the right was clearly established.” Ibid.
This two-step procedure, the Saucier Court reasoned, is necessary to support the Constitution’s “elaboration from case to case” and to prevent constitutional stagnation. Ibid. “The law might be deprived of this explanation were a court simply to skip ahead'to the question whether the law clearly established that the officer’s conduct was unlawful in the circumstances of the case.” Ibid.
B
In considering whether the Saucier procedure should be modified or abandoned, we must begin with the doctrine of stare decisis. Stare decisis “promotes the evenhanded, predictable, and consistent development of legal principles, fosters reliance on judicial decisions, and contributes to the actual and perceived integrity of the judicial process.” Payne v. Tennessee, 501 U. S. 808, 827 (1991). Although “[w]e approach the reconsideration of [our] decisions... with the utmost caution,” “[s]tare decisis is not an inexorable command.” State Oil Co. v. Khan, 522 U. S. 3, 20 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted). Revisiting precedent is particularly appropriate where, as here, a departure would not upset expectations, the precedent consists of a judge-made rule that was recently adopted to improve the operation of the courts, and experience has pointed up the precedent’s shortcomings.
“Considerations in favor of stare decisis are at their acme in cases involving property and contract rights, where reliance interests are involved; the opposite is true in cases... involving procedural and evidentiary rules” that do not produce such reliance. Payne, supra, at 828 (citations omitted). Like rules governing procedures and the admission of evidence in the trial courts, Saucier’s two-step protocol does not affect the way in which parties order their affairs. Withdrawing from Saucier’s categorical rule would not upset settled expectations on anyone’s part. See United States v. Gaudin, 515 U. S. 506, 521 (1995).
Nor does this matter implicate “the general presumption that legislative changes should be left to Congress.” Khan, supra, at 20. We recognize that “considerations of stare decisis weigh heavily in the area of statutory construction, where Congress is free to change this Court’s interpretation of its legislation.” Illinois Brick Co. v. Illinois, 431 U. S. 720, 736 (1977). But the Saucier rule is judge made and implicates an important matter involving internal Judicial Branch operations. Any change should come from this Court, not Congress.
Respondent argues that the.Saucier procedure should not be reconsidered unless we conclude that its justification was “badly reasoned” or that the rule has proved to be “unworkable,” see Payne, supra, at 827, but those standards, which are appropriate when a constitutional or statutory precedent is challenged, are out of place in the present context. Because of the basis and the nature of the Saucier two-step protocol, it is sufficient that we now have a considerable body of new experience to consider regarding the consequences of requiring adherence to this inflexible procedure. This experience supports our present determination that a mandatory, two-step rule for resolving all qualified immunity claims should not be retained.
Lower court judges, who have had the task of applying the Saucier rule on a regular basis for the past eight years, have not been reticent in their criticism of Saucier’s “rigid order of battle.” See, e. g., Purtell v. Mason, 527 F. 3d 615, 622 (CA7 2008) (“This ‘rigid order of battle’ has been criticized on practical, procedural, and substantive grounds”); Leval, Judging Under the Constitution: Dicta About Dicta, 81 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 1249,1275,1277 (2006) (hereinafter Leval) (referring to Saucier’s mandatory two-step framework as “a new and mischievous rule” that amounts to “a puzzling misadventure in constitutional dictum”). And application of the rule has not always been enthusiastic. See Higazy v. Templeton, 505 F. 3d 161, 179, n. 19 (CA2 2007) (“We do not reach the issue of whether [plaintiff’s] Sixth Amendment rights were violated, because principles of judicial restraint caution us to avoid reaching constitutional questions when they are unnecessary to the disposition of a case”); Cherrington v. Skeeter, 344 F. 3d 631, 640 (CA6 2003) (“[I]t ultimately is unnecessary for us to decide whether the individual Defendants did or did not heed the Fourth Amendment command... because they are entitled to qualified immunity in any event”); Pearson v. Ramos, 237 F. 3d 881, 884 (CA7 2001) (“Whether [the Saucier] rule is absolute may be doubted”).
Members of this Court have also voiced criticism of the Saucier rule. See Morse v. Frederick, 551 U. S. 393, 432 (2007) (Breyer, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part) (“I would end the failed Saucier experiment now”); Bunting v. Mellen, 541 U. S. 1019 (2004) (Stevens, J., joined by Ginsburg and Breyer, JJ., respecting denial of certiorari) (criticizing the “unwise judge-made rule under which courts must decide whether the plaintiff has alleged a constitutional violation before addressing the question whether the defendant state actor is entitled to qualified immunity”); id., at 1025 (Scalia, J., joined by Rehnquist, C. J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (“We should either make clear that constitutional determinations are not insulated from our review... or else drop any pretense at requiring the ordering in every case” (emphasis in original)); Brosseau v. Haugen, 543 U. S. 194, 201-202 (2004) (Breyer, J., joined by Scalia and Ginsburg, JJ., concurring) (urging Court to reconsider Saucier’s “rigid ‘order of battle,’” which “requires courts unnecessarily to decide difficult constitutional questions when there is available an easier basis for the decision (e. g., qualified immunity) that will satisfactorily resolve the case before the court”); Saucier, 533 U. S., at 210 (Ginsburg, J., concurring in judgment) (“The two-part test today’s decision imposes holds large potential to confuse”).
Where a decision has “been questioned by Members of the Court in later decisions and [has] defied consistent application by the lower courts,” these factors weigh in favor of reconsideration. Payne, 501 U. S., at 829-830; see also Crawford v. Washington, 541 U. S. 36, 60 (2004). Collectively, the factors we have noted make our present reevaluation of the Saucier two-step protocol appropriate.
III
On reconsidering the procedure required in Saucier, we conclude that, while the sequence set forth there is often appropriate, it should no longer be regarded as mandatory. The judges of the district courts and the courts of appeals should be permitted to exercise their sound discretion in deciding which of the two prongs of the qualified immunity analysis should be addressed first in light of the circumstances in the particular case at hand.
A
Although we now hold that the Saucier protocol should not be regarded as mandatory in all cases, we continue to recognize that it is often beneficial. For one thing, there aré cases in which there would be little if any conservation of judicial resources to be had by beginning and ending with a discussion of the “clearly established” prong. “[I]t often may be difficult to decide whether a right is clearly established without deciding precisely what the existing constitutional right happens to be.” Lyons v. Xenia, 417 F. 3d 565, 581 (CA6 2005) (Sutton, J., concurring). In some cases, a discussion of why the relevant facts do not violate clearly established law may make it apparent that in fact the relevant facts do not make out a constitutional violation at all. In addition, the Saucier Court was certainly correct in noting that the two-step procedure promotes the development of constitutional precedent and is especially valuable with respect to questions that do not frequently arise in cases in which a qualified immunity defense is unavailable.
B
At the same time, however, the rigid Saucier procedure comes with a price. The procedure sometimes results in a substantial expenditure of scarce judicial resources on difficult questions that have no effect on the outcome of the case. There are cases in which it is plain that a constitutional right is not clearly established but far from obvious whether in fact there is such a right. District courts and courts of appeals with heavy caseloads are often understandably unenthusiastic about what may seem to be an essentially academic exercise.
Unnecessary litigation of constitutional issues also wastes the parties’ resources. Qualified immunity is “an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability.” Mitchell, 472 U. S., at 526 (emphasis deleted). Saucier’s two-step protocol “disserve[s] the purpose of qualified immunity” when it “forces the parties to endure additional burdens of suit— such as the costs of litigating constitutional questions and delays attributable to resolving them — when the suit otherwise could be disposed of more readily.” Brief for National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers as Amicus Curiae 30.
Although the first prong of the Saucier procedure is intended to further the development of constitutional precedent, opinions following that procedure often fail to make a meaningful contribution to such development. For one thing, there are cases in which the constitutional question is so factbound that the decision provides little guidance for future cases. See Scott v. Harris, 550 U. S. 372, 388 (2007) (Breyer, J., concurring) (counseling against the Saucier two-step protocol where the question is “so fact dependent that the result will be confusion rather than clarity”); Buchanan v. Maine, 469 F. 3d 158, 168 (CA1 2006) (“We do not think the law elaboration purpose will be well served here, where the Fourth Amendment inquiry involves a reasonableness question which is highly idiosyncratic and heavily dependent on the facts”).
A decision on the underlying constitutional question in a § 1983 damages action or a Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Nar cotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971), action may have scant value when it appears that the question will soon be decided by a higher court. When presented with a constitutional question on which this Court had just granted certiorari, the Ninth Circuit elected to “bypass Saucier’s first step and decide only whether [the alleged right] was clearly established.” Motley v. Parks, 432 F. 3d 1072, 1078, and n. 5 (2005) (en banc). Similar considerations may come into play when a court of appeals panel confronts a constitutional question that is pending before the court en banc or when a district court encounters a constitutional question that is before the court of appeals.
A constitutional decision resting on an uncertain interpretation of state law is also of doubtful precedential importance. As a result, several courts have identified an “exception” to the Saucier rule for cases in which resolution of the constitutional question requires clarification of an ambiguous state statute. Egolf v. Witmer, 526 F. 3d 104, 109-111 (CA3 2008); accord, Tremblay v. McClellan, 350 F. 3d 195, 200 (CA1 2003); Ehrlich v. Glastonbury, 348 F. 3d 48, 57-60 (CA2 2003). Justifying the decision to grant qualified immunity to the defendant without first resolving, under Saucier’s first prong, whether the defendant’s conduct violated the Constitution, these courts have observed that Saucier’s “underlying principle” of encouraging federal courts to decide unclear legal questions in order to clarify the law for the future “is not meaningfully advanced... when the definition of constitutional rights depends on a federal court’s uncertain assumptions about state law.” Egolf supra, at 110; accord, Tremblay, supra, at 200; Ehrlich, supra, at 58.
When qualified immunity is asserted at the pleading stage, the precise factual basis for the plaintiff’s claim or claims may be hard to identify. See Lyons, 417 F. 3d, at 582 (Sutton, J., concurring); Kwai Fun Wong v. United States, 373 F. 3d 952, 957 (CA9 2004); Mollica v. Volker, 229 F. 3d 366, 374 (CA2 2000). Accordingly, several courts have recognized that the two-step inquiry “is an uncomfortable exercise where... the answer [to] whether there was a violation may depend on a kaleidoscope of facts not yet fully developed” and have suggested that “[i]t may be that Saucier was not strictly intended to cover” this situation. Dirrane v. Brookline Police Dept., 315 F. 3d 65, 69-70 (CA1 2002); see also Robinette v. Jones, 476 F. 3d 585, 592, n. 8 (CA8 2007) (declining to follow Saucier because “the parties have provided very few facts to define and limit any holding” on the constitutional question).
There are circumstances in which the first step of the Saucier procedure may create a risk of bad decisionmaking. The lower courts sometimes encounter cases in which the briefing of constitutional questions is woefully inadequate. See Lyons, supra, at 582 (Sutton, J., concurring) (noting the “risk that constitutional questions may be prematurely and incorrectly decided in.cases where they are not well presented”); Mollica, supra, at 374.
Although the Saucier rule prescribes the sequence in which the issues must be discussed by a court in its opinion, the rule does not — and obviously cannot — specify the sequence in which judges reach their conclusions in their own internal thought processes. Thus, there will be cases in which a court will rather quickly and easily decide that there was no violation of clearly established law before turning to the more difficult question whether the relevant facts make out a constitutional question at all. In such situations, there is a risk that a court may not devote as much care as it would in other circumstances to the decision of the constitutional issue. See Horne v. Coughlin, 191 F. 3d 244, 247 (CA2 1999) (“Judges risk being insufficiently thoughtful and cautious in uttering pronouncements that play no role in their adjudication”); Leval 1278-1279.
Rigid adherence to the Saucier rule may make it hard for affected parties to obtain appellate review of constitutional decisions that may have a serious prospective effect on their operations. Where a court holds that a defendant committed a constitutional violation but that the violation was not clearly established, the defendant may face a difficult situation. As the winning party, the defendant’s right to appeal the adverse holding on the constitutional question may be contested. See Bunting, 541 U. S., at 1025 (Scalia, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (“The perception of unreviewability undermines adherence to the sequencing rule we... created” in Saucier); see also Kalka v. Hawk, 215 F. 3d 90, 96, n. 9 (CADC 2000) (noting that “[n]ormally, a party may not appeal from a favorable judgment” and that the Supreme Court “has apparently never granted the certiorari petition of a party who prevailed in the appellate court”). In cases like Bunting, the “prevailing” defendant faces an unenviable choice: “compl[y] with the lower court’s advisory dictum without opportunity to seek appellate [or certiorari] review,” or “def[y] the views of the lower court, adher[e] to practices that have been declared illegal, and thus invit[e] new suits” and potential “punitive damages.” Horne, supra, at 247-248.
Adherence to Saucier’s two-step protocol departs from the general rule of constitutional avoidance and runs counter to the “older, wiser judicial counsel ‘not to pass on questions of constitutionality... unless such adjudication is unavoidable.’ ” Scott, 550 U. S., at 388 (Breyer, J., concurring) (quoting Spector Motor Service, Inc. v. McLaughlin, 323 U. S. 101, 105 (1944)); see Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring) (“The Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of”).
In other analogous contexts, we have appropriately declined to mandate the order of decision that the lower courts must follow. For example, in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984), we recognized a two-part test for determining whether a criminal defendant was denied the effective assistance of counsel: The defendant must demonstrate (1) that his counsel’s performance fell below what could be expected of a reasonably competent practitioner; and (2) that he was prejudiced by that substandard performance. Id., at 687. After setting forth and applying the analytical framework that courts must use in evaluating claims of ineffective assistance of counsel, we left it to the sound discretion of lower courts to determine the order of decision. Id., at 697 (“Although we have discussed the performance component of an ineffectiveness claim prior to the prejudice component, there is no reason for a court deciding an ineffective assistance claim to approach the inquiry in the same order or even to address both components of the inquiry if the defendant makes an insufficient showing on one”).
In United States v. Leon, 468 U. S. 897 (1984), we created an exception to the exclusionary rule when officers reasonably rely on a facially valid search warrant. Id., at 913. In that context, we recognized that a defendant challenging a search will lose if either: (1) the warrant issued was supported by probable cause; or (2) it was not, but the officers executing it reasonably believed that it was. Again, after setting forth and applying the analytical framework that courts must use in evaluating the good-faith exception to the Fourth Amendment warrant requirement, we left it to the sound discretion of the lower courts to determine the order of decision. Id., at 924, 925 (“There is no need for courts to adopt the inflexible practice of always deciding whether the officers’ conduct manifested objective good faith before turning to the question whether the Fourth Amendment has been violated”).
This flexibility properly reflects our respect for the lower federal courts that bear the brunt of adjudicating these cases. Because the two-step Saucier procedure is often, but not always, advantageous, the judges of the district courts and the courts of appeals are in the best position to determine the order of decisionmaking that will best facilitate the fair and efficient disposition of each case.
C
Any misgivings concerning our decision to withdraw from the mandate set forth in Saucier are unwarranted. Our decision does not prevent the lower courts from following the Saucier procedure; it simply recognizes that those courts should have the discretion to decide whether that procedure is worthwhile in particular cases. Moreover, the development of constitutional law is by no means entirely dependent on cases in which the defendant may seek qualified immunity. Most of the constitutional issues that are presented in § 1983 damages actions and Bivens cases also arise in cases in which that defense is not available, such as criminal cases and §1983 eases against a municipality, as well as §1983 cases against individuals where injunctive relief is sought instead of or in addition to damages. See Lewis, 523 U. S., at 841, n. 5 (noting that qualified immunity is unavailable “in a suit to enjoin future conduct, in an action against a municipality, or in litigating a suppression motion”).
We also do not think that relaxation of Saucier’s mandate is likely to result in a proliferation of damages claims against local governments. Cf. Brief for National Association of Counties et al. as Amici Curiae 29, 30 (“[T]o the extent that a rule permitting courts to bypass the merits makes it more difficult for civil rights plaintiffs to pursue novel claims, they will have greater reason to press custom, policy, or practice [damages] claims against local governments”). It is hard to see how the Saucier procedure could have a significant effect on a civil rights plaintiff's decision whether to seek damages only from a municipal employee or also from the municipality. Whether the Saucier procedure is mandatory or discretionary, the plaintiff will presumably take into account the possibility that the individual defendant will be held to have qualified immunity, and presumably the plaintiff will seek damages from the municipality as well as the individual employee if the benefits of doing so (any increase in the likelihood of recovery or collection of damages) outweigh the litigation costs.
Nor do we think that allowing the lower courts to exercise their discretion with respect to the Saucier procedure will spawn “a new cottage industry of litigation... over the standards for deciding whether to reach the merits in a given case.” Brief for National Association of Counties, supra, at 29, 30. It does not appear that such a “cottage industry” developed prior to Saucier, and we see no reason why our decision today should produce such a result.
IV
Turning to the conduct of the officers here, we hold that petitioners are entitled to qualified immunity because the entry did not violate clearly established law. An officer conducting a search is entitled to qualified immunity where clearly established law does not show that the search violated the Fourth Amendment. See Anderson, 483 U. S., at 641. This inquiry turns on the “objective legal reasonableness of the action, assessed in light of the legal rules that were clearly established at the time it was taken.” Wilson v. Layne, 526 U. S. 603, 614 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U. S. 730, 739 (2002) (“[Q]ualified immunity operates to ensure that before they are subjected to suit, officers are on notice their conduct is unlawful” (internal quotation marks omitted)).
When the entry at issue here occurred in 2002, the “consent-once-removed” doctrine had gained acceptance in the lower courts. This doctrine had been considered by three Federal Courts of Appeals and two State Supreme Courts starting in the early 1980’s. See, e. g., United States v. Diaz, 814 F. 2d 454, 459 (CA7), cert. denied, 484 U. S. 857 (1987); United States v. Bramble, 103 F. 3d 1475 (CA9 1996); United States v. Pollard, 215 F. 3d 643, 648-649 (CA6), cert. denied, 531 U. S. 999 (2000); State v. Henry, 133 N. J. 104, 627 A. 2d 125 (1993); State v. Johnston, 184 Wis. 2d 794, 518 N. W. 2d 759 (1994). It had been accepted by every one of those courts. Moreover, the Seventh Circuit had approved the doctrine’s application to cases involving consensual entries by private citizens acting as confidential informants. See United States v. Paul, 808 F. 2d 645, 648 (1986). The Sixth Circuit reached the same conclusion after the events that gave rise to respondent’s suit, see United States v. Yoon, 398 F. 3d 802, 806-808, cert. denied,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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.
We granted the petition for writ of certiorari in this case, 414 U. S. 1156 (1974), because it raises important questions concerning the administration of a state prison.
Respondent, on behalf of himself and other inmates of the Nebraska Penal and Correctional Complex, Lincoln, Nebraska, filed a complaint under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 challenging several of the practices, rules, and regulations of the Complex. For present purposes, the pertinent allegations were that disciplinary proceedings did not comply with the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution; that the inmate legal assistance program did not meet constitutional standards, and that the regulations governing the inspection of mail to and from attorneys for inmates were unconstitutionally restrictive. Respondent requested damages and injunctive relief.
After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court granted partial relief. 342 F. Supp. 616 (Neb. 1972). Considering itself bound by prior Circuit authority, it rejected the procedural due process claim; but it went on to hold that the prison’s policy of inspecting all incoming and outgoing mail to and from attorneys violated prisoners’ rights of access to the courts and that the restrictions placed on inmate legal assistance were not constitutionally defective.
The Court of Appeals reversed, 483 F. 2d 1059 (CA8 1973), with respect to the due process claim, holding that the procedural requirements outlined by this Court in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471 (1972), and Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 778 (1973), decided after the District Court’s opinion in this case, should be generally followed in prison disciplinary hearings but left the specific requirements, including the circumstances in which counsel might be required, to be determined by the District Court on remand. With respect to a remedy, the court further held that Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 475 (1973), forbade the actual restoration of good-time credits in this § 1983 suit but ordered expunged from prison records any determinations of misconduct arrived at in proceedings that failed to comport with due process as defined by the court. The court generally affirmed the judgment of the District Court with respect to correspondence with attorneys, but ordered further proceedings to determine whether the State was meeting its burden under Johnson v. Avery, 393 U. S. 483 (1969), to provide legal assistance to prison inmates, the court holding that the State’s duty extended to civil rights cases as well as to habeas corpus proceedings
I
We begin with the due process claim. An understanding of the issues involved requires a detailing of the prison disciplinary regime set down by Nebraska statutes and prison regulations.
Section 16 of the Nebraska Treatment and Corrections Act, as amended, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-185 (Cum. Supp. 1972), provides that the chief executive officer of each penal facility is responsible for the discipline of inmates in a particular institution. The statute provides for a range of possible disciplinary action. “Except in flagrant or serious cases, punishment for misconduct shall consist of deprivation of privileges. In cases of flagrant or serious misconduct, the chief executive officer may order that a person’s reduction of term as provided in section 83-1,107 [good-time credit] be forfeited or withheld and also that the person be confined in a disciplinary cell.” Each breach of discipline is to be entered in the person's file together with the disposition or punishment therefor.
As the statute makes clear, there are basically two kinds of punishment for flagrant or serious misconduct. The first is the forfeiture or withholding of good-time credits, which affects the term of confinement, while the second, confinement in a disciplinary cell, involves alteration of the conditions of confinement. If the misconduct is less than flagrant or serious, only deprivation of privileges results.
The only statutory provision establishing procedures for the imposition of disciplinary sanctions which pertains to good time, § 38 of the Nebraska Treatment and Corrections Act, as amended, Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-1,107 (Cum. Supp. 1972), merely requires that an inmate be “consulted regarding the charges of misconduct” in connection with the forfeiture, withholding, or restoration of credit. But prison authorities have framed written regulations dealing with procedures and policies for controlling inmate misconduct. By regulation, misconduct is classified into two categories: major misconduct is a “serious violation” and must be formally reported to an Adjustment Committee, composed of the Associate Warden Custody, the Correctional Industries Superintendent, and the Reception Center Director. This Committee is directed to “review and evaluate all misconduct reports” and, among other things, to “conduct investigations, make findings, [and] impose disciplinary actions.” If only minor misconduct, “a less serious violation,” is involved, the problem may either be resolved informally by the inmate’s supervisor or it can be formally reported for action to the Adjustment Committee. Repeated minor misconduct must be reported. The Adjustment Committee has available a wide range of sanctions. “Disciplinary action taken and recommended may include but not necessarily be limited to the following: reprimand, restrictions of various kinds, extra duty, confinement in the Adjustment Center [the disciplinary cell], withholding of statutory good time and/or extra earned good time, or a combination of the elements listed herein.”
Additional procedures have been devised by the Complex governing the actions of the Adjustment Committee. Based on the testimony, the District Court found, 342 F. Supp., at 625-626, that the following procedures were in effect when an inmate is written up or charged with a prison violation:
“(a) The chief correction supervisor reviews the 'write-ups’ on the inmates by the officers of the Complex daily;
“(b) the convict is called to a conference with the chief correction supervisor and the charging party;
“(c) following the conference, a conduct report is sent to the Adjustment Committee;
“(d) there follows a hearing before the Adjustment Committee and the report is read to the inmate and discussed;
“(e) if the inmate denies charge he may ask questions of the party writing him up ;
“(f) the Adjustment'Committee can conduct additional investigations if it desires;
“ (g) punishment is imposed.”
II
This class action brought by respondent alleged that the rules, practices, and procedures at the Complex which might result in the taking of good time violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Respondent sought three types of relief: (1) restoration of good time; (2) submission of a plan by the prison authorities for a hearing procedure in connection with withholding and forfeiture of good time which complied with the requirements of due process; and (3) damages for the deprivation of civil rights resulting from the use of the allegedly unconstitutional procedures.
At the threshold is the issue whether under Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 475 (1973), the validity of the procedures for depriving prisoners of good-time credits may be considered in a civil rights suit brought under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. In Preiser, state prisoners brought a § 1983 suit seeking an injunction to compel restoration of good-time credits. The Court held that because the state prisoners were challenging the very fact or duration of their confinement and were seeking a speedier release, their sole federal remedy was by writ of habeas corpus, 411 U. S., at 500, with the concomitant requirement of exhausting state remedies. But the Court was careful to point out that habeas corpus is not an appropriate or available remedy for damages claims, which, if not frivolous and of sufficient substance to invoke the jurisdiction of the federal court, could be pressed under § 1983 along with suits challenging the conditions of confinement rather than the fact or length of custody. 411 U. S., at 494, 498-499.
The complaint in this case sought restoration of good-time credits, and the Court of Appeals correctly held this relief foreclosed under Preiser. But the complaint also sought damages; and Preiser expressly contemplated that claims properly brought under § 1983 could go forward while actual restoration of good-time credits is sought in state proceedings. 411 U. S., at 499 n. 14. Respondent’s damages claim was therefore properly before the District Court and required determination of the validity of the procedures employed for imposing sanctions, including loss of good time, for flagrant or serious misconduct. Such a declaratory judgment as a predicate to a damages award would not be barred by Preiser; and because under that case only an injunction restoring good time improperly taken is foreclosed, neither would it preclude a litigant with standing from obtaining by way of ancillary relief an otherwise proper injunction enjoining the prospective enforcement of invalid prison regulations.
We therefore conclude that it was proper for the Court of Appeals and the District Court to determine the validity of the procedures for revoking good-time credits and to fashion appropriate remedies for any constitutional violations ascertained, short of ordering the actual restoration of good time already canceled.
Ill
Petitioners assert that the procedure for disciplining prison inmates for serious misconduct is a matter of policy raising no constitutional issue. If the position implies that prisoners in state institutions are wholly without the protections of the Constitution and the Due Process Clause, it is plainly untenable. Lawful imprisonment necessarily makes unavailable many rights and privileges of the ordinary citizen, a “retraction justified by the considerations underlying our penal system.” Price v. Johnston, 334 U. S. 266, 285 (1948). But though his rights may be diminished by the needs and exigencies of the institutional environment, a prisoner is not wholly stripped of constitutional protections when he is imprisoned for crime. There is no iron curtain drawn between the Constitution and the prisons of this country. Prisoners have been held to enjoy substantial religious freedom under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Cruz v. Beto, 405 U. S. 319 (1972); Cooper v. Pate, 378 U. S. 546 (1964). They retain right of access to the courts. Younger v. Gilmore, 404 U. S. 15 (1971), aff’g Gilmore v. Lynch, 319 F. Supp. 105 (ND Cal. 1970); Johnson v. Avery, 393 U. S. 483 (1969); Ex parte Hull, 312 U. S. 546 (1941). Prisoners are protected under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment from invidious discrimination based on race. Lee v. Washington, 390 U. S. 333 (1968). Prisoners may also claim the protections of the Due Process Clause. They may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law. Haines v. Kerner, 404 U. S. 519 (1972); Wilwording v. Swenson, 404 U. S. 249 (1971); Screws v. United States, 325 U. S. 91 (1945).
Of course, as we have indicated, the fact that prisoners retain rights under the Due Process Clause in no way implies that these rights are not subject to restrictions imposed by the nature of the regime to which they have been lawfully committed. Cf. CSC v. Letter Carriers, 413 U. S. 548 (1973); Broadrick v. Oklahoma, 413 U. S. 601 (1973); Parker v. Levy, 417 U. S. 733 (1974). Prison disciplinary proceedings are not part of a criminal prosecution, and the full panoply of rights due a defendant in such proceedings does not apply. Cf. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S., at 488. In sum, there must be mutual accommodation between institutional needs and objectives and the provisions of the Constitution that are of general application.
. We also reject the assertion of the State that whatever may be true of the Due Process Clause in general or of other rights protected by that Clause against state infringement, the interest of prisoners in disciplinary procedures is not included in that “liberty” protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. It is true that the Constitution itself does not guarantee good-time credit for satisfactory behavior while in prison. But here the State itself has not only provided a statutory right to good time but also specifies that it is to be forfeited only for serious misbehavior. Nebraska may have the authority to create, or not, a right to a shortened prison sentence through the accumulation of credits for good behavior, and it is true that the Due Process Clause does not require a hearing “in every conceivable case of government impairment of private interest.” Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S. 886, 894 (1961). But the State having created the right to good time and itself recognizing that its deprivation is a sanction authorized for major misconduct, the prisoner’s interest has real substance and is sufficiently embraced within Fourteenth Amendment “liberty” to entitle him to those minimum procedures appropriate under the circumstances and required by the Due Process Clause to insure that the state-created right is not arbitrarily abrogated. This is the thrust of recent cases in the prison disciplinary context. In Haines v. Kerner, supra, the state prisoner asserted a “denial of due process in the steps leading to [disciplinary] confinement.” 404 U. S., at 520. We reversed the dismissal of the § 1983 complaint for failure to state a claim. In Preiser v. Rodriguez, supra, the prisoner complained that he had been deprived of good-time credits without notice or hearing and without due process of law. We considered the claim a proper subject for a federal habeas corpus proceeding.
This analysis as to liberty parallels the accepted due process analysis as to property. The Court has consistently held that some kind of hearing is required at some time before a person is finally deprived of his property interests. Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 123, 168 (1951) (Frankfurter, J., concurring). The requirement for some kind of a hearing applies to the taking of private property, Grannis v. Ordean, 234 U. S. 385 (1914), the revocation of licenses, In re Ruffalo, 390 U. S. 544 (1968), the operation of state dispute-settlement mechanisms, when one person seeks to take property from another, or to government-created jobs held, absent “cause” for termination, Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564 (1972); Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U. S. 134, 164 (1974) (Powell, J., concurring); id., at 171 (White, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) ; id., at 206 (Marshall, J., dissenting). Cf. Stanley v. Illinois, 405 U. S. 645, 652-654 (1972); Bell v. Burson, 402 U. S. 535 (1971).
We think a person's liberty is equally protected, even when the liberty itself is a statutory creation of the State. The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government, Dent v. West Virginia, 129 U. S. 114, 123 (1889). Since prisoners in Nebraska can only lose good-time credits if they are guilty of serious misconduct, the determination of whether such behavior has occurred becomes critical, and the minimum requirements of procedural due process appropriate for the circumstances must be observed.
IV
As found by the District Court, the procedures employed are: (1) a preliminary conference with the Chief Corrections Supervisor and the charging party, where the prisoner is informed of the misconduct charge and engages in preliminary discussion on its merits; (2) the preparation of a conduct report and a hearing held before the Adjustment Committee, the disciplinary body of the prison, where the report is read to the inmate; and (3) the opportunity at the hearing to ask questions of the charging party. The State contends that the procedures already provided are adequate. The Court of Appeals held them insufficient and ordered that the due process requirements outlined in Morrissey and Scar-pelli be satisfied in serious disciplinary cases at the prison.
Morrissey held that due process imposed certain minimum procedural requirements which must be satisfied before parole could finally be revoked. These procedures were:
“(a) written notice of the claimed violations of parole; (b) disclosure to the parolee of evidence against him; (c) opportunity to be heard in person and to present witnesses and documentary evidence ; (d) the right to confront and cross-examine adverse witnesses (unless the hearing officer specifically finds good cause for not allowing confrontation); (e) a 'neutral and detached’ hearing body such as a traditional parole board, members of which need not be judicial officers or lawyers; and (f) a written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons for revoking parole.” 408 U. S., at 489.
The Court did not reach the question as to whether the parolee is entitled to the assistance of retained counsel or to appointed counsel, if he is indigent. Following the decision in Morrissey, in Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 778 (1973), the Court held the requirements of due process established for parole revocation were applicable to probation revocation proceedings. The Court added to the required minimum procedures of Morrissey the right to counsel, where a probationer makes a request, “based on a timely and colorable claim (i) that he has not committed the alleged violation of the conditions upon which he is at liberty; or (ii) that, even if the violation is a matter of public record or is uncontested, there are substantial reasons which justified or mitigated the violation and make revocation inappropriate, and that the reasons are complex or otherwise difficult to develop or present.” Id., at 790. In doubtful cases, the agency was to consider whether the probationer appeared to be capable of speaking effectively for himself, id., at 790-791, and a record was to be made of the grounds for refusing to appoint counsel.
We agree with neither petitioners nor the Court of Appeals: the Nebraska procedures are in some respects constitutionally deficient but the Morrissey-Scarpelli procedures need not in all respects be followed in disciplinary cases in state prisons.
We have often repeated that “[t]he very nature of due process negates any concept of inflexible procedures universally applicable to every imaginable situation.” Cafeteria Workers v. McElroy, 367 U. S., at 895. “ [C] on-sideration of what procedures due process may require under any given set of circumstances must begin with a determination of the precise nature of the government function involved as well as of the private interest that has been affected by governmental action.” Ibid.; Morrissey, 408 U. S., at 481. Viewed in this light it is immediately apparent that one cannot automatically apply procedural rules designed for free citizens in an open society, or for parolees or probationers under only limited restraints, to the very different situation presented by a disciplinary proceeding in a state prison.
Revocation of parole may deprive the parolee of only conditional liberty, but it nevertheless “inflicts a ‘grievous loss’ on the parolee and often on others.” Id., at 482. Simply put, revocation proceedings determine whether the parolee will be free or in prison, a matter of obvious great moment to him. For the prison inmate, the deprivation of good time is not the same immediate disaster that the revocation of parole is for the parolee. The deprivation, very likely, does not then and there work any change in the conditions of his liberty. It can postpone the date of eligibility for parole and extend the maximum term to be served, but it is not certain to do so, for good time may be restored. Even if not restored, it cannot be said with certainty that the actual date of parole will be affected; and if parole occurs, the extension of the maximum term resulting from loss of good time may affect only the termination of parole, and it may not even do that. The deprivation of good time is unquestionably a matter of considerable importance. The State reserves it as a sanction for serious misconduct, and we should not unrealistically discount its significance. But it is qualitatively and quantitatively different from the revocation of parole or probation.
In striking the balance that the Due Process Clause demands, however, we think the major consideration militating against adopting the full range of procedures suggested by Morrissey for alleged parole violators is the very different stake the State has in the structure and content of the prison disciplinary hearing. That the revocation of parole be justified and based on an accurate assessment of the facts is a critical matter to the State as well as the parolee; but the procedures by which it is determined whether the conditions of parole have been breached do not themselves threaten other important state interests, parole officers, the police, or witnesses — at least no more so than in the case of the ordinary criminal trial. Prison disciplinary proceedings, on the other hand, take place in a closed, tightly controlled environment peopled by those who have chosen to violate the criminal law and who have been lawfully incarcerated for doing so. Some are first offenders, but many are recidivists who have repeatedly employed illegal and often very violent means to attain their ends. They may have little regard for the safety of others or their property or for the rules designed to provide an orderly and reasonably safe prison life. Although there are very many varieties of prisons with different degrees of security, we must realize that in many of them the inmates are closely supervised and their activities controlled around the clock. Guards and inmates co-exist in direct and intimate contact. Tension between them is unremitting. Frustration, resentment, and despair are commonplace. Relationships among the inmates are varied and complex and perhaps subject to the unwritten code that exhorts inmates not to inform on a fellow prisoner.
It is against this background that disciplinary proceedings must be structured by prison authorities; and it is against this background that we must make our constitutional judgments, realizing that we are dealing with the maximum security institution as well as those where security considerations are not paramount. The reality is that disciplinary hearings and the imposition of disagreeable sanctions necessarily involve confrontations between inmates and authority and between inmates who are being disciplined and those who would chargé or furnish evidence against them. Retaliation is much more than a theoretical possibility; and the basic and unavoidable task of providing reasonable personal safety for guards and inmates may be at stake, to say nothing of the impact of disciplinary confrontations and the resulting escalation of personal antagonisms on the important aims of the correctional process.
Indeed, it is pressed upon us that the proceedings to ascertain and sanction misconduct themselves play a major role in furthering the institutional goal of modifying the behavior and value systems of prison inmates sufficiently to permit them to live within the law when they are released. Inevitably there is a great range of personality and character among those who have transgressed the criminal law. Some are more amenable to suggestion and persuasion than others. Some may be incorrigible and would merely disrupt and exploit the disciplinary process for their own ends. With some, rehabilitation may be best achieved by simulating procedures of a free society to the maximum possible extent; but with others, it may be essential that discipline be swift and sure. In any event, it is argued, there would be great unwisdom in encasing the disciplinary procedures in an inflexible constitutional straitjacket that would necessarily call for adversary proceedings typical of the criminal trial, very likely raise the level of confrontation between staff and inmate, and make more difficult the utilization of the disciplinary process as a tool to advance the rehabilitative goals of the institution. This consideration, along with the necessity to maintain an acceptable level of personal security in the institution, must be taken into account as we now examine in more detail the Nebraska procedures that the Court of Appeals found wanting.
V
Two of the procedures that the Court held should be extended to parolees facing revocation proceedings are not, but must be, provided to prisoners in the Nebraska Complex if the minimum requirements of procedural due process are to be satisfied. These are advance written notice of the claimed violation and a written statement of the factfinders as to the evidence relied upon and the reasons for the disciplinary action taken. As described by the Warden in his oral testimony, on the basis of which the District Court made its findings, the inmate is now given oral notice of the charges against him at least as soon as the conference with the Chief Corrections Supervisor and charging party. A written record is there compiled and the report read to the inmate at the hearing before the Adjustment Committee where the charges are discussed and pursued. There is no indication that the inmate is ever given a written statement by the Committee as to the evidence or informed in writing or otherwise as to the reasons for the disciplinary action taken.
Part of the function of notice is to give the charged party a chance to marshal the facts in his defense and to clarify what the charges are, in fact. See In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1, 33-34, and n. 54 (1967). Neither of these functions was performed by the notice described by the Warden. Although the charges are discussed orally with the inmate somewhat in advance of the hearing, the inmate is sometimes brought before the Adjustment Committee shortly after he is orally informed of the charges. Other times, after this initial discussion, further investigation takes place which may reshape the nature of the charges or the evidence relied upon. In those instances, under procedures in effect at the time of trial, it would appear that the inmate first receives notice of the actual charges at the time of the hearing before the Adjustment Committee. We hold that written notice of the charges must be given to the disciplinary-action defendant in order to inform him of the charges and to enable him to marshal the facts and prepare a defense. At least a brief period of time after the notice, no less than 24 hours, should be allowed to the inmate to prepare for the appearance before the Adjustment Committee.
We also hold that there must be a “written statement by the factfinders as to the evidence relied on and reasons” for the disciplinary action. Morrissey, 408 IT. S., at 489. Although Nebraska does not seem to provide administrative review of the action taken by the Adjustment Committee, the actions taken at such proceedings may involve review by other bodies. They might furnish the basis of a decision by the Director of Corrections to transfer an inmate to another institution because he is considered “to be incorrigible by reason of frequent intentional breaches of discipline,” Neb. Rev. Stat. § 83-185 (4) (Cum. Supp. 1972), and are certainly likely to be considered by the state parole authorities in making parole decisions. Written records of proceedings will thus protect the inmate against collateral consequences based on a misunderstanding of the nature of the original proceeding. Further, as to the disciplinary action itself, the provision for a written record helps to insure that administrators, faced with possible scrutiny by state officials and the public, and perhaps even the courts, where fundamental constitutional rights may have been abridged, will act fairly. Without written records, the inmate will be at a severe disadvantage in propounding his own cause to or defending himself from others. It may be that there will be occasions when personal or institutional safety is so implicated that the statement may properly exclude certain items of evidence, but in that event the statement should indicate the fact of the omission. Otherwise, we perceive no conceivable rehabilitative objective or prospect of prison disruption that can flow from the requirement of these statements.
We are also of the opinion that the inmate facing disciplinary proceedings should be allowed to call witnesses and present documentary evidence in his defense when permitting him to do so will not be unduly hazardous to institutional safety or correctional goals. Ordinarily, the right to present evidence is basic to a fair hearing; but the unrestricted right to call witnesses from the prison population carries obvious potential for disruption and for interference with the swift punishment that in individual cases may be essential to carrying out the correctional program of the institution. We should not be too ready to exercise oversight and put aside the judgment of prison administrators. It may be that an individual threatened with serious sanctions would normally be entitled to present witnesses and relevant documentary evidence; but here we must balance the inmate’s interest in avoiding loss of good time against the needs of the prison, and some amount of flexibility and accommodation is required. Prison officials must have the necessary discretion to keep the hearing within reasonable limits and to refuse to call witnesses that may create a risk of reprisal or undermine authority, as well as to limit access to other inmates to collect statements or to compile other documentary evidence. Although we do not prescribe it, it would be useful for the Committee to state its reason for refusing to call a witness, whether it be for irrelevance, lack of necessity, or the hazards presented in individual cases. Any less flexible rule appears untenable as a constitutional matter, at least on the record made in this case. The operation of a correctional institution is at best an extraordinarily difficult undertaking. Many prison officials, on the spot and with the responsibility for the safety of inmates and staff, are reluctant to extend the unqualified right to call witnesses; and in our view, they must have the necessary discretion without being subject to unduly crippling constitutional impediments. There is this much play in the joints of the Due Process Clause, and we stop short of imposing a more demanding rule with respect to witnesses and documents.
Confrontation and cross-examination present greater hazards to institutional interests. If confrontation and cross-examination of those furnishing evidence against the inmate were to be allowed as a matter of course, as in criminal trials, there would be considerable potential for havoc inside the prison walls. Proceedings would inevitably be longer and tend to unmanageability. These procedures are essential in criminal trials where the accused, if found guilty, may be subjected to the most serious deprivations, Pointer v. Texas, 380 U. S. 400 (1965), or where a person may lose his job in society, Greene v. McElroy, 360 U. S. 474, 496-497 (1959). But they are not rights universally applicable to all hearings. See Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U. S. 134 (1974). Rules of procedure may be shaped by consideration of the risks of error, In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 368 (1970) (Harlan, J., concurring) ; Arnett v. Kennedy, supra, p. 171 (White, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), and should also be shaped by the consequences which will follow their adoption. Although some States do seem to allow cross-examination in disciplinary hearings, we are not apprised of the conditions under which the procedure may be curtailed; and it does not appear that confrontation and cross-examination are generally required in this context. We think that the Constitution should not be read to impose the procedure at the present time and that adequate bases for decision in prison disciplinary cases can be arrived at without cross-examination.
Perhaps as the problems of penal institutions change and correctional goals are reshaped, the balance of interests involved will require otherwise. But in the current environment, where prison disruption remains a serious concern to administrators, we cannot ignore the desire and effort of many States, including Nebraska, and the Federal Government to avoid situations that may trigger deep emotions and that may scuttle the disciplinary process as a rehabilitation vehicle. To some extent, the American adversary trial presumes contestants who are able to cope with the pressures and aftermath of the battle, and such may not generally be the case of those in the prisons of this country. At least, the Constitution, as we interpret it today, does not require the contrary assumption. Within the limits set forth in this opinion we are content for now to leave the continuing development of measures to review adverse actions affecting inmates to the sound discretion of corrections officials administering the scope of such inquiries.
We recognize that the problems of potential disruption may differ depending on whom the inmate proposes to cross-examine. If he proposes to examine an unknown fellow inmate, the danger may be the greatest, since the disclosure of the identity of the accuser, and the cross-examination which will follow, may pose a high risk of reprisal within the institution. Conversely, the inmate accuser, who might freely tell his story privately to prison officials, may refuse to testify or admit any knowledge of the situation in question. Although the dangers posed by cross-examination of known inmate accusers, or guards, may be less, the resentment which may persist after confrontation may still be substantial. Also, even where the accuser or adverse witness is known, the disclosure of third parties may pose a problem. There may be a class of cases where the facts are closely disputed, and the character of the parties minimizes the dangers involved. However, any constitutional rule tailored to meet these situations would undoubtedly produce great litigation and attendant costs in a much wider range of cases. Further, in the last analysis, even within the narrow range of cases where interest balancing may well dictate cross-examination, courts will be faced with the assessment of prison officials as to the dangers involved, and there would be a limited basis for upsetting such judgments. The better course at this time, in a period where prison practices are diverse and somewhat experimental, is to leave these matters to the sound discretion of the officials of state prisons.
As to the right to counsel, the problem as outlined in Scarpelli with respect to parole and probation revocation proceedings is even more pertinent here:
“The introduction of counsel into a revocation proceeding will alter significantly the nature of the proceeding. If counsel is provided for the probationer or parolee, the State in turn will normally provide its own counsel; lawyers, by training and disposition, are advocates and bound by professional duty to present all available evidence and arguments in support of their clients' positions and to contest with vigor all adverse evidence and views. The role of the hearing body itself, aptly described in Mor-rissey as being 'predictive and discretionary’ as well as factfinding, may become more akin to that of a judge at a trial, and less attuned to the rehabilitative needs of the individual probationer or parolee. In the greater self-consciousness of its quasi-judicial role, the hearing body may be less tolerant of marginal deviant behavior and feel more pressure to reincarcerate than to continue nonpunitive rehabilitation. Certainly, the decisionmaking process will be prolonged, and the financial cost to the State— for appointed counsel, counsel for the State, a longer record, and the possibility of judicial review — -will not be insubstantial.” 411 U. S., at 787-788 (footnote omitted).
The insertion of counsel into the disciplinary process would inevitably give the proceedings a more adversary cast and tend to reduce their utility as a means to further correctional goals. There would also be delay and very practical problems in providing counsel in sufficient numbers at the time and place where hearings are to be held. At this stage of the development of these procedures we are not prepared to hold that inmates have a right to either retained or appointed counsel in disciplinary proceedings.
Where an illiterate inmate is involved, however, or where the complexity of the issue makes it unlikely that the inmate will be able to collect and present the evidence necessary for an adequate comprehension of the case, he should be free to seek the aid of a fellow inmate, or if that is forbidden, to have adequate substitute aid in the form of help from the staff or from a sufficiently competent inmate designated by the staff. We need not pursue the matter further here, however, for there is no claim that respondent, McDonnell, is within the class of inmates entitled to advice or help from others in the course of a prison disciplinary hearing.
Finally, we decline to rule that the Adjustment Committee which conducts the required hearings at the Nebraska Prison Complex and determines whether to revoke good time is not sufficiently impartial to satisfy the Due Process Clause. The Committee is made up of the Associate Warden Custody as chairman, the Correctional Industries Superintendent, and the Reception Center Director. The Chief Corrections Supervisor refers cases to the Committee after investigation and an initial interview with the inmate involved. The Committee is not left at large with unlimited discretion. It is directed to meet daily and to operate within the principles stated in the controlling regulations, among which is the command that “[f]ull consideration must be given
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | D | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Appellant submitted a bid in May 1954 for construction of facilities at an Air Force Base in Arkansas over which the United States had not acquired jurisdiction pursuant to 54 Stat. 19, 40 U. S. C. § 255. The United States accepted appellant’s bid, and in June appellant began work on the project. In September, the State of Arkansas filed an information accusing appellant of violation of Ark. Stat., 1947, §§ 71-701 through 71-721, for submitting a bid, executing a contract, and commencing work as a contractor in the State of Arkansas without having obtained a license under Arkansas law for such activity from its Contractors Licensing Board. The case was tried on stipulated facts. Appellant was found guilty and fined. The trial court’s judgment was affirmed by the Arkansas Supreme Court, 225 Ark. 285, 281 S. W. 2d 946, and the case came here on appeal. 351 U. S. 948. Appellant and the United States as amicus curiae contend that the application of the Arkansas statute to this contractor interferes with the Federal Government’s power to select contractors and schedule construction and is in conflict with the federal law regulating procurement.
Congress provided in § 3 of the Armed Services Procurement Act of 1947, 62 Stat. 21, 23, 41 U. S. C. § 152, that awards on advertised bids “shall be made ... to that responsible bidder whose bid, conforming to the invitation for bids, will be most advantageous to the Government, price and other factors considered . . . .” The report from the Committee on Armed Services of the House of Representatives indicated some of the factors to be considered: “The question whether a particular bidder is a ‘responsible bidder’ requires sound business judgment, and involves an evaluation of the bidder’s experience, facilities, technical organization, reputation, financial resources, and other factors.” H. R. Rep. No. 109, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 18; see S. Rep. No. 571, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 16. The Armed Services Procurement Regulations, promulgated under the Act, set forth a list of guiding considerations, defining a responsible contractor as one who
“(a) Is a manufacturer, construction contractor, or regular dealer ....
“ (b) Has adequate financial resources, or ability to secure such resources;
“(c) Has the necessary experience, organization, and technical qualifications, and has or can acquire the necessary facilities (including probable subcontractor arrangements) to perform the proposed contract;
“(d) Is able to comply with the required delivery or performance schedule (taking into consideration all existing business commitments);
“(e) Has a satisfactory record of performance, integrity, judgment, and skills; and
“(f) Is otherwise qualified and eligible to receive an award under applicable laws and regulations.” 32 CFR § 1.307; see also 32 CFR § 2.406-3.
Under the Arkansas licensing law similar factors are set forth to guide the Contractors Licensing Board:
“The Board, in determining the qualifications of any applicant for original license . . . shall, among other things, consider the following: (a) experience, (b) ability, (c) character, (d) the manner of performance of previous contracts, (e) financial condition, (f) equipment, (g) any other fact tending to show ability and willingness to conserve the public health and safety, and (h) default in complying with the provisions of this act ... or any other law of the State. . . .” Ark. Stat., 1947, §71-709.'
Mere enumeration of the similar grounds for licensing under the state statute and for finding “responsibility” under the federal statute and regulations is sufficient to indicate conflict between this license requirement which Arkansas places on a federal contractor and the action which Congress and the Department of Defense have taken to insure the reliability of persons and companies contracting with the Federal Government. Subjecting a federal contractor to the Arkansas contractor license requirements would give the State’s licensing board a virtual power of review over the federal determination of “responsibility” and would thus frustrate the expressed federal policy of selecting the lowest responsible bidder. In view of the federal statute and regulations, the rationale of Johnson v. Maryland, 254 U. S. 51, 57, is applicable :
“It seems to us that the immunity of the instruments of the United States from state control in the performance of their duties extends to a requirement that they desist from performance until they satisfy a state officer upon examination that they are competent for a necessary part of them and pay a fee for permission to go on. Such a requirement does not merely touch the Government servants remotely by a general rule of conduct; it lays hold of them in their specific attempt to obey orders and requires qualifications in addition to those that the Government has pronounced sufficient. It is the duty of the Department to employ persons competent for their work and that duty it must be presumed has been performed. . . .”
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Arkansas is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | J | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion to dispense with printing the petition and the motion of the respondent for leave to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment is vacated, and the case is remanded to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for further consideration in light of Chambers v. Maroney, ante, p. 42.
Mr. Justice Harlan is of the opinion that certiorari should be denied. However, the case having been taken for review, he would affirm the judgment below for the reasons stated in his separate opinion in Chambers v. Maroney, ante, p. 55.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Murphy
delivered the' opinion of the Court.
Appellants filed complaints in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana seeking a temporary stay, an interlocutory injunction and a permanent injunction against the enforcement of an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, dated July 9, 1945. This order had been entered in connection with findings by the Commission that certain railroad tariffs were unlawful and that other rates should be prescribed in lieu thereof. Coal to Beloit, Wis., and Northern Illinois, 263 I. C. C. 179.
The complaints requested that the court convene a specially constituted court of three judges, as required by the Urgent Deficiencies Act of October 22, 1913, 38 Stat. 208, 220, 28 U. S. C. § 47, to hear the motions “for a temporary or interlocutory injunction and for final hearing in this proceeding.” Circuit Judge Evans and District Judge Igoe were then assigned to sit with District Judge Baltzell to hear and determine these applications, and the cases were consolidated for all purposes. The applications for a temporary stay and an interlocutory injunction were assigned for hearing on January 3, 1946. But on that day, it appearing that the Commission had postponed the effective date of its order to April 8, 1946, the court ordered that “the hearing upon the petitioners’ application for an interlocutory injunction and temporary stay heretofore assigned and set for January 3, 1946, be and the same hereby is, continued to the day of final hearing herein and that said final hearing shall be had on March 25, 1946 . . . .” The Commission made a further postponement of the effective date of its order to July 8, 1946, in order that the carriers subject to the order might avoid the necessity of preparing and filing new tariffs prior to the termination of the court proceeding. It also appeared that the illness of Judge Baltzell made it impossible for the court to convene as scheduled on March 25. And so the court reassigned the case for trial on April 22, with Judge Baltzell being replaced by Circuit Judge Major.
Argument was held on April 22 before Circuit Judges Evans and Major and District Judge Igoe at the “final hearing upon the plaintiffs’ petitions for a permanent injunction.” On June 5, 1946, findings of fact and conclusions of law were filed and entered under the signatures of Judges Major and Igoe; the Commission’s order was sustained in all respects and a judgment was entered dismissing the complaints. The following notation was made in the margin of the findings of fact and conclusions of law: “Judge Evan A. Evans became ill subsequent to the hearing of these causes and he is and has been unable to participate in a determination thereof. The findings of fact, conclusions of law and judgment have therefore been entered by the remaining judges of such court.”
The ease was brought here on direct appeal. We are of the opinion that the District Court’s judgment was void, only two of the three judges having participated in the determination of the case. We accordingly do not reach the issues involving the Commission’s authority and the merits of its order, issues that have been argued at length before us.
The applicable provisions of the Urgent Deficiencies Act, 38 Stat. 220, 28 U. S. C. § 47, state: “. . . No interlocutory injunction suspending or restraining the enforcement, operation, or execution of, or setting aside, in whole or in part, any order made or entered by the Interstate Commerce Commission shall be issued or granted by any district court of the United States, or by any judge thereof, or by any circuit judge acting as district judge, unless the application for the same shall be presented to a circuit or district judge, and shall be heard and determined by three judges, of whom at least one shall be a circuit judge, and unless a majority of said three judges shall concur in granting such application. When such application as aforesaid is presented to a judge, he shall immediately call to his assistance to hear and determine the application two other judges. . . . Provided, That in cases where irreparable damage would otherwise ensue to the petitioner, a majority of said three judges concurring, may, on hearing, . . . allow a temporary stay or suspension, in whole or in part, of the operation of the order of the Interstate Commerce Commission for not more than sixty days . . . and upon the final hearing of any suit brought to suspend or set aside, in whole or in part, any order of said commission the same requirement as to judges and the same procedure as to expedition and appeal shall apply. . .
The requirement that three judges hear and determine suits to enjoin or set aside Interstate Commerce Commission orders had its origin in the provisions of the Expediting Act of February 11, 1903, 32 Stat. 823. That Act required three circuit judges, or two circuit judges and a district judge, to hear cases brought by the United States to enforce the antitrust and commerce laws. This feature was then extended by the Hepburn Act of 1906, 34 Stat. 584, 592, to all suits brought to enforce or enjoin any order of the Interstate Commerce Commission, “including the hearing on an application for a preliminary injunction.” The Act of June 18, 1910, 36 Stat. 539, created the Commerce Court and vested in it jurisdiction over suits to enjoin Commission orders; that court was composed of five judges, four of them constituting a quorum and at least three being required to concur in all decisions. Finally, the Urgent Deficiencies Act of 1913 transferred this jurisdiction to three-judge district courts, as detailed above. United States v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 226, 232-233.
The policy of requiring the deliberation of three judges in suits to enjoin the enforcement of Interstate Commerce Commission orders is thus a well-established one. It is grounded in the legislative desire to guard against ill-considered action by a single judge in the important and complex situations frequently presented by Commission orders. Such matters are deemed to warrant the full deliberation which a court of three judges is likely to secure.
This requirement, of course, is necessarily technical. It is not a broad social measure to be construed with liberality. It is a technical rule of procedure to be applied as such. See Phillips v. United States, 312 U. S. 246, 250-251. While due consideration must be given to the statutory policy of expediting the disposition of applications to enjoin the enforcement of Commission orders, the plain language of the Urgent Deficiencies Act compels strict adherence to the command that such applications “shall be heard and determined by three judges, of whom at least one shall be a circuit judge.” And we must insist upon obedience to that legislative will even though the disposition of some applications may thereby be delayed.
When the framers of the Urgent Deficiencies Act declared that these applications “shall be heard and determined by three judges,” we assume that they meant exactly what they said. The requirement that three judges hear and determine an application means that they must adjudicate the issues of law and fact which are presented by the case, a function which implies that they must weigh the arguments and testimony offered by both sides and vote either to grant or deny the relief sought by the moving party. In addition, “Compliance with the statute requires the assent of the three judges given after the application is made evidenced by their signatures or an announcement in open court with three judges sitting followed by a formal order tested as they direct.” Cumberland Tel. Co. v. Public Service Commission, 260 U. S. 212, 218. All three judges, in other words, must fully perform the judicial function. See Dohany v. Rogers, 281 U. S. 362, 369-370.
It is significant that this Act makes no provision for a quorum of less than three judges. Two judges of a three-judge circuit court of appeals, on the other hand, ordinarily constitute a statutory quorum for the hearing and determination of cases. 28 U. S. C. § 212. The absence of such a quorum provision as to three-judge district courts is a strong corroborating indication that participation by all three judges is necessary to render a valid decision. The Act provides, it is true, that a decision may be reached by a three-judge court if a “majority of said three judges” concur. But that means only that the decision of the three judges need not be unanimous; it does not imply that two judges alone may hear and determine the case.
Moreover, we cannot say that the failure of the third judge to participate in the determination of a case, where the other two are in agreement as to the result, is without significance. The decision reached by two judges is not necessarily the one which might have been reached had they had the benefit of the views and conclusions of the third judge. And should the latter have publicly indicated an opinion differing from that of his colleagues, his position might be helpful to the litigants and to this Court if the case were appealed.
It is readily apparent that this statutory requirement has not been met in this case. While all three judges of the specially constituted court heard the oral argument, only two of them participated in the determination of the case. The findings of fact, the conclusions of law and the judgment were all entered without the approval, concurrence or dissent of the third judge. He thus missed the very essence of the judicial function in this case — the actual adjudication of the issues of law and fact. All that we have here is an adjudication by two judges. But under the statute it is not enough that there be an adjudication by two judges. They lack any statutory authority to hear and determine an application to enjoin the enforcement of a Commission order. Any action of theirs in granting or denying such an application is as void as similar action by a single judge. See Cumberland Tel. Co. v. Public Service Commission, supra, 218-219; Stratton v. St. Louis S. W. R. Co., 282 U. S. 10, 16.
It is suggested, however, that the three-judge requirement applies only to applications for interlocutory injunctions against the enforcement of Interstate Commerce Commission orders; and since the decision in this case was one denying a permanent injunction, no complaint can be made that the decision was rendered by less than three judges. Reference is made in this respect to § 266 of the Judicial Code, 28 U. S. C. § 380, which deals with injunctions against the enforcement of state statutes or state administrative orders on the ground of unconstitutionality of the statute involved. Prior to 1925, that section indicated that a three-judge court was necessary only to pass upon applications for interlocutory injunctions. A single judge had jurisdiction to hear the cause on final hearing and to grant or deny a permanent injunction, thereby permitting him to reconsider and decide questions already passed upon by the three judges on the application for an interlocutory injunction. To end that anomalous situation, an amendment was added by the Act of February 13, 1925, 43 Stat. 938, to the effect that “The requirement respecting the presence of three judges shall also apply to the final hearing in such suit in the district court . . . The problem then arose as to whether the words “such suit” in this amendment referred only to a suit in which an interlocutory injunction was in fact sought or to a suit in which it might have been, but was not, requested. A series of decisions by this Court has made it clear that the former interpretation is the correct one. A three-judge court must be convened for final hearings on applications for permanent injunctions against the enforcement of state statutes only where an interlocutory injunction has been sought and pressed to a hearing. Moore v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 272 U. S. 317; Smith v. Wilson, 273 U. S. 388; Public Service Commission v. Wisconsin Telephone Co., 289 U. S. 67; McCart v. Indianapolis Water Co., 302 U. S. 419. Where an interlocutory injunction is not sought and pressed, a single judge may hear and determine the application for a permanent injunction.
By analogy, it is claimed that the same rule should obtain under the Urgent Deficiencies Act, that a three-judge court should be necessary for final hearings on applications for permanent injunctions only where interlocutory injunctions have been sought and pressed. While it is admitted that an interlocutory injunction was sought in this case, the argument is made that the application was not pressed to a hearing, the need for such temporary relief having been eliminated by the postponement of the effective date of the Commission order. The whole emphasis of the Act, like that of § 266 of the Judicial Code, is said to be directed toward the prevention of improvident issuance of interlocutory injunctions or restraining orders. Since there was no such danger in this case, the conclusion is reached that the underlying reason for the convening of a three-judge district court is absent here.
The answer to this argument is to be found in the clear language of the Act itself. It provides simply: “and upon the final hearing of any suit brought to suspend or set aside, in whole or in part, any order of said commission the same requirement as to judges and the same procedure as to expedition and appeal shall apply.” Unlike § 266 of the Judicial Code, there is no reference here to “such suit”- — to a suit where an interlocutory injunction is sought and pressed. Rather there is an unambiguous reference to the final hearing of “any suit” brought to enjoin the enforcement of a Commission order. That can only mean any suit seeking permanent relief, regardless of whether interlocutory relief is also requested. And since “the same requirement as to judges” is to apply to the final hearing of any suit, three judges must hear and determine the matter.
In addition, this portion of the Urgent Deficiencies Act was part of the original enactment and was not added to meet a problem like that which arose under § 266 of the Judicial Code. It was drawn against a background of prior statutes which provided for injunctive relief against the enforcement of Commission orders without regard to the presence of a request for temporary relief. The Hepburn Act required a three-judge court for “all” suits brought to enjoin a Commission order, “including the hearing on an application for a preliminary injunction,” — a clear indication that a three-judge court was also necessary where only permanent relief was sought. And the statute which created the Commerce Court, from which the district courts inherited their jurisdiction in this instance, referred to “cases” brought to enjoin or set aside Commission orders, making no distinction as to those in which only permanent relief was sought. We can only conclude that the framers of the Urgent Deficiencies Act meant to require a three-judge court in any suit brought to enjoin the enforcement of a Commission order, including a suit where an interlocutory injunction is not sought and pressed to a hearing.
Time and again this Court has referred to the three-judge court requirement under this Act without making the distinction which has been made under § 266 of the Judicial Code. Lambert Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 258 U. S. 377, 381-382; Baltimore & Ohio R. Co. v. United States, 279 U. S. 781, 784-785; United States v. Griffin, supra, 232-233. Indeed, without passing upon the precise problem, this Court has affirmed judgments of three-judge district courts which had granted permanent injunctions in cases where no interlocutory injunctions had been sought or pressed. See, e. g., United States v. Idaho, 298 U. S. 105. And see Hudson & Manhattan R. Co. v. United States, 28 F. Supp. 137, 140.
The language and background of the Act, which have been augmented by the consistent understanding of this Court, thus combine to require the use of a three-judge district court in all cases in which a permanent or interlocutory injunction is sought against the enforcement of a Commission order. It matters not in a particular case whether an interlocutory injunction is requested or whether, if such relief is asked, the application is pressed to a hearing. This Act seeks to guard against more than an improvident issuance of interlocutory injunctions by single judges; it also seeks to prevent single judges from issuing permanent injunctions. To that end, Congress has required the use of a three-judge court and we are bound to carry out the letter and the spirit of that requirement. That two judges might, in a particular instance, give the same protection against single-judge action as three judges does not justify ignoring or relaxing the plain requirement that three judges hear and determine all applications to enjoin the enforcement of Commission orders. If such an amendment to the Act is to be made, it must be made by Congress rather than by this Court.
Since the judgment entered by two judges in this case was void and without statutory authority, we have no alternative but to vacate the judgment and dismiss the appeal. Appellants will be free, of course, to suggest that the District Court be reconvened in accordance with the Act so that three judges may hear and determine the application to enjoin the Commission order in issue.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Rutledge dissents.
Urgent Deficiencies Act of October 22,1913, 38 Stat. 208, 219,220, 28 U. S. C. §§ 45 and 47a; Judicial Code § 238, as amended by the Act of February 13,1925,43 Stat. 936,938,28 U. S. C. § 345.
In Ohio v. United States, 6 F. Supp. 386, affirmed, 292 U. S. 498, a case under the Urgent Deficiencies Act was argued before a court of three judges, all of whom participated in the discussions leading to a determination of the case. One of the judges died before the decision was announced. An opinion written by the judge who died was found among his papers after his death and was published as the opinion of the court, concurred in by the other two judges. The opinion had been written pursuant to an arrangement made at a prior conference of the three judges. The findings of fact and conclusions of law, which were filed some time after the opinion, were signed only by the two surviving judges. The matter, however, was not raised by the parties on appeal and was not considered or decided by this Court. The mere fact that the case was entertained by this Court is no basis for considering it as authoritative on the jurisdictional issue, it being the firm policy of this Court not to recognize the exercise of jurisdiction as precedent where the issue was ignored. United States v. More, 3 Cranch 159, 172; Snow v. United States, 118 U. S. 346, 354-355; Cross v. Burke, 146 U. S. 82, 87; Louisville Trust Co. v. Knott, 191 U. S. 225, 236; Arant v. Lane, 245 U. S. 166, 170.
Cf. Frellsen & Co. v. Crandell, 217 U. S. 71, where this Court, after Mr. Justice Brewer’s death, adopted as its opinion one previously written by him.
In James v. Clements, 217 F. 51, a case had been argued and submitted to a three-judge circuit court of appeals and a decision rendered by a divided vote. A petition for rehearing had been filed and the court had decided that the prior decision was erroneous and that the opposite result should be announced without further briefs or argument. But before an order to that effect could be promulgated, one of the judges died. Since the other two judges were divided in their views, the case was restored for argument before a full bench of three judges. See also Ryan v. Pennsylvania Public Utility Commission, 44 F. Supp. 912, 914.
But see 32 Stat. 823, as amended by 58 Stat. 272, 15 U. S. C. (Supp. Y, 1946) § 29, which provides that the senior circuit judge and the two circuit judges next in order of seniority shall “hear and determine” appeals from district court judgments in antitrust cases where this Court is unable to consider the appeals because of a lack of a quorum. United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F. 2d 416.
The same understanding, that the Urgent Deficiencies Act requires three judges for all applications to enjoin Commission orders while § 266 of the Judicial Code requires a three-judge court only for applications for interlocutory injunctions, is shown in the remarks of Mr. Justice Van Devanter at the Hearing before the Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary on S. 2060 and S. 2061, 68th Cong., 1st Sess., p. 33 (S. 2060 later became the Act of February 13,1925):
“Section 238 as amended and reenacted in the bill would permit cases falling within four particular classes, and those only, to come from the district courts directly to the Supreme Court. The first and fourth classes are confined to antitrust and interstate commerce cases covered by the second section of the expedition act of February 11, 1903, and the provision in the act of October 22, 1913, respecting the enforcement, suspension, etc., of orders of the Interstate Commerce Commission. These cases are heard in the district court by three judges, one of whom must be a circuit judge. This and the character of the cases make it suggest that they should go directly to the Supreme Court rather than through the circuit courts of appeals. The third class is confined to cases wherein the enforcement of a State statute or of an order of a State board or commission is suspended by an interlocutory injunction. Applications for such injunctions are heard in the district court by three judges, one being a circuit judge. These injunctions now go directly to the Supreme Court for review, and the bill continues that procedure. . .
See also Mr. Justice Van Devanter’s remarks at Hearing before House Committee on the Judiciary on H. R. 8206, 68th Cong., 2d Sess., p. 15.
See also 50 Stat. 752, 28 U. S. C. § 380a, providing that no interlocutory or permanent injunction restraining the enforcement of, or setting aside, any Act of Congress on the ground of unconstitutionality shall be issued by a district court, unless the application shall be presented to a circuit or district judge and shall be heard and determined by three judges, of whom at least one shall be a circuit judge.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Whittaker
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Among their various contentions, petitioners sought our writ of certiorari on the ground that, although finding that the State of Washington had discriminatorily, and therefore unconstitutionally, valued and taxed their federal Wherry Act leaseholds, the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, nevertheless, sustained and enforced those taxes. 276 F. 2d 836. We granted the writ, limited to that question. 364 U. S. 814. Understanding of our decision will require a brief statement of the relevant facts of the case.
Acting pursuant to the provisions of §§801 to 809 of Title VIII of the National Housing Act (12 U. S. C. (1958 ed.) §§ 1748, 1748a to 1748h-l), the Secretary of the Air Force, on behalf of the United States, entered into a separate lease, with each of Moses Lake Homes, Inc., Larsonaire Homes, Inc., and Larson Heights, Inc., Washington corporations, demising, in each instance, a particularly described tract of land, within the Larson Air Force Base in Grant County, Washington, for a term of 75 years, unless sooner terminated by the Government, for use as a housing project at a nominal rental of $100 per year.
The leases were on the same form, and each bound the lessee to erect on its leasehold a described housing project, and to maintain and operate it throughout the life of the lease. Each lease contemplated and provided that the lessee would raise the money necessary to construct the project by an F. H. A. insured mortgage loan on its leasehold and the improvements, to be serviced and amortized by the lessee out of its rents from the housing units, which were to be rented at such rates and to such military and civilian personnel as the Commanding Officer of the air base might designate. The leases further provided that the buildings and improvements, “as completed,” would become the property of the United States and so remain, regardless of any termination of the lease, without further compensation to the lessee.
With the proceeds of F. H. A. insured mortgage loans on their respective leaseholds and the improvements, aggregating more than $6,000,000, the lessees erected the respective housing projects and undertook their management and operation as agreed in the leases.
In June 1964, the Grant County assessor placed the Moses Lake leasehold on his assessment list for taxation in the year 1955, but he did not then levy any tax against it. Moses Lake promptly sued for and obtained a decree in the Superior Court of the State enjoining the County from levying any taxes on its leasehold for the year 1955 and thereafter. Upon the County's appeal, the Supreme Court of Washington reversed on November 14, 1957, holding that the leasehold was taxable by the County, and further holding, upon its understanding of our opinion in Offutt Housing Co. v. Sarpy County, 351 U. S. 253, that it would be proper, for such purpose, to value the leasehold at “the full value of the buildings and improvements” thereon. Moses Lake Homes, Inc., v. Grant County, 51 Wash. 2d 285, 287, 317 P. 2d 1069, 1070.
Thereafter, in December 1957, the County valued these Wherry Act leaseholds on the basis of the full value of the buildings and improvements, and, acting under § 84.40.080, Revised Code of Washington, retrospectively assessed its taxes against the Moses Lake leasehold for the years 1955 through 1958, against the Larsonaire leasehold for the years 1956 through 1958, and against the Larson Heights leasehold for the years 1957 and 1958 as “omitted property” as authorized by that section. Later, the County assessed and levied its taxes against the leaseholds, on the same basis, for the year 1959.
On January 21, 1958, the County issued its distraints, and also its notices of sales of these leaseholds and the improvements thereon to be held on March 4, 1958, to satisfy its tax demands. Very soon thereafter, the United States instituted this condemnation action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington against the lessees and Grant County,. and on March 1, 1958, it filed therein its declaration of taking, and took, these leasehold estates — depositing in the registry of the court $253,000 as their estimated value — and thereupon, on motion of the United States, the court enjoined Grant County from proceeding with its tax sales pending final determination of the case.
By its answer, the County claimed, and asked the court to award it, the greater part of the deposit to satisfy its tax demands. The lessees disputed the County’s claim, contending, inter alia, that the asserted taxes were invalid because discriminatorily assessed in violation of § 511 of the Housing Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 1091, c. 1029, 42 U. S. C. (1958 ed.) § 1594, note) and in violation of the United States Constitution. That issue, among others, was litigated between those parties as adversary codefendants.
Although the District Court found that Washington’s “taxes and assessments on Wherry housing [leaseholds] are . . . levied upon a basis different and higher than [other leaseholds],” it, nevertheless, held that, but for the state court injunction, the 1955 and 1956 taxes against the Moses Lake leasehold would have been validly assessed and levied before the effective period of § 511 of the Housing Act of 1956 (June 15, 1956), and it allowed those items of the County’s claim; but it denied all other items of the claim. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit “sustained [the District] court’s finding that the method used in assessing the Moses Lake leaseholds resulted in a higher tax than would have been true in the case of a non-Wherry Act leasehold,” 276 F. 2d, at 847, but it held that “the fact that the taxes are higher does not invalidate the entire tax. It only requires that the amount collectible be reduced to what it would have been if the tax had been levied on a non-Wherry Act leasehold basis,” 276 F. 2d, at 847, and — otherwise upholding the County’s levies against the Moses Lake leasehold for the years 1955, 1956 and 1957 — it remanded the case to the District Court to make the proper reduction in the amount of those taxes, and also for further proceedings respecting the other taxpayers and-tax years involved, except it held that the 1959 taxes were invalid because levied on the leaseholds after the United States had acquired them.
In addition to the weight properly to be accorded to the conclusions of the two courts below that Washington imposes a higher tax on Wherry Act leaseholds than on other similar leaseholds, it is eminently clear that this is so. Section 84.40.030 of the Revised Code of Washington provides that all property shall be assessed at 50 percent of its fair value, and that “Taxable leasehold estates shall be valued at such price as they would bring at a fair, voluntary sale for cash.” Consonant with that statute, the Washington Supreme Court has consistently held, save as to Wherry Act leaseholds, that all leaseholds, including leaseholds on the State’s own tax-exempt lands, are to be valued for tax purposes on the basis of their fair market value, considering their burdens as well as their benefits. Metropolitan Building Co. v. King County, 72. Wash. 47, 129 P. 883; Metropolitan Building Co. v. King County, 64 Wash. 615, 117 P. 495; Metropolitan Building Co. v. King County, 62 Wash. 409, 113 P. 1114. And see Bellingham Community Hotel Co. v. Whatcom County, 190 Wash. 609, 612-613, 70 P. 2d 301, 303, and Dexter Horton Bldg. Co. v. King County, 10 Wash. 2d 186, 116 P. 2d 507.
Even the facts of the Metropolitan cases are remarkably similar to the facts here. There the Metropolitan Company acquired a 50-year lease of land owned by the State. As required by the lease, the lessee erected very substantial improvements upon the land — funding their cost with a large issue of mortgage bonds — which improvements, immediately upon completion, became the property of the State. In the first of those cases, 62 Wash. 409, 113 P. 1114, the Court held that the leasehold should not be assessed at a “speculative” value, but at its “actual . . . value in money . . . ,” and that it was error to assess it at the value of the improvements. In the two later Metropolitan cases (64 Wash. 615, 117 P. 495; 72 Wash. 47, 129 P. 883), the court emphasized that, in determining the fair market value of the leasehold, consideration must be given to its burdens, including mortgages upon it, as well as to its benefits.
Yet, without overruling or departing those cases with respect to state-created leaseholds, the Washington Supreme Court held in Moses Lake Homes, Inc., v. Grant County, 51 Wash. 2d 285, 317 P. 2d 1069, that Wherry Act leaseholds are taxable at “the full value of the buildings and improvements” thereon. It felt bound, as it said, to apply that special valuation rule to Wherry Act leaseholds because of our opinion in Offutt Housing Co. v. Sarpy County, 351 U. S. 253. In this, the Washington Supreme Court mistakenly read and misapplied the Offutt case. Nothing in that case requires the States to assess Wherry Act leaseholds on the basis of the value of the improvements thereon. In this respect, it holds only that such a valuation is not unconstitutional per se. That case did not involve any issue or question of discrimination. It involved the law of Nebraska which requires all leaseholds in tax-exempt property to be assessed at the full value of the buildings and improvements thereon, and the Offutt case held that such might constitutionally be done. It did not hold, as the Supreme Court of Washington has construed it in the Moses Lake case, that a State might constitutionally discriminate against leaseholds on federally owned lands in favor of leaseholds on state-owned lands.
If anything is settled in the law, it is that a State may not discriminate against the Federal Government or its lessees. See, e. g., Phillips Co. v. Dumas School District, 361 U. S. 376; United States v. City of Detroit, 355 U. S. 466, 473; City of Detroit v. Murray Corp., 355 U. S. 489. In United States v. City of Detroit, supra, we said:
“It still remains true, as it has from the beginning, that a tax may be invalid even though it does not fall directly on the United States if it operates so as to discriminate against the Government or those with whom it deals.” 355 U. S., at 473.
The Dumas case, supra, is closely in point and controlling. There the State of Texas taxed the leasehold estate of a government lessee at the “full value of the leased premises” (361 U. S., at 378), while it imposed “a distinctly lesser burden on similarly situated lessees of exempt property owned by the State and its political subdivisions.” 361 U. S., at 379. We there said, “[I]t does not seem too much to require that the State treat those who deal with the Government as well as it treats those with whom it deals itself,” 361 U. S., at 385, and we held the tax to be void because it “discriminates unconstitutionally against the United States and its lessees.” 361 U. S., at 379. That case is indistinguishable from this one on the point here.
The Court of Appeals was also in error in holding that “the fact that the taxes are higher does not invalidate the entire tax [but] only requires that the amount collectible be reduced to what it would have been if the tax had been levied on a non-Wherry Act leasehold basis” (276 F. 2d, at 847), and in remanding the case to the District Court to make the necessary adjustment. We held in the Dumas case, supra, that a discriminatory tax is void and “may not be exacted.” 361 U. S., at 387. The effect of the Court's remand was to direct the District Court to decree a valid tax for the invalid one which the State had attempted to exact. The District Court has no power so to decree. Federal courts may not assess or levy taxes. Only the appropriate taxing officials of Grant County may assess and levy taxes on these leaseholds, and the federal courts may determine, within their jurisdiction, only whether the tax levied by those officials is or is not a valid one. When, as here, the tax is invalid, it “may not be exacted.” Phillips Co. v. Dumas School District, 361 U. S., at 387.
Nor is there any merit in respondent’s contention that the opinion and judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington in the Moses Lake case, supra, is res judicata of the County’s tax claims against the Moses Lake leasehold for at least the years 1955 and 1956. This is so because no tax whatever had then been assessed and levied against the Moses Lake leasehold, and hence no issue of discrimination was or could have been presented and adjudicated in that case.
Inasmuch as the taxes, presently assessed and levied, discriminate unconstitutionally against the United States and its lessees, they are void, and hence may not be exacted.
Reversed.
The Moses Lake lease was entered into on May 31, 1950, the Larsonaire lease on August 6, 1953, and the Larson Heights lease on August 2,1954.
Section 84.40.080 of the Revised Code of Washington provides, in relevant part, as follows:
“The assessor . . . shall enter in the detail and assessment list of the current year any property shown to have been omitted from the assessment list of any preceding year, at the valuation of that year, or if not then valued, at such valuation as the assessor shall determine from the preceding year .... When such an omitted assessment is made, the taxes levied thereon may be paid within one year of the due date of the taxes for the year in which the assessment is made without penalty or interest.”
The County’s tax claims against petitioners’ leaseholds were as follows: Moses Lake, $142,285.73; Larsonaire, $68,838; and Larson Heights, $47,088.
The deposited sum of $253,000 was allocated among the three petitioners as follows: Moses Lake, $126,500; Larsonaire, $65,300; and Larson Heights, $61,200. Thus, the County’s claims against the Moses Lake and Larsonaire leaseholders were greater than the amount deposited by the United States as their reasonable value. See note 3. Had the County been successful on all items of its claim, it would have received all but $14,112 of the deposited sum.
See note 4.
Section 408 of the Housing Amendments of 1955, as amended by § 511 of the Housing Act of 1956 (70 Stat. 1091, c. 1029, 42 U. S. C. (1958 ed.) § 1594, note), contains the following relevant provision:
"... Nothing contained in the provisions of title VIII of the National Housing Act in effect prior to August 11, 1955, or any related provision of law, shall be construed to exempt from State or local taxes or assessments the interest of a lessee from the Federal Government in or with respect to any property covered by a mortgage insured under such provisions of title VIII: Provided, That, no such taxes or assessments (not paid or encumbering such property or interest prior to June 15, 1956) on the interest of such lessee shall exceed the amount of taxes or assessments on other similar property of similar value . . . .”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | H | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U. S. 385, 394 (1997), we held that so-called “no-knoek” entries are justified when police officers have a “reasonable suspicion” that knocking and announcing their presence before entering would “be dangerous or futile, or .. . inhibit the effective investigation of the crime.” In this ease, we must decide whether the Fourth Amendment holds officers to a higher standard than this when a “no-knoek” entry results in the destruction of property. We hold that it does not.
Alan Shelby was a prisoner serving concurrent state and federal sentences in the Oregon state prison system. On November 1,1994, the Tillamook County Sheriff’s Office took temporary custody of Shelby, expecting to transport him to the Tillamook County Courthouse, where he was scheduled to testify. On the way to the courthouse, Shelby slipped his handcuffs, knocked over a deputy sheriff, and escaped from custody.
It was not the first time Shelby had attempted escape. In 1991 he struck an officer, kicked out a jail door, assaulted a woman, stole her vehicle, and used it to ram a police vehicle. Another time he attempted escape by using a rope made from torn bedsheets. He was reported to have made threats to kill witnesses and police officers, to have tortured people with a hammer, and to have said that he would “ ‘not do federal time.’” App. to Pet. for Cert. 38a. It was also thought that Shelby had had access to large supplies of weapons.
Shortly after learning of Shelby’s escape, the authorities sent out a press release, seeking information that would lead to his recapture. On November 3, a reliable confidential informant told Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms Agent George Kim that on the previous day he had seen a person he believed to be Shelby at respondent Hernán Ramirez’s home in Boring, Oregon. Kim and the informant then drove to an area near respondent’s home, from where Kim observed a man working outside who resembled Shelby.
Based on this information, a Deputy United States Marshal sought and received a “no-knock” warrant granting permission to enter and search Ramirez’s home. Around this time, the confidential informant also told authorities that respondent might have a stash of guns and drugs hidden in his garage. In the early morning of November 5, approximately 45 officers gathered to execute the warrant. The officers set up a portable loudspeaker system and began announcing that they had a search warrant. Simultaneously, they broke a single window in the garage and pointed a gun through the opening, hoping thereby to dissuade any of the occupants from rushing to the weapons the officers believed might be in the garage.
Respondent and his family were asleep inside the house at the time this activity began. Awakened by the noise, respondent believed that they were being burglarized. He ran to his utility closet, grabbed a pistol, and fired it into the ceiling of his garage. The officers fired back and shouted “police.” At that point respondent realized that it was law enforcement officers who were trying to enter his home. He ran to the living room, threw his pistol away, and threw himself onto the floor. Shortly thereafter, he, his wife, and their child left the house and were taken into police custody. Respondent waived his Miranda rights, and then admitted that he had fired the weapon, that he owned both that gun and another gun that was inside the house, and that he was a convicted felon. Officers soon obtained another search warrant, which they used to return to the house and retrieve the two guns. Shelby was not found.
Respondent was subsequently indicted for being a felon in possession of firearms. 18 U. S. C. § 922(g)(1). The District Court granted his motion to suppress evidence regarding his possession of the weapons, ruling that the police officers had violated both the Fourth Amendment and 18 U. S. C. § 8109 because there were “insufficient exigent circumstances” to justify the police officers’ destruction of property in their execution of the warrant. App. to Pet. for Cert. 34a.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. 91 F. 3d 1297 (1996). Applying Circuit precedent, that court concluded that while a “mild exigency” is sufficient to justify a no-knoek entry that can be accomplished without the destruction of property, “ 'more specific inferences of exigency are necessary’ ” when property is destroyed. Id., at 1301. It held that this heightened standard had not been met on the facts of this case. We granted certiorari and now reverse. 521 U. S. 1103 (1997).
In two recent eases we have considered whether and to what extent “no-knock” entries implicate the protections of the Fourth Amendment. In Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U. S. 927 (1995), we reviewed the Arkansas Supreme Court’s holding that the common-law requirement that police officers knock and announce their presence before entering played no role in Fourth Amendment analysis. We rejected that conclusion, and held instead that “in some circumstances an officer’s unannounced entry into a home might be unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Id., at 934. We were careful to note, however, that there was no rigid rule requiring announcement in all instances, and left “to the lower courts the task of determining the circumstances under which an unannounced entry is reasonable under the Fourth Amendment.” Id., at 934, 936.
In Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U. S. 385 (1997), the Wisconsin Supreme Court held that police officers executing search warrants in felony drug investigations were never required to knock and announce their presence. We concluded that this blanket rule was overly broad and held instead that “[i]n order to justify a 'no-knock’ entry, the police must have a reasonable suspicion that knocking and announcing them presence, under the particular circumstances, would be dangerous or futile, or that it would inhibit the effective investigation of the crime by, for example, allowing the destruction of evidence.” Id., at 394.
Neither of these cases explicitly addressed the question whether the lawfulness of a no-knock entry depends on whether property is damaged in the course of the entry. It is obvious from their holdings, however, that it does not. Under Richards, a no-knoek entry is justified if police have a “reasonable suspicion” that knocking and announcing would be dangerous, futile, or destructive to the purposes of the investigation. Whether such a “reasonable suspicion” exists depends in no way on whether police must destroy property in order to enter.
This is not to say that the Fourth Amendment speaks not at all to the manner of executing a search warrant. The general touchstone of reasonableness which governs Fourth Amendment analysis, see Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U. S. 106, 108-109 (1977) (per curiam), governs the method of execution of the warrant. Excessive or unnecessary destruction of property in the course of a search may violate the Fourth Amendment, even though the entry itself is lawful and the fruits of the search are not subject to suppression.
Applying these principles to the facts at hand, we conclude that no Fourth Amendment violation occurred. A reliable confidential informant had notified the police that Alan Shelby might be inside respondent’s home, and an officer had confirmed this possibility. Shelby was a prison escapee with a violent past who reportedly had access to a large supply of weapons. He had vowed that he would “‘not do federal time.’” The police certainly had a “reasonable suspicion” that knocking and announcing their presence might be dangerous to themselves or to others.
As for the manner in which the entry was accomplished, the police here broke a single window in respondent’s garage. They did so because they wished to discourage Shelby, or any other occupant of the house, from rushing to the weapons that the informant had told them respondent might have kept there. Their conduct was clearly reasonable and we conclude that there was no Fourth Amendment violation.
Respondent also argues, however, that suppression is appropriate because the officers executing the warrant violated 18 U. S. C. §3109. This statutory argument fares no better. Section 3109 provides:
"The officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house, or any part of a house, or anything therein, to execute a search warrant, if, after notice of his authority and purpose, he is refused admittance or when necessary to liberate himself or a person aiding him in the execution of the warrant.”
Respondent contends that the statute specifies the only circumstances under which an officer may damage property in executing a search warrant, and that it therefore forbids all other property-damaging entries.
But by its terms § 3109 prohibits nothing. It merely authorizes officers to damage property in certain instances. Even accepting, arguendo, that the statute implicitly forbids some of what it does not expressly permit, it is of no help to respondent. In Miller v. United States, 357 U. S. 301, 313 (1958), we noted that §3109’s "requirement of prior notice . .. before forcing entry ... codif[ied] a tradition embedded in Anglo-American law.” We repeated this point in Sabbath v. United States, 391 U. S. 585, 591, n. 8 (1968) (referring to §3109 as “codification” of the common law). In neither of these cases, however, did we expressly hold that §3109 also codified the exceptions to the common-law requirement of notice before entry. In Miller the Government made “no claim ... of the existence of circumstances excusing compliance” and the question was accordingly not before us. 357 U. S., at 309. In Sabbath the Government did make such a claim, but because the record did “not reveal any substantial basis for the failure of the agents ... to announce their authority” we did not decide the question. We did note, however, that “[e]xceptions to any possible constitutional rule relating to announcement and entry have been recognized . . . and there is little'reason why those limited exceptions might not also apply to § 3109, since they existed at common law, of which the statute is a codification.” 391 U. S., at 591, n. 8.
In this case the question is squarely presented. We remove whatever doubt may remain on the subject and hold that §3109 codifies the exceptions to the common-law announcement requirement. If § 3109 codifies the common law in this area, and the common law in turn informs the Fourth Amendment, our decisions in Wilson and Richards serve as guideposts in construing the statute. In Wilson v. Arkansas, 514 U. S. 927 (1995), we concluded that the common-law principle of announcement is “an element of the reasonableness inquiry under the Fourth Amendment,” but noted that the principle “was never stated as an inflexible rule requiring announcement under all circumstances.” Id., at 934. In Richards v. Wisconsin, 520 U. S. 385 (1997), we articulated the test used to determine whether exigent circumstances justify a particular no-knock entry. Id., at 394. We therefore hold that § 3109 includes an exigent circumstances exception and that the exception’s applicability in a given instance is measured by the same standard we articulated in Richards. The police met that standard here and § 3109 was therefore not violated.
We accordingly reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
It should be noted that our opinion in Richards came down after the Court of Appeals issued its opinion in this case.
It is of no consequence that Shelby was not found. “[I]n determining the lawfulness of entry and the existence of probable cause we may concern ourselves only with what the officers had reason to believe at the time of their entry.” Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23, 40-41, n. 12 (1963) (opinion of Clark, J.) (emphasis in original).
After concluding that the Fourth Amendment had been violated in this case, the Ninth Circuit farther concluded that the guns should be excluded from evidence. Because we conclude that there was no Fourth Amendment violation, we need not decide whether, for example, there was sufficient causal relationship between the breaking of the window and the discovery of the guns to warrant suppression of the evidence. Cf. Nix v. Williams, 467 U. S. 431 (1984); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471 (1963).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | 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 motions to affirm are granted and. the judgments are affirmed.
Mr. Justice White and Mr. Justice Goldberg join the affirmance in No. 623 since it is their understanding that it in no way interferes with the power of the District Court, in the light of circumstances as they may develop, to vacate or .otherwise modify its order requiring an election in the fall of 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: | 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.
An Iowa trial jury found the respondent, Robert Williams, guilty of murder. The judgment of conviction was affirmed in the Iowa Supreme Court by a closely divided vote. In a subsequent habeas corpus proceeding a Federal District Court ruled that under the United States Constitution Williams is entitled to a new trial, and a divided Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit agreed. The question before us is whether the District Court and the Court of Appeals were wrong.
I
On the afternoon of December 24, 1968, a 10-year-old girl named Pamela Powers went with her family to the YMCA in Des Moines, Iowa, to watch a wrestling tournament in which her brother was participating. When she failed to return from a trip to the washroom, a search for her began. The search was unsuccessful.
Robert Williams, who had recently escaped from a mental hospital, was a resident of the YMCA. Soon after the girl’s disappearance Williams was seen in the YMCA lobby carrying some clothing and a large bundle wrapped in a blanket. He obtained help from a 14-year-old boy in opening the street door of the YMCA and the door to his automobile parked outside. When Williams placed the bundle in the front seat of his car the boy “saw two legs in it and they were skinny and white.” Before anyone could see what was in the bundle Williams drove away. His abandoned car was found the following day in Davenport, Iowa, roughly 160 miles east of Des Moines. A warrant was then issued in Des Moines for his arrest on a charge of abduction.
On the morning of December 26, a Des Moines lawyer named Henry McKnight went to the Des Moines police station and informed the officers present that he had just received a long-distance call from Williams, and that he had advised Williams to turn himself in to the Davenport police. Williams did surrender that morning to the police in Davenport, and they booked him on the charge specified in the arrest warrant and gave him the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436. The Davenport police then telephoned their counterparts in Des Moines to inform them that Williams had surrendered. McKnight, the lawyer, was still at the Des Moines police headquarters, and Williams conversed with McKnight on the telephone. In the presence of the Des Moines chief of police and a police detective named Leaming, McKnight advised Williams that Des Moines police officers would be driving to Davenport to pick him up, that the officers would not interrogate him or mistreat him, and that Williams was not to talk to the officers about Pamela Powers until after consulting with McKnight upon his return to Des Moines. As a result of these conversations, it was agreed between McKnight and the Des Moines police officials that Detective Leaming and a fellow officer would drive to Davenport to pick up Williams, that they would bring him directly back to Des Moines, and that they would not question him during the trip.
In the meantime Williams was arraigned before a judge in Davenport on the outstanding arrest warrant. The judge advised him of his Miranda rights and committed him to jail. Before leaving the courtroom, Williams conferred with a lawyer named Kelly, who advised him not to make any statements until consulting with McKnight back in Des Moines.
Detective Leaming and his fellow officer arrived in Davenport about noon to pick up Williams and return him to Des Moines. Soon after their arrival they met with Williams and Kelly, who, they understood, was acting as Williams’ lawyer. Detective Leaming repeated the Miranda warnings, and told Williams:
“[W]e both know that you’re being represented here by Mr. Kelly and you’re being represented by Mr. McKnight in Des Moines, and ... I want you to remember this because we’ll be visiting between here and Des Moines.”
Williams then conferred again with Kelly alone, and after this conference Kelly reiterated to Detective Leaming that Williams was not to be questioned about the disappearance of Pamela Powers until after he had consulted with McKnight back in Des Moines. When Leaming expressed some reservations, Kelly firmly stated that the agreement with McKnight was to be carried out—that there was to be no interrogation of Williams during the automobile journey to Des Moines. Kelly was denied permission to ride in the police car back to Des Moines with Williams and the two officers.
The two detectives, with Williams in their charge, then set out on the 160-mile drive. At no time during the trip did Williams express a willingness to be interrogated in the absence of an attorney. Instead, he stated several times that “[w]hen I get to Des Moines and see Mr. McKnight, I am going to tell you the whole story.” Detective Leaming knew that Williams was a former mental patient, and knew also that he was deeply religious.
The detective and his prisoner soon embarked on a wideranging conversation covering a variety of topics, including the subject of religion. Then, not long after leaving Davenport and reaching the interstate highway, Detective Leaming delivered what has been referred to in the briefs and oral arguments as the “Christian burial speech.” Addressing Williams as “Reverend,” the detective said:
“I want to give you something to think about while we’re traveling down the road. . . . Number one, I want you to observe the weather conditions, it’s raining, it’s sleeting, it’s freezing, driving is very treacherous, visibility is poor, it’s going to be dark early this evening. They are predicting several inches of snow for tonight, and I feel that you yourself are the only person that knows where this little girl’s body is, that you yourself have only been there once, and if you get a snow on top of it you yourself may be unable to find it. And, since we will be going right past the area on the way into Des Moines, I feel that we could stop and locate the body, that the parents of this little girl should be entitled to a Christian burial for the little girl who was snatched away from them on Christmas [E]ve and murdered. And I feel we should stop and locate it on the way in rather than waiting until morning and trying to come back out after a snow storm and possibly not being able to find it at all.”
Williams asked Detective Leaming why he thought their route to Des Moines would be taking them past the girl’s body, and Leaming responded that he knew the body was in the area of Mitchellville—a town they would be passing on the way to Des Moines. Leaming then stated: “I do not want you to answer me. I don’t want to discuss it any further. Just think about it as we’re riding down the road.”
As the car approached Grinnell, a town approximately 100 miles west of Davenport, Williams asked whether the police had found the victim’s shoes. When Detective Leaming replied that he was unsure, Williams directed the officers to a service station where he said he had left the shoes; a search for them proved unsuccessful. As they continued towards Des Moines, Williams asked whether the police had found the blanket, and directed the officers to a rest area where he said he had disposed of the blanket. Nothing was found. The car continued towards Des Moines, and as it approached Mitchellville, Williams said that he would show the officers where the body was. He then directed the police to the body of Pamela Powers.
Williams was indicted for first-degree murder. Before trial, his counsel moved to suppress all evidence relating to or resulting from any statements Williams had made during the automobile ride from Davenport to Des Moines. After an evidentiary hearing the trial judge denied the motion. He found that “an agreement was made between defense counsel and the police officials to the effect that the Defendant was not to be questioned on the return trip to Des Moines,” and that the evidence in question had been elicited from Williams during “a critical stage in the proceedings requiring the presence of counsel on his request.” The judge ruled, however, that Williams had “waived his right to have an attorney present during the giving of such information.”
The evidence in question was introduced over counsel’s continuing objection at the subsequent trial. The jury found Williams guilty of murder, and the judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Iowa Supreme Court, a bare majority of whose members agreed with the trial court that Williams had “waived his right to the presence of his counsel” on the automobile ride from Davenport to Des Moines. State v. Williams, 182 N. W. 2d 396, 402. The four dissenting justices expressed the view that “when counsel and police have agreed defendant is not to be questioned until counsel is present and defendant has been advised not to talk and repeatedly has stated he will tell the whole story after he talks with counsel, the state should be required to make a stronger showing of intentional voluntary waiver than was made here.” Id., at 408.
Williams then petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Iowa. Counsel for the State and for Williams stipulated that “the case would be submitted on the record of facts and proceedings in the trial court, without taking of further testimony.” The District Court made findings of fact as summarized above, and concluded as a matter of law that the evidence in question had been wrongly admitted at Williams’ trial. This conclusion was based on three alternative and independent grounds: (1) that Williams had been denied his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel; (2) that he had been denied the constitutional protections defined by this Court’s decisions in Escobedo v. Illinois, 378 U. S. 478, and Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436; and (3) that in any event, his self-incriminatory statements on the automobile trip from Davenport to Des Moines had been involuntarily made. Further, the District Court ruled that there had been no waiver by Williams of the constitutional protections in question. 375 F. Supp. 170.
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, with one judge dissenting, affirmed this judgment, 509 F. 2d 227, and denied a petition for rehearing en banc. We granted certiorari to consider the constitutional issues presented. 423 U. S. 1031.
II
A
Before turning to those issues, we must consider the petitioner’s threshold claim that the District Court disregarded the provisions of 28 U. S. C. § 2254 (d) in making its findings of fact in this case. That statute, which codifies most of the criteria set out in Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293, provides that, subject to enumerated exceptions, federal habeas corpus courts shall accept as correct the factual determinations made by the courts of the States.
We conclude that there was no disregard of § 2254 (d) in this case. Although either of the parties might well have requested an evidentiary hearing in the federal habeas corpus proceedings, Townsend v. Sain, supra, at 322, they both instead voluntarily agreed in advance that the federal court should decide the case on the record made in the courts of the State. In so proceeding, the District Court made no findings of fact in conflict with those of the Iowa courts. The District Court did make some additional findings of fact based upon its examination of the state-court record, among them the findings that Kelly, the Davenport lawyer, had requested permission to ride in the police car from Davenport to Des Moines and that Detective Leaming had refused this request. But the additional findings were conscientiously and carefully explained by the District Court, 375 F. Supp., at 175-176, and were reviewed and approved by the Court of Appeals, which expressly held that “the District Court correctly applied 28 U. S. C. § 2254 in its resolution of the disputed evidentiary facts, and that the facts as found by the District Court had substantial basis in the record,” 509 F. 2d, at 231. The strictures of 28 U. S. C. § 2254 (d) require no more.
B
As stated above, the District Court based its judgment in this case on three independent grounds. The Court of Appeals appears to have affirmed the judgment on two of those grounds. We have concluded that only one of them need be considered here.
Specifically, there is no need to review in this case the doctrine of Miranda v. Arizona, a doctrine designed to secure the constitutional privilege against compulsory self-incrimination, Michigan v. Tucker, 417 U. S. 433, 438-439. It is equally unnecessary to evaluate the ruling of the District Court that Williams’ self-incriminating statements were, indeed, involuntarily made. Cf. Spano v. New York, 360 U. S. 315. For it is clear that the judgment before us must in any event be affirmed upon the ground that Williams was deprived of a different right—constitutional right—the right to the assistance of counsel.
This right, guaranteed by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments, is indispensable to the fair administration of our adversary system of criminal justice. Its vital need at the pretrial stage has perhaps nowhere been more succinctly explained than in Mr. Justice Sutherland’s memorable words for the Court 44 years ago in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45, 57:
“[D]uring perhaps the most critical period of the proceedings against these defendants, that is to say, from the time of their arraignment until the beginning of their trial, when consultation, thoroughgoing investigation and preparation were vitally important, the defendants did not have the aid of counsel in any real sense, although they were as much entitled to such aid during that period as at the trial itself.”
There has occasionally been a difference of opinion within the Court as to the peripheral scope of this constitutional right. See Kirby v. Illinois, 406 U. S. 682; Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U. S. 1. But its basic contours, which are identical in state and federal contexts, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335; Argersinger v. Hamlin, 407 U. S. 25, are too well established to require extensive elaboration here. Whatever else it may mean, the right to counsel granted by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments means at least that a person is entitled to the help of a lawyer at or after the time that judicial proceedings have been initiated against him—“whether by way of formal charge, preliminary hearing, indictment, information, or arraignment.” Kirby v. Illinois, supra, at 689. See Powell v. Alabama, supra; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458; Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U. S. 52; Gideon v. Wainwright, supra; White v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 59; Massiah v. United States, 377 U. S. 201; United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218; Gilbert v. California, 388 U. S. 263; Coleman v. Alabama, supra.
There can be no doubt in the present case that judicial proceedings had been initiated against Williams before the start of the automobile ride from Davenport to Des Moines. A warrant had been issued for his arrest, he had been arraigned on that warrant before a judge in a Davenport courtroom, and he had been committed by the court to confinement in jail. The State does not contend otherwise.
There can be no serious doubt, either, that Detective Leaming deliberately and designedly set out to elicit information from Williams just as surely as—and perhaps more effectively than—if he had formally interrogated him. Detective Leaming was fully aware before departing for Des Moines that Williams was being represented in Davenport by Kelly and in Des Moines by McKnight. Yet he purposely sought during Williams’ isolation from his lawyers to obtain as much incriminating information as possible. Indeed, Detective Leaming conceded as much when he testified at Williams’ trial:
“Q. In fact, Captain, whether he was a mental patient or not, you were trying to get all the information you could before he got to his lawyer, weren’t you?
“A. I was sure hoping to find out where that little girl was, yes, sir.
“Q. Well, I’ll put it this way: You was [sic] hoping to get all the information you could before Williams got back to McKnight, weren’t you?
“A. Yes, sir.”
The state courts clearly proceeded upon the hypothesis that Detective Leaming’s “Christian burial speech” had been tantamount to interrogation. Both courts recognized that Williams had been entitled to the assistance of counsel at the time he made the incriminating statements. Yet no such constitutional protection would have come into play if there had been no interrogation.
The circumstances of this case are thus constitutionally indistinguishable from those presented in Massiah v. United States, supra. The petitioner in that case was indicted for violating the federal narcotics law. He retained a lawyer, pleaded not guilty, and was released on bail. While he was free on bail a federal agent succeeded by surreptitious means in listening to incriminating statements made by him. Evidence of these statements was introduced against the petitioner at his trial, and he was convicted. This Court reversed the conviction, holding “that the petitioner was denied the basic protections of that guarantee [the right to counsel] when there was used against him at his trial evidence of his own incriminating words, which federal agents had deliberately elicited from him after he had been indicted and in the absence of his counsel.” 377 U. S., at 206.
That the incriminating statements were elicited surreptitiously in the Massiah case, and otherwise here, is constitutionally irrelevant. See ibid.; McLeod v. Ohio, 381 U. S. 356; United States v. Crisp, 435 F. 2d 354, 358 (CA7); United States ex rel. O’Connor v. New Jersey, 405 F. 2d 632, 636 (CA3); Hancock v. White, 378 F. 2d 479 (CA1). Rather, the clear rule of Massiah is that once adversary proceedings have commenced against an individual, he has a right to legal representation when the government interrogates him. It thus requires no wooden or technical application of the Massiah doctrine to conclude that Williams was entitled to the assistance of counsel guaranteed to him by the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments.
III
The Iowa courts recognized that Williams had been denied the constitutional right to the assistance of counsel. They held, however, that he had waived that right during the course of the automobile trip from Davenport to Des Moines. The state trial court explained its determination of waiver as follows:
“The time element involved on the trip, the general circumstances of it, and more importantly the absence on the Defendant’s part of any assertion of his right or desire not to give information absent the presence of his attorney, are the main foundations for the Court’s conclusion that he voluntarily waived such right.”
In its lengthy opinion affirming this determination, the Iowa Supreme Court applied “the totality-of-circumstances test for a showing of waiver of constitutionally-protected rights in the absence of an express waiver,” and concluded that “evidence of the time element involved on the trip, the general circumstances of it, and the absence of any request or expressed desire for the aid of counsel before or at the time of giving information, were sufficient to sustain a conclusion that defendant did waive his constitutional rights as alleged.” 182 N. W. 2d, at 401, 402.
In the federal habeas corpus proceeding the District Court, believing that the issue of waiver was not one of fact but of federal law, held that the Iowa courts had “applied the wrong constitutional standards” in ruling that Williams had waived the protections that were his under the Constitution. 375 F. Supp., at 182. The court held “that it is the government which bears a heavy burden . . . but that is the burden which explicitly was placed on [Williams] by the state courts.” Ibid. (emphasis in original). After carefully reviewing the evidence, the District Court concluded:
“[U]nder the proper standards for determining waiver, there simply is no evidence to support a waiver. . . . [T]here is no affirmative indication . . . that [Williams] did waive his rights. . . . [T]he state courts' emphasis on the absence of a demand for counsel was not only legally inappropriate, but factually unsupportable as well, since Detective Leaming himself testified that [Williams], on several occasions during the trip, indicated that he would talk after he saw Mr. McKnight. Both these statements and Mr. Kelly's statement to Detective Leaming that [Williams] would talk only after seeing Mr. McKnight in Des Moines certainly were assertions of [Williams’] ‘right or desire not to give information absent the presence of his attorney . . . .' Moreover, the statements were obtained only after Detective Leaming’s use of psychology on a person whom he knew to be deeply religious and an escapee from a mental hospital—with the specific intent to elicit incriminating statements. In the face of this evidence, the State has produced no affirmative evidence whatsoever to support its claim of waiver, and, a fortiori, it cannot be said that the State has met its ‘heavy burden’ of showing a knowing and intelligent waiver of . . . Sixth Amendment rights.” Id., at 182-183 (emphasis in original; footnote omitted).
The Court of Appeals approved the reasoning of the District Court:
“A review of the record here . . . discloses no facts to support the conclusion of the state court that [Williams] had waived his constitutional rights other than that [he] had made incriminating statements. . . . The District Court here properly concluded that an incorrect constitutional standard had been applied by the state court in determining the issue of waiver. . . .
“[T]his court recently held that an accused can voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently waive his right to have counsel present at an interrogation after counsel has been appointed. . . . The prosecution, however, has the weighty obligation to show that the waiver was knowingly and intelligently made. We quite agree with Judge Hanson that the state here failed to so show.” 509 F. 2d, at 233.
The District Court and the Court of Appeals were correct in the view that the question of waiver was not a question of historical fact, but one which, in the words of Mr. Justice Frankfurter, requires “application of constitutional principles to the facts as found . . . .” Brown v. Allen, 344 U. S. 443, 507 (separate opinion). See Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S., at 309 n. 6, 318; Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U. S. 1, 4.
The District Court and the Court of Appeals were also correct in their understanding of the proper standard to be applied in determining the question of waiver as a matter of federal constitutional law—that it was incumbent upon the State to prove “an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S., at 464. That standard has been reiterated in many cases. We have said that the right to counsel does not depend upon a request by the defendant, Carnley v. Cochran, 369 U. S. 506, 513; cf. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S., at 471, and that courts indulge in every reasonable presumption against waiver, e. g., Brookhart v. Janis, supra, at 4; Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60, 70. This strict standard applies equally to an alleged waiver of the right to counsel whether at trial or at a critical stage of pretrial proceedings. Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218, 238-240; United States v. Wade, 388 U. S., at 237.
We conclude, finally, that the Court of Appeals was correct in holding that, judged by these standards, the record in this case falls far short of sustaining petitioner’s burden. It is true that Williams had been informed of and appeared to understand his right to counsel. But waiver requires not merely comprehension but relinquishment, and Williams’ consistent reliance upon the advice of counsel in dealing with the authorities refutes any suggestion that he waived that right. He consulted McKnight by long-distance telephone before turning himself in. He spoke with McKnight by telephone again shortly after being booked. After he was arraigned, Williams sought out and obtained legal advice from Kelly. Williams again consulted with Kelly after Detective Leaming and his fellow officer arrived in Davenport. Throughout, Williams was advised not to make any statements before seeing McKnight in Des Moines, and was assured that the police had agreed not to question him. His statements while in the car that he would tell the whole story after seeing McKnight in Des Moines were the clearest expressions by Williams himself that he desired the presence of an attorney before any interrogation took place. But even before making these statements, Williams had effectively asserted his right to counsel by having secured attorneys at both ends of the automobile trip, both of whom, acting as his agents, had made clear to the police that no interrogation was to occur during the journey. Williams knew of that agreement and, particularly in view of his consistent reliance on counsel, there is no basis for concluding that he disavowed it.
Despite Williams’ express and implicit assertions of his right to counsel, Detective Leaming proceeded to elicit incriminating statements from Williams. Leaming did not preface this effort by telling Williams that he had a right to the presence of a lawyer, and made no effort at all to ascertain whether Williams wished to relinquish that right. The circumstances of record in this case thus provide no reasonable basis for finding that Williams waived his right to the assistance of counsel.
The Court of Appeals did not hold, nor do we, that under the circumstances of this case Williams could not, without notice to counsel, have waived his rights under the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments. It only held, as do we, that he did not.
IV
The crime of which Williams was convicted was senseless and brutal, calling for swift and energetic action by the police to apprehend the perpetrator and gather evidence with which he could be convicted. No mission of law enforcement officials is more important. Yet “[d]isinterested zeal for the public good does not assure either wisdom or right in the methods it pursues.” Haley v. Ohio, 332 U. S. 596, 605 (Frankfurter, J., concurring in judgment). Although we do not lightly affirm the issuance of a writ of habeas corpus in this case, so clear a violation of the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments as here occurred cannot be condoned. The pressures on state executive and judicial officers charged with the administration of the criminal law are great, especially when the crime is murder and the victim a small child. But it is precisely the predictability of those pressures that makes imperative a resolute loyalty to the guarantees that the Constitution extends to us all.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
The fact of the matter, of course, was that Detective Leaming possessed no such knowledge.
The opinion of the trial court denying Williams’ motion to suppress is unreported.
Title 28 U. S. C. § 2254 (d) provides:
“(d) In any proceeding instituted in a Federal court by an application for a writ of habeas corpus by a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court, a determination after a hearing on the merits of a factual issue, made by a State court of competent jurisdiction in a proceeding to which the applicant for the writ and the State or an officer or agent thereof were parties, evidenced by a written finding, written opinion, or other reliable and adequate written indicia, shall be presumed to be correct, unless the applicant shall establish or it shall otherwise appear, or the respondent shall admit—
“(1) that the merits of the factual dispute were not resolved in the State court hearing;
“(2) that the factfinding procedure employed by the State court was not adequate to afford a full and fair hearing;
“(3) that the material facts were not adequately developed at the State court hearing;
“(4) that the State court lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter or over the person of the applicant in the State court proceeding;
“(5) that the applicant was an indigent and the State court, in deprivation of his constitutional right, failed to appoint counsel to represent him in the State court proceeding;
“(6) that the applicant did not receive a full, fair, and adequate hearing in the State court proceeding; or
“(7) that the applicant was otherwise denied due process of law in the State court proceeding;
“(8) or unless that part of the record of the State court proceeding in which the determination of such factual issue was made, pertinent to a determination of the sufficiency of the evidence to support such factual determination, is produced as provided for hereinafter, and the Federal court on a consideration of such part of the record as a whole concludes that such factual determination is not fairly supported by the record:
“And in an evidentiary hearing in the proceeding in the Federal court, when due proof of such factual determination has been made, unless the existence of one or more of the circumstances respectively set forth in paragraphs numbered (1) to (7), inclusive, is shown by the applicant, otherwise appears, or is admitted by the respondent, or unless the court concludes pursuant to the provisions of paragraph numbered (8) that the record in the State court proceeding, considered as a whole, does not fairly support such factual determination, the burden shall rest upon the applicant to establish by convincing evidence that the factual determination by the State court was erroneous.”
Whether Williams waived his constitutional rights was not, of course, a question of fact, but an issue of federal law. See discussion, infra, at 401-404.
The Court of Appeals did not address the District Court’s ruling that Williams’ statements had been made involuntarily.
Counsel for petitioner, in the course of oral argument in this Court, acknowledged that the “Christian burial speech” was tantamount to interrogation:
“Q: But isn’t the point, really, Mr. Attorney General, what you indicated earlier, and that is that the officer wanted to elicit information from Williams—
“A: Yes, sir.
“Q: —by whatever techniques he used, I would suppose a lawyer would consider that he were pursuing interrogation.
“A: It is, but it was very brief.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 17.
The Iowa trial court expressly acknowledged Williams’ “right to have an attorney present during the giving of such information.” See supra, at 394. The Iowa Supreme Court also expressly acknowledged Williams’ “right to the presence of his counsel.” See ibid.
The only other significant factual difference between the present case and Massiah is that here the police had agreed that they would not interrogate Williams in the absence of his counsel. This circumstance plainly provides petitioner with no argument for distinguishing away the protection afforded by Massiah.
It is argued that this agreement may not have been an enforceable one. But we do not deal here with notions of offer, acceptance, consideration, or other concepts of the law of contracts. We deal with constitutional law. And every court that has looked at this case has found an "agreement” in the sense of a commitment made by the Des Moines police officers that Williams would not be questioned about Pamela Powers in the absence of his counsel.
See n. 7, supra.
Cf. Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U. S. 96, 110 n. 2 (White, J., concurring in result):
a[T]he reasons to keep the lines of communication between the authorities and the accused open when the accused has chosen to make his own decisions are not present when he indicates instead that he wishes legal advice with respect thereto. The authorities may then communicate with him through an attorney. More to the point, the accused having expressed his own view that he is not competent to deal with the authorities without legal advice, a later decision at the' authorities’ insistence to make a statement without counsel’s presence may properly be viewed with skepticism.”
Compare, e. g., United States v. Springer, 460 F. 2d 1344, 1350 (CA7); Wilson v. United States, 398 F. 2d 331 (CA5); Coughlan v. United States, 391 F. 2d 371 (CA9), with, e. g., United States v. Thomas, 474 F. 2d 110, 112 (CA10); United States v. Springer, supra, at 13541355 (Stevens, J., dissenting); United States ex rel. Magoon v. Reincke, 416 F. 2d 69 (CA2), aff’g 304 F. Supp. 1014 (Conn.). Cf. United States v. Pheaster, 544 F. 2d 353 (CA9).
The District Court stated that its decision “does not touch upon the issue of what evidence, if any, beyond the incriminating statements themselves must be excluded as 'fruit of the poisonous tree.’” 375 F. Supp. 170, 185. We, too, have no occasion to address this issue, and in the present posture of the case there is no basis for the view of our dissenting Brethren, post, at 430 (White, J.); post, at 441 (Blackmun, J.), that any attempt to retry the respondent would probably be futile. While neither Williams’ incriminating statements themselves nor any testimony describing his having led the police to the victim’s body can constitutionally be admitted into evidence, evidence of where the body was found and of its condition might well be admissible on the theory that the body would have been discovered in any event, even had incriminating statements not been elicited from Williams. Cf. Killough v. United States, 119 U. S. App. D. C. 10, 336 F. 2d 929. In the event that a retrial is instituted, it will be for the state courts in the first instance to determine whether particular items of evidence may be admitted.
The Court of Appeals suspended the issuance of the writ of habeas corpus for 60 days to allow an opportunity for a new trial, and further suspended its issuance pending disposition of the petition for a writ of certiorari in this Court. In affirming the judgment of the Court of Appeals, we further suspend the issuance of the writ of release from custody for 60 days from this date to allow the State of Iowa an opportunity to initiate a new trial, and judgment will be entered accordingly.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Respondent Musgrave, an employee of the Indiana State Highway Commission, was dismissed for cause, her request for a pretermination hearing having been denied. She then brought this 42 U. S. C. § 1983 suit asserting hearing rights rooted in the Federal Constitution and seeking damages and injunctive relief. The District Court held that the controlling state statutes, as yet un-construed by the state courts, might require the hearing-demanded by respondent and so obviate decision on the constitutional issue. It therefore abstained until construction of the Indiana statutes had been sought in the state courts. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed, finding nothing in the language of- the relevant state statutes that would support a claim for a pretermination hearing and then resolving the federal constitutional question in respondent's favor.
We reverse. Where the Indiana Administrative Adjudication Act is applicable, “[t]he final order or determination of any issue or case applicable to a particular person shall not be made except upon hearing and timely notice of the time, place and nature thereof.” Ind. Code § 4-22-1-5 (1974). The Act applies to all issues or cases applicable to particular persons “excluding . . . the dismissal or discharge of an officer or employee by a superior officer, but including hearings on discharge or dismissal of an officer or employee for cause where the law authorizes or directs such hearing.” § 4-22-1-2. It may be that the Court of Appeals is correct in its “forecast,” see Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496, 499 (1941), that when construed together by the state courts, the Administrative Adjudication Act and the Indiana Bipartisan Personnel System Act, which is applicable to Highway Commission employees and which neither expressly authorizes nor precludes termination hearings, would not require the hearing respondent has demanded. On the other hand, the relevant statutory provisions may fairly be read to extend such hearing rights to respondent; and in these circumstances we conclude that the District Court was right to abstain from deciding the federal constitutional issue pending resolution of the state-law question in the state courts. Meridian v. Southern Bell T. & T. Co., 358 U. S. 639, 640 (1959); Reetz v. Bozanich, 397 U. S. 82 (1970); Harman v. Forssenius, 380 U. S. 528 (1965); Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U. S. 41 (1970); Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co., supra.
The petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further consideration consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
The possibility that the Indiana state courts would adopt the construction contrary to that of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit is somewhat enhanced by the fact that the construction adopted by the Seventh Circuit may fairly be said to raise federal constitutional problems under recent procedural due process decisions of this Court, e. g., Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U. S. 134 (1974), particularly if, as the Seventh Circuit appears to have assumed, the Administrative Adjudication Act would leave respondent without a state-law right to a hearing at any time in connection with her dismissal for cause. The state courts may be reluctant to attribute to their legislature an intention to pass a statute raising constitutional problems, unless such legislative intent is particularly clear. See, e. g., Kent v. Dulles, 357 U. S. 116, 129-130 (1958); Johnson v. Robison, 415 U. S. 361, 366-367 (1974). See Field, Abstention in Constitutional Cases: The Scope of the Pullman Abstention Doctrine, 122 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1071, 1117-1118 (1974).
Although the question of respondent's federal constitutional right to a hearing at some time, in connection with a discharge for cause may already have been resolved in respondent's favor in Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593 (1972); Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564 (1972); and Arnett v. Kennedy, supra, the tenured employee’s right to a preremoval hearing has been determined by this Court only in the context of a statute providing notice and an opportunity to respond in writing before removal coupled with a full hearing after removal. See concurring opinion of Powell, J., in Arnett v. Kennedy, supra, at 164, 170.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented by this appeal is whether an apportionment plan for congressional districts satisfies Art. I, §2, of the Constitution without need for further justification if the population of the largest district is less than one percent greater than the population of the smallest district. A three-judge District Court declared New Jersey’s 1982 reapportionment plan unconstitutional on the authority of Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, 394 U. S. 526 (1969), and White v. Weiser, 412 U. S. 783 (1973), because the population deviations among districts, although small, were not the result of a good-faith effort to achieve population equality. We affirm.
I
After the results of the 1980 decennial census had been tabulated, the Clerk of the United States House of Representatives notified the Governor of New Jersey that the number of Representatives to which the State was entitled had decreased from 15 to 14. Accordingly, the New Jersey Legislature was required to reapportion the State’s congressional districts. The State’s 199th Legislature passed two reapportionment bills. One was vetoed by the Governor, and the second, although signed into law, occasioned significant dissatisfaction among those who felt it diluted minority voting strength in the city of Newark. See App. 83-84, 86-90. In response, the 200th Legislature returned to the problem of apportioning congressional districts when it convened in January 1982, and it swiftly passed a bill (S-711) introduced by Senator Feldman, President pro tem of the State Senate, which created the apportionment plan at issue in this case. The bill was signed by the Governor on January 19, 1982, becoming Pub. L. 1982, ch. 1 (hereinafter Feldman Plan). A map of the resulting apportionment is appended infra.
Like every plan considered by the legislature, the Feldman Plan contained 14 districts, with an average population per district (as determined by the 1980 census) of 526,059. Each district did not have the same population. On the average, each district differed from the “ideal” figure by 0.1384%, or about 726 people. The largest district, the Fourth District, which includes Trenton, had a population of 527,472, and the smallest, the Sixth District, embracing most of Middlesex County, a population' of 523,798. The difference between them was 3,674 people, or 0.6984% of the average district. The populations of the other districts also varied. The Ninth District, including most of Bergen County, in the northeastern corner of the State, had a population of 527,349, while the population of the Third District, along the Atlantic shore, was only 524,825. App. 124.
The legislature had before it other plans with appreciably smaller population deviations between the largest and smallest districts. The one receiving the most attention in the District Court was designed by Dr. Ernest Reock, Jr., a political science professor at Rutgers University and Director of the Bureau of Government Research. A version of the Reock Plan introduced in the 200th Legislature by Assemblyman Hardwick had a maximum population difference of 2,375, or 0.4514% of the average figure. Id., at 133.
Almost immediately after the Feldman Plan became law, a group of individuals with varying interests, including all incumbent Republican Members of Congress from New Jersey, sought a declaration that the apportionment plan violated Art. I, §2, of the Constitution and an injunction against proceeding with the primary election for United States Representatives under the plan. A three-judge District Court was convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2284(a). The District Court held a hearing on February 26, 1982, at which the parties submitted a number of depositions and affidavits, moved for summary judgment, and waived their right to introduce further evidence in the event the motions for summary judgment were denied.
Shortly thereafter, the District Court issued an opinion and order declaring the Feldman Plan unconstitutional. Denying the motions for summary judgment and resolving the case on the record as a whole, the District Court held that the population variances in the Feldman Plan were not “unavoidable despite a good-faith effort to achieve absolute equality,” see Kirkpatrick, supra, at 531. The court rejected appellants’ argument that a deviation lower than the statistical imprecision of the decennial census was “the functional equivalent of mathematical equality.” Daggett v. Kimmelman, 535 F. Supp. 978, 982-983 (NJ 1982). It also held that appellants had failed to show that the population variances were justified by the legislature’s purported goals of preserving minority voting strength and anticipating shifts in population. Ibid. The District Court enjoined appellants from conducting primary or general elections under the Feldman Plan, but that order was stayed pending appeal to this Court, 455 U. S. 1303 (1982) (Brennan, J., in chambers), and we noted probable jurisdiction, 457 U. S. 1131 (1982).
hH I — I
Article I, § 2, establishes a “high standard of justice and common sense” for the apportionment of congressional districts: “equal representation for equal numbers of people.” Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U. S. 1, 18 (1964). Precise mathematical equality, however, may be impossible to achieve in an imperfect world; therefore the “equal representation” standard is enforced only to the extent of requiring that districts be apportioned to achieve population equality “as nearly as is practicable.” See id., at 7-8, 18. As we explained further in Kirkpatrick v. Preisler:
“[T]he ‘as nearly as practicable’ standard requires that the State make a good-faith effort to achieve precise mathematical equality. See Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 577 (1964). Unless population variances among congressional districts are shown to have resulted despite such effort, the State must justify each variance, no matter how small.” 394 U. S., at 530-531.
Article I, §2, therefore, “permits only the limited population variances which are unavoidable despite a good-faith effort to achieve absolute equality, or for which justification is shown.” Id., at 531. Accord, White v. Weiser, 412 U. S., at 790.
Thus two basic questions shape litigation over population deviations in state legislation apportioning congressional districts. First, the court must consider whether the population differences among districts could have been reduced or eliminated altogether by a good-faith effort to draw districts of equal population. Parties challenging apportionment legislation must bear the burden of proof on this issue, and if they fail to show that the differences could have been avoided the apportionment scheme must be upheld. If, however, the plaintiffs can establish that the population differences were not the result of a good-faith effort to achieve equality, the State must bear the burden of proving that each significant variance between districts was necessary to achieve some legitimate goal. Kirkpatrick, 394 U. S., at 532; cf. Swann v. Adams, 385 U. S. 440, 443-444 (1967).
r-H h-1
Appellants principal argument in this case is addressed to the first question described above. They contend that the Feldman Plan should be regarded per se as the product of a good-faith effort to achieve population equality because the maximum population deviation among districts is smaller than the predictable undercount in available census data.
A
Kirkpatrick squarely rejected a nearly identical argument. “The whole thrust of the ‘as nearly as practicable’ approach is inconsistent with adoption of fixed numerical standards which excuse population variances without regard to the circumstances of each particular case.” 394 U. S., at 530; see White v. Weiser, supra, at 790, n. 8, and 792-793. Adopting any standard other than population equality, using the best census data available, see 394 U. S., at 532, would subtly erode the Constitution’s ideal of equal representation. If state legislators knew that a certain de minimis level of population differences was acceptable, they would doubtless strive to achieve that level rather than equality. Id., at 531. Furthermore, choosing a different standard would import a high degree of arbitrariness into the process of reviewing apportionment plans. Ibid. In this case, appellants argue that a maximum deviation of approximately 0.7% should be considered de minimis. If we accept that argument, how are we to regard deviations of 0.8%, 0.95%, 1%, or 1.1%?
Any standard, including absolute equality, involves a certain artificiality. As appellants point out, even the census data are not perfect, and the well-known restlessness of the American people means that population counts for particular localities are outdated long before they are completed. Yet problems with the data at hand apply equally to any population-based standard we could choose. As between two standards — equality or something less than equality — only the former reflects the aspirations of Art. I, § 2.
To accept the legitimacy of unjustified, though small population deviations in this case would mean to reject the basic premise of Kirkpatrick and Wesberry. We decline appellants’ invitation to go that far. The unusual rigor of their standard has been noted several times. Because of that rigor, we have required that absolute population equality be the paramount objective of apportionment only in the case of congressional districts, for which the command of Art. I, § 2, as regards the National Legislature outweighs the local interests that a State may deem relevant in apportioning districts for representatives to state and local legislatures, but we have not questioned the population equality standard for congressional districts. See, e. g., White v. Weiser, 412 U. S., at 793; White v. Regester, 412 U. S. 755, 763 (1973); Mahan v. Howell, 410 U. S. 315, 321-323 (1973). The principle of population equality for congressional districts has not proved unjust or socially or economically harmful in experience. Cf. Washington v. Dawson & Co., 264 U. S. 219, 237 (1924) (Brandeis, J., dissenting); B. Cardozo, The Nature of the Judicial Process 150 (1921). If anything, this standard should cause less difficulty now for state legislatures than it did when we adopted it in Wesberry. The rapid advances in computer technology and education during the last two decades make it relatively simple to draw contiguous districts of equal population and at the same time to further whatever secondary goals the State has. Finally, to abandon unnecessarily a clear and oft-confirmed constitutional interpretation would impair our authority in other cases, Florida Dept. of Health v. Florida Nursing Home Assn., 450 U. S. 147, 153-154 (1981) (Stevens, J., concurring); Pollock v. Farmers’ Loan & Trust Co., 157 U. S. 429, 652 (1895) (White, J., dissenting), would implicitly open the door to a plethora of requests that we reexamine other rules that some may consider burdensome, Cardozo, supra, at 149-150, and would prejudice those who have relied upon the rule of law in seeking an equipopulous congressional apportionment in New Jersey, see Florida Nursing Home Assn., supra, at 154 (Stevens, J., concurring). We thus reaffirm that there are no de minimis population variations, which could practicably be avoided, but which nonetheless meet the standard of Art. I, §2, without justification.
B
The sole difference between appellants’ theory and the argument we rejected in Kirkpatrick is that appellants have proposed a de minimis line that gives the illusion of rationality and predictability: the “inevitable statistical imprecision of the census.” They argue: “Where, as here, the deviation from ideal district size is less than the known imprecision of the census figures, that variation is the functional equivalent of zero.” Brief for Appellants 18. There are two problems with this approach. First, appellants concentrate on the extent to which the census systematically undercounts actual population — a figure which is not known precisely and which, even if it were known, would not be relevant to this case. Second, the mere existence of statistical imprecision does not make small deviations among districts the functional equivalent of equality.
In the District Court and before this Court, appellants rely exclusively on an affidavit of Dr. James Trussell, a Princeton University demographer. See App. 97-104. Dr. Trussell’s carefully worded statement reviews various studies of the undercounts in the 1950, 1960, and 1970 decennial censuses, and it draws three important conclusions: (1) “the undercount in the 1980 census is likely to be above one percent”; (2) “all the evidence to date indicates that all places are not under-counted to the same extent, since the undercount rate has been shown to depend on race, sex, age, income, and education”; and (3) “[t]he distribution of the undercount in New Jersey is... unknown, and I see no reason to believe that it would be uniformly spread over all municipalities.” Id., at 103-104. Assuming for purposes of argument that each of these statements is correct, they do not support appellants’ argument.
In essence, appellants’ one-percent benchmark is little more than an attempt to present an attractive de minimis line with a patina of scientific authority. Neither Dr. Trussell’s statement nor any of appellants’ other evidence specifies a precise level for the undercount in New Jersey, and Dr. Trussell’s discussion of the census makes clear that it is impossible to develop reliable estimates of the undercount on anything but a nationwide scale. See id., at 98-101. His conclusion that the 1980 undercount is “likely to be above one percent” seems to be based on the undercounts in previous censuses and a guess as to how well new procedures adopted in 1980 to reduce the undercount would work. Therefore, if we accepted appellants’ theory that the national undercount level sets a limit on our ability to use census data to tell the difference between the populations of congressional districts, we might well be forced to set that level far above one percent when final analyses of the 1980 census are completed.
As Dr. Trussell admits, id., at 103, the existence of a one-percent undercount would be irrelevant to population deviations among districts if the undercount were distributed evenly among districts. The undercount in the census affects the accuracy of the deviations between districts only to the extent that the undercount varies from district to district. For a one-percent undercount to explain a one-percent deviation between the census populations of two districts, the undercount in the smaller district would have to be approximately three times as large as the undercount in the larger district. It is highly unlikely, of course, that this condition holds true, especially since appellants have utterly failed to introduce evidence showing that the districts were designed to compensate for the probable undercount. Dr. Trussell’s affidavit states that the rate of undercounting may vary from municipality to municipality, but it does not discuss by how much it may vary, or to what extent those variations would be reflected at the district level, with many municipalities combined. Nor does the affidavit indicate that the factors associated with the rate of undercounting — race, sex, age, etc. — vary from district to district, or (more importantly) that the populations in the smaller districts reflect the relevant factors more than the populations in the larger districts. As Dr. Trussell admits, the distribution of the undercount in New Jersey is completely unknown. Only by bizarre coincidence could the systematic undercount in the census bear some statistical relationship to the districts drawn by the Feldman Plan.
The census may systematically undercount population, and the rate of undercounting may vary from place to place. Those facts, however, do not render meaningless the differences in population between congressional districts, as determined by uncorrected census counts. To the contrary, the census data provide the only reliable — albeit less than perfect — indication of the districts’ “real” relative population levels. Even if one cannot say with certainty that one district is larger than another merely because it has a higher census count, one can say with certainty that the district with a larger census count is more likely to be larger than the other district than it is to be smaller or the same size. That certainty is sufficient for decisionmaking. Cf. City of Newark v. Blumenthal, 457 F. Supp. 30, 34 (DC 1978). Furthermore, because the census count represents the “best population data available,” see Kirkpatrick, 394 U. S., at 528, it is the only basis for good-faith attempts to achieve population equality. Attempts to explain population deviations on the basis of flaws in census data must be supported with a precision not achieved here. See id., at 535.
C
Given that the census-based population deviations in the Feldman Plan reflect real differences among the districts, it is clear that they could have been avoided or significantly reduced with a good-faith effort to achieve population equality. For that reason alone, it would be inappropriate to accept the Feldman Plan as “functionally equivalent” to a plan with districts of equal population.
The District Court found that several other plans introduced in the 200th Legislature had smaller maximum deviations than the Feldman Plan. 535 F. Supp., at 982. Cf. White v. Weiser, 412 U. S., at 790, and n. 9. Appellants object that the alternative plans considered by the District Court were not comparable to the Feldman Plan because their political characters differed profoundly. See, e. g., App. 93-96 (affidavit of S. H. Woodson, Jr.) (arguing that alternative plans failed to protect the interests of black voters in the Trenton and Camden areas). We have never denied that apportionment is a political process, or that state legislatures could pursue legitimate secondary objectives as long as those objectives were consistent with a good-faith effort to achieve population equality at the same time. Nevertheless, the claim that political considerations require population differences among congressional districts belongs more properly to the second level of judicial inquiry in these cases, see infra, at 740-741, in which the State bears the burden of justifying the differences with particularity.
In any event, it was unnecessary for the District Court to rest its finding on the existence of alternative plans with radically different political effects. As in Kirkpatrick, “resort to the simple device of transferring entire political subdivisions of known population between contiguous districts would have produced districts much closer to numerical equality.” 394 U. S., at 532. Starting with the Feldman Plan itself and the census data available to the legislature at the time it was enacted, see App. 23-34, one can reduce the maximum population deviation of the plan merely by shifting a handful of municipalities from one district to another. See also Swann v. Adams, 385 U. S., at 445-446; n. 4, supra. Thus the District Court did not err in finding that the plaintiffs had met their burden of showing that the Feldman Plan did not come as nearly as practicable to population equality.
<1
By itself, the foregoing discussion does not establish that the Feldman Plan is unconstitutional. Rather, appellees’ success in proving that the Feldman Plan was not the product of a good-faith effort to achieve population equality means only that the burden shifted to the State to prove that the population deviations in its plan were necessary to achieve some legitimate state objective. White v. Weiser demonstrates that we are willing to defer to state legislative policies, so long as they are consistent with constitutional norms, even if they require small differences in the population of congressional districts. See 412 U. S., at 795-797; cf. Upham v. Seamon, 456 U. S. 87 (1982); Connor v. Finch, 431 U. S. 407, 414-415 (1977). Any number of consistently applied legislative policies might justify some variance, including, for instance, making districts compact, respecting municipal boundaries, preserving the cores of prior districts, and avoiding contests between incumbent Representatives. As long as the criteria are nondiscriminatory, see Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339 (1960), these are all legitimate objectives that on a proper showing could justify minor population deviations. See, e. g., West Virginia Civil Liberties Union v. Rockefeller, 336 F. Supp. 395, 398-400 (SD W. Va. 1972) (approving plan with 0.78% maximum deviation as justified by compactness provision in State Constitution); cf. Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 579 (1964); Burns v. Richardson, 384 U. S. 73, 89, and n. 16 (1966). The State must, however, show with some specificity that a particular objective required the specific deviations in its plan, rather than simply relying on general assertions. The showing required to justify population deviations is flexible, depending on the size of the deviations, the importance of the State’s interests, the consistency with which the plan as a whole reflects those interests, and the availability of alternatives that might substantially vindicate those interests yet approximate population equality more closely. By necessity, whether deviations are justified requires case-by-case attention to these factors.
The possibility that a State could justify small variations in the census-based population of its congressional districts on the basis of some legitimate, consistently applied policy was recognized in Kirkpatrick itself. In that case, Missouri advanced the theory, echoed by Justice White in dissent, see post, at 771-772, that district-to-district differences in the number of eligible voters, or projected population shifts, justified the population deviations in that case. 394 U. S., at 534-535. We rejected its arguments not because those factors were impermissible considerations in the apportionment process, but rather because of the size of the resulting deviations and because Missouri “[a]t best... made haphazard adjustments to a scheme based on total population,” made “no attempt” to account for the same factors in all districts, and generally failed to document its findings thoroughly and apply them “throughout the State in a systematic, not an ad hoc, manner.” Id., at 535.
The District Court properly found that appellants did not justify the population deviations in this case. At argument before the District Court and on appeal in this Court, appellants emphasized only one justification for the Feldman Plan’s population deviations — preserving the voting strength of racial minority groups. They submitted affidavits from Mayors Kenneth Gibson of Newark and Thomas Cooke of East Orange, discussing the importance of having a large majority of black voters in Newark’s Tenth District, App. 86-92, as well as an affidavit from S. Howard Woodson, Jr., a candidate for Mayor of Trenton, comparing the Feldman Plan’s treatment of black voters in the Trenton and Camden areas with that of the Reock Plan, id., at 93-96. See also id., at 82-83 (affidavit of A. Karcher). The District Court found, however:
“[Appellants] have not attempted to demonstrate, nor can they demonstrate, any causal relationship between the goal of preserving minority voting strength in the Tenth District and the population variances in the other districts.... We find that the goal of preserving minority voting strength in the Tenth District is not related in any way to the population deviations in the Fourth and Sixth Districts.” 535 F. Supp., at 982.
Under the Feldman Plan, the largest districts are the Fourth and Ninth Districts, and the smallest are the Third and Sixth. See supra, at 728. None of these districts borders on the Tenth, and only one — the Fourth — is even mentioned in appellants’ discussions of preserving minority voting strength. Nowhere do appellants suggest that the large population of the Fourth District was necessary to preserve minority voting strength; in fact, the deviation between the Fourth District and other districts has the effect of diluting the votes of all residents of that district, including members of racial minorities, as compared with other districts with fewer minority voters. The record is completely silent on the relationship between preserving minority voting strength and the small populations of the Third and Sixth Districts. Therefore, the District Court's findings easily pass the “clearly erroneous” test.
Y
The District Court properly applied the two-part test of Kirkpatrick v. Preisler to New Jersey’s 1982 apportionment of districts for the United States House of Representatives. It correctly held that the population deviations in the plan were not functionally equal as a matter of law, and it found that the plan was not a good-faith effort to achieve population equality using the best available census data. It also correctly rejected appellants’ attempt to justify the population deviations as not supported by the evidence. The judgment of the District Court, therefore, is
Affirmed.
[Map of New Jersey Congressional Districts follows this page.]
Three sets of census data are relevant to this case. In early 1981, the Bureau of the Census released preliminary figures showing that the total population of New Jersey was 7,364,158. In October 1981 it released corrected data, which increased the population of East Orange (and the State as a whole) by 665 people. Brief for Appellants 3, n. 1. All calculations in this opinion refer to the data available to the legislature — that is, the October 1981 figures. After the proceedings below had concluded, the Bureau of the Census made an additional correction in the population of East Orange, adding another 188 people, and bringing the total population of the State to 7,365,011. Ibid. Because this last correction was not available to the legislature at the time it enacted the plan at issue, we need not consider it.
In relevant part: “The House of Representatives shall be composed of Members chosen every second Year by the People of the several States....
“Representatives... shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers....”
There is some evidence in the record from which one could infer that this is precisely what happened in New Jersey. Alan Karcher, Speaker of the Assembly, testified that he had set one-percent maximum deviation as the upper limit for any plans to be considered seriously by the legislature, Record Doc. No. 41, pp. 56-58 (Karcher deposition), but there is no evidence of any serious attempt to seek improvements below the one-percent level.
Such problems certainly apply to Justice White’s concededly arbitrary five-percent solution, see post, at 782, apparently selected solely to avoid the embarrassment of discarding the actual result in Kirkpatrick along with its reasoning. No de minimis line tied to actual population in any way mitigates differences identified post, at 771-772, between the number of adults or eligible, registered, or actual voters in any two districts. As discussed below, see infra, at 736-738, unless some systematic effort is made to correct the distortions inherent in census counts of total population, deviations from the norm of population equality are far more likely to exacerbate the differences between districts. If a State does attempt to use a measure other than total population or to “correct” the census figures, it may not do so in a haphazard, inconsistent, or conjectural manner. Kirkpatrick, 394 U. S., at 534-535; see infra, at 740-741.
Note that many of the problems that the New Jersey Legislature encountered in drawing districts with equal population stemmed from the decision, which appellees never challenged, not to divide any municipalities between two congressional districts. The entire State of New Jersey is divided into 567 municipalities, with populations ranging from 329,248 (Newark) to 9 (Tavistock Borough), See Brief for Appellants 36, n. 38. Preserving political subdivisions intact, however, while perfectly permissible as a secondary goal, is not a sufficient excuse for failing to achieve population equality without the specific showing described infra, at 740-741. See Kirkpatrick v. Preisler, supra, at 533-534; White v. Weiser, 412 U. S. 783, 791 (1973).
Justice White objects that “the rule of absolute equality is perfectly compatible with ‘gerrymandering’ of the worst sort,” Wells v. Rockefeller, 394 U. S. 542, 551 (1969) (Harlan, J., dissenting). Post, at 776. That may certainly be true to some extent: beyond requiring States to justify population deviations with explicit, precise reasons, which might be expected to have some inhibitory effect, Kirkpatrick does little to prevent what is known as gerrymandering. See generally Backstrom, Robins, & Eller, Issues in Gerrymandering: An Exploratory Measure of Partisan Gerrymandering Applied to Minnesota, 62 Minn. L. Rev. 1121, 1144-1159 (1978); cf. 394 U. S., at 534, n. 4. Kirkpatrick’s object, achieving population equality, is far less ambitious than what would be required to address gerrymandering on a constitutional level.
In any event, the additional claim that Kirkpatrick actually promotes gerrymandering (as opposed to merely failing to stop it) is completely empty. A federal principle of population equality does not prevent any State from taking steps to inhibit gerrymandering, so long as a good-faith effort is made to achieve population equality as well. See, e. g., Colo. Const. Art. V, § 47 (guidelines as to compactness, contiguity, boundaries of political subdivisions, and communities of interest); Mass. Const., Amended Art. CI, § 1 (boundaries); N. Y. Elec. Law § 4-100(2) (McKinney 1978) (compactness and boundaries).
Justice White further argues that the lack of a de minimis rule encourages litigation and intrusion by federal courts into state affairs. Post, at 777-778. It cannot be gainsaid that the de minimis rule he proposes would have made litigation in this case unattractive. But experience proves that cases in which a federal court is called upon to invalidate an existing apportionment, and sometimes to substitute a court-ordered plan in its stead, frequently arise not because a newly enacted apportionment plan fails to meet the test of Kirkpatrick, but because partisan politics frustrate the efforts of a state legislature to enact a new plan after a recent census has shown that the existing plan is grossly malapportioned. See, e. g., Carstens v. Lamm, 543 F. Supp. 68 (Colo. 1982); Shayer v. Kirkpatrick, 541 F. Supp. 922 (WD Mo.), summarily aff’d, 456 U. S. 966 (1982); O’Sullivan v. Brier, 540 F. Supp. 1200 (Kan. 1982); Donnelly v. Meskill, 345 F. Supp. 962 (Conn. 1972); David v. Cahill, 342 F. Supp. 463 (NJ 1972); Skolnick v. State Electoral Board of Illinois, 336 F. Supp. 839 (ND Ill. 1971).
See generally J. Passel, J. Siegel, & J. Robinson, Coverage of the National Population in the 1980 Census, by Age, Sex, and Race: Preliminary Estimates by Demographic Analysis (Nov. 1981) (Record Doc. No. 31) (hereinafter Passel). Estimates for the national undercount in previous censuses range from 2.5% to 3.3%. See, e. g., Panel on Decennial Census Plans, Counting the People in 1980: An Appraisal of Census Plans 2 (Nat. Acad. Sciences 1978).
As an example, assume that in a hypothetical State with two congressional districts District A has a population of 502,500, and District B has a population of 497,500. The deviation between them is 5,000, or one percent of the mean. If the statewide undercount is also one percent, and it is distributed evenly between the two districts, District A will have a “real” population of 507,525, and District B will have a “real” population of 502,475. The deviation between them will remain one percent. Only if three-fourths of the uncounted people in the State live in District B will the two districts have equal populations. If three-fourths of the uncounted people happen to live in District A, the deviation between the two districts will increase to 1.98%.
For instance, it is accepted that the rate of undercount in the census for black population on a nationwide basis is significantly higher than the rate of undercount for white population. See generally Passel 9-20. Yet the census population of the districts in the Feldman Plan is unrelated to the percentage of blacks in each district. The Fourth District, for instance, is the largest district in terms of population, 0.268% above the mean; it has a 17.3% black population, App. 94. The First District is 14.6% black, id,., at 96, and it is almost exactly average in overall population. The undercount in any particular district cannot be predicted only from the percentage of blacks in the district, but to the extent that blacks are not counted, the undercount would be more severe in the Fourth District than in the relatively less populous First District.
According to the population figures used by Dr. Reock, the following adjustments to the Feldman Plan as enacted in Pub. L. 1982, ch. 1, would reduce its maximum population variance to 0.449%, somewhat lower than the version of the Reock Plan introduced in the legislature: To the Fifth District, add Oakland and Franklin Lakes (from the Eighth District), and Hillsdale, Woodcliff Lake, and Norwood (from the Ninth District). To the Sixth District, add North Brunswick (from the Seventh District). To the Seventh District, add Roosevelt (from the Fourth District), and South Plainfield and Helmett'a (from the Sixth District). To the Eighth District, add Montville and Boonton Town (from the Fifth District). To the Ninth District, add River Edge and Oradell (from the Fifth District).
Some of these changes are particularly obvious. Shifting the small town of Roosevelt from the Fourth to the Seventh District brings both appreciably closer to the mean, and the town is already nearly surrounded by the Seventh District. Similarly, River Edge, Oradell, Norwood, and Mont-ville are barely contiguous with their present districts and almost completely surrounded by the new districts suggested above. Further improvement could doubtless be accomplished with the aid of a computer and detailed census data. See also n. 5, supra.
We do not, of course, prejudge the validity of a plan incorporating these changes, nor do we indicate that a plan cannot represent a good-faith effort whenever a court can conceive of minor improvements. We point them out only to illustrate that further reductions could have been achieved within the basic framework
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
As the Government points out in its jurisdictional statement “this appeal presents precisely the same basic question” as is raised in No. 26, United States v. City of Detroit, ante, p. 466, also decided today. That question is whether Public Act 189, of 1953, of the State of Michigan is unconstitutional as applied to a corporation using government property in connection with a business conducted for its own private gain.
In this case the United States owns a manufacturing plant at Muskegon, Michigan. In 1952 it granted Continental Motors Corporation the right to use this plant in the course of performing several supply contracts Continental had with the Government. No rent was charged as such but. Continental agreed not to include any part of the cost of the facilities furnished by the Government in the price of the goods supplied under the contracts.
On January 1, 1954, Continental was assessed a tax under Public Act 189. As in No. 26, this tax was levied because of Continental’s use of tax-exempt property in its private business and was measured by the value of the exempt property which it was then using. Continental refused to pay the tax and this suit was brought by state authorities in a state court to recover the amount assessed. The United States intervened, contending that the tax was invalid because it imposed a levy on government property. But the lower court rejected this contention and entered judgment for the plaintiffs. The Michigan Supreme Court affirmed, 346 Mich. 218, 77 N. W. 2d 799. We noted probable jurisdiction of an appeal from this decision by both Continental and the United States, 352 U. S. 963, and now affirm the judgment below on the basis of our decision in No. 26.
There are only two factual differences between this case and No. 26. First, Continental is not using the property under a formal lease but under a “permit”; second, Continental is using the property in the performance of its contracts with the Government. We do not believe that either fact compels a different result.
Constitutional immunity from state taxation does not rest on such insubstantial formalities as whether the party using government property is formally designated a “lessee.” Otherwise immunity could be conferred by a simple stroke of the draftsman’s pen. The vital thing under the Michigan statute, and we think permissibly so, is that Continental was using the property in connection with its own commercial activities. The case might well be different if the Government had reserved such control over the activities and financial gain of Continental that it could properly be called a “servant” of the United States in agency terms. But here Continental was not so assimilated by the Government as to become one of its constituent parts. It was free within broad limits to use the property as it thought advantageous and convenient in performing its contracts and maximizing its profits from them.
If under certain conditions the State can tax Continental for use of government property in connection with its business conducted for profit — and as set forth in No. 26 we are of the opinion that it can — the fact that Continental was carrying out a contract with the Government does not materially alter the case. Continental was still acting as a private enterprise selling goods to the United States. In a certain loose way it might be called an “instrumentality” of the United States, but no more so than any other private party supplying goods for his own gain to the Government. In a number of eases this Court has upheld state taxes on the activities of contractors performing services for the United States even though they were closely supervised in performing these functions by the Government. See, e. g., James v. Dravo Contracting Co., 302 U. S. 134; Alabama v. King & Boozer, 314 U. S. 1; Curry v. United States, 314 U. S. 14; Wilson v. Cook, 327 U. S. 474.
The Curry case seems squarely in point. There a contractor acting pursuant to a cost-plus contract with the United States purchased certain materials. These materials were shipped to a government construction project where they were used by the contractor in the performance of the contract. By agreement title to the materials passed to the Government as soon as they were shipped by the vendor. The State imposed a tax on the contractor, based on the value of the materials, for using them after they had been delivered to the work site. This Court unanimously upheld that state use tax, although it clearly amounted to a tax on the use of government property in performing a government contract.
Affirmed.
[For opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter, see post, p. 495.]
[For opinion of Mr. Justice Harlan, see post, p. 505.]
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Hazel Morrison, respondent here, was indicted on two counts of distributing heroin in violation of 21 U. S. C. § 841 (a)(1). She retained private counsel to represent her in the impending criminal proceedings. Thereafter, two agents of the Drug Enforcement Agency, aware that she had been indicted and had retained counsel, sought to obtain her cooperation in a related investigation. They met and conversed with her without the knowledge or permission of her counsel. Furthermore, in the course of the conversation, the agents disparaged respondent’s counsel, stating that respondent should think about the type of representation she could expect for the $200 retainer she had paid him and suggesting that she could be better represented by the public defender. In addition, the agents indicated that respondent would gain various benefits if she cooperated but would face a stiff jail term if she did not. Respondent declined to cooperate and immediately notified her attorney. The agents visited respondent again in the absence of counsel, but at no time did respondent agree to cooperate with them, incriminate herself, or supply any information pertinent to her case. Contrary to the agents’ advice, respondent continued to rely upon the services of the attorney whom she had retained.
Respondent subsequently moved to dismiss the indictment with prejudice on the ground that the conduct of the agents had violated her Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The motion contained no allegation that the claimed violation had prejudiced the quality or effectiveness of respondent’s legal representation; nor did it assert that the behavior of the agents had induced her to plead guilty, had resulted in the prosecution having a stronger case against her, or had any other adverse impact on her legal position. The motion was based solely upon the egregious behavior of the agents, which was described as having “interfered” in some unspecified way ■with respondent’s right to counsel. This interference, unaccompanied by any allegation of adverse effect, was urged as a sufficient basis for the requested disposition.
The District Court denied the motion and respondent, pursuant to a prior agreement with the Government, entered a conditional plea of guilty to one count of the indictment. On appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, the judgment of the District Court was reversed. The appellate court concluded that respondent’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated and that whether or not any tangible effect upon respondent’s representation had been demonstrated or alleged, the appropriate remedy was dismissal of the indictment with prejudice. 602 F. 2d 529 (1979). We granted the United States’ petition for certiorari to consider whether this extraordinary relief was appropriate in the absence of some adverse consequence to the representation respondent received or to the fairness of the proceedings leading to her conviction. 448 U. S. 906. We reverse.
The United States initially urges that absent some showing of prejudice, there could be no Sixth Amendment violation to be remedied. Because we agree with the United States, however, that the dismissal of the indictment was error in any event, we shall assume, without deciding, that the Sixth Amendment was violated in the circumstances of this case.
The Sixth Amendment provides that an accused shall enjoy the right “to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.” This right, fundamental to our system of justice, is meant to assure fairness in the adversary criminal process. Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335, 344 (1963); Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60, 69-70, 75-76 (1942); Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 462-463 (1938). Our cases have accordingly been responsive to proved claims that governmental conduct has rendered counsel's assistance to the defendant ineffective. Moore v. Illinois, 434 U. S. 220 (1977); Geders v. United States, 425 U. S. 80 (1976); Herring v. New York, 422 U. S. 853 (1975); Gilbert v. California, 388 U. S. 263 (1967) ; United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218 (1967); Massiah v. United States, 377 U. S. 201 (1964).
At the same time and without detracting from the fundamental importance of the right to counsel in criminal cases, we have implicitly recognized the necessity for preserving society’s interest in the administration of criminal justice. Cases involving Sixth Amendment deprivations are subject to the general rule that remedies should be tailored to the injury suffered from the constitutional violation and should not unnecessarily infringe on competing interests. Our relevant cases reflect this approach. In Gideon v. Wainwright, supra, the defendant was totally denied the assistance of counsel at his criminal trial. In Geders v. United States, supra, Herring v. New York, supra, and Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45 (1932), judicial action before or during trial prevented counsel from being fully effective. In Black v. United States, 385 U. S. 26 (1966), and O’Brien v. United States, 386 U. S. 345 (1967), law enforcement officers improperly overheard pretrial conversations between a defendant and his lawyer. None of these deprivations, however, resulted in the dismissal of the indictment. Rather, the conviction in each case was reversed and the Government was free to proceed with a new trial. Similarly, when before trial but after the institution of adversary proceedings, the prosecution has improperly obtained incriminating information from the defendant in the absence of his counsel, the remedy characteristically imposed is not to dismiss the indictment but to suppress the evidence or to order a new trial if the evidence has been wrongfully admitted and the defendant convicted. Gilbert v. California, supra; United States v. Wade, supra; Massiah v. United States, supra. In addition, certain violations of the right to counsel may be disregarded as harmless error. Compare Moore v. Illinois, supra, at 232, with Chapman v. California, 386 U. S. 18, 23, and n. 8 (1967).
Our approach has thus been to identify and then neutralize the taint by tailoring relief appropriate in the circumstances to assure the defendant the effective assistance of counsel and a fair trial. The premise of our prior cases is that the constitutional infringement identified has had or threatens some adverse effect upon the effectiveness of counsel’s representation or has produced some other prejudice to the defense. Absent such impact on the criminal proceeding, however, there is no basis for imposing a remedy in that proceeding, which can go forward with full recognition of the defendant’s right to counsel and to a fair trial.
More particularly, absent demonstrable prejudice, or substantial threat thereof, dismissal of the indictment is plainly inappropriate, even though the violation may have been deliberate. This has been the result reached where a Fifth Amendment violation has occurred, and we have not suggested that searches and seizures contrary to the Fourth Amendment warrant dismissal of the indictment. The remedy in the criminal proceeding is limited to denying the prosecution the fruits of its transgression.
Here, respondent has demonstrated no prejudice of any kind, either transitory or permanent, to the ability of her counsel to provide adequate representation in these criminal proceedings. There is no effect of a constitutional dimension which needs to be purged to make certain that respondent has been effectively represented and not unfairly convicted. The Sixth Amendment violation, if any, accordingly provides no justification for interfering with the criminal proceedings against respondent Morrison, much less the drastic relief granted by the Court of Appeals.
In arriving at this conclusion, we do not condone the egregious behavior of the Government agents. Nor do we suggest that in cases such as this, a Sixth Amendment violation may not be remedied in other proceedings. We simply conclude that the solution provided by the Court of Appeals is inappropriate where the violation, which we assume has occurred, has had no adverse impact upon the criminal proceedings.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly reversed, and the case is remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
A second count was dismissed as required by the plea agreement. The plea was conditioned on respondent’s right to appeal the District Court’s denial of the motion to dismiss. The Third Circuit has approved this procedure. United States v. Moskow, 588 F. 2d 882 (1978); United States v. Zudick, 523 F. 2d 848 (1975). We express no view on the propriety of such conditional pleas.
There is no claim here that there was continuing prejudice which, because it could not be remedied by a new trial or suppression of evidence, called for more drastic treatment. Cf. United States v. Marion, 404 U. S. 307, 325-326 (1971). Indeed, there being no claim of any discernible taint, even the traditional remedies were beside the point. The Court of Appeals seemed to reason that because there was no injury claimed and because other remedies would not be fruitful, dismissal of the indictment was appropriate. But as the dissent below indicated, it is odd to reserve the most drastic remedy for those situations where there has been no discernible injury or other impact.
The Court of Appeals also thought dismissal was appropriate to deter deliberate infringements of the right to counsel. But this proves too much, for it would warrant dismissal, not just in this case, but in any case where there has been a knowing violation. Furthermore, we note that the record before us does not reveal a pattern of recurring violations by investigative officers that might warrant the imposition of a more extreme remedy in order to deter further lawlessness.
This is clear from United States v. Blue, 384 U. S. 251, 255 (1966):
“Even if we assume that the Government did acquire incriminating evidence in violation of the Fifth Amendment, Blue would at most be entitled to suppress the evidence and its fruits if they were sought to be used against him at trial. . . . Our numerous precedents ordering the exclusion of such illegally obtained evidence assume implicitly that the remedy does not extend to barring the prosecution altogether. So drastic a step might advance marginally some of the ends served by exclusionary rules, but it would also increase to an intolerable degree interference with the public interest in having the guilty brought to book.” (Footnote omitted.)
The position we have adopted finds substantial support in the Courts of Appeals. United States v. Jimenez, 626 F. 2d 39, 41-42 (CA7 1980); United States v. Artuso, 618 F. 2d 192, 196-197 (CA2 1980); United States v. Glover, 596 F. 2d 857, 861-864 (CA9 1979); United States v. Crow Dog, 532 F. 2d 1182, 1196-1197 (CA8 1976); United States v. Acosta, 526 F. 2d 670, 674 (CA5 1976); but see United States v. McCord, 166 U. S. App. D. C. 1, 15-18, 509 F. 2d 334, 348-351 (1974) (en banc) (dicta). The Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts has adopted a contrary view. See Commonwealth v. Manning, 373 Mass. 438, 367 N. E. 2d 635 (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 Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Federal law enforcement officers obtained a search warrant for respondent’s house on the basis of an affidavit explaining that the warrant would be executed only after a controlled delivery of contraband to that location. We address two challenges to the constitutionality of this anticipatory warrant.
I
Respondent Jeffrey Grubbs purchased a videotape containing child pornography from a Web site operated by an undercover postal inspector. Officers from the Postal Inspection Service arranged a controlled delivery of a package containing the videotape to Grubbs’ residence. A postal inspector submitted a search warrant application to a Magistrate Judge for the Eastern District of California, accompanied by an affidavit describing the proposed operation in detail. The affidavit stated:
“Execution of this search warrant will not occur unless and until the parcel has been received by a person(s) and has been physically taken into the residence .... At that time, and not before, this search warrant will be executed by me and other United States Postal inspectors, with appropriate assistance from other law enforcement officers in accordance with this warrant’s command.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 72a.
In addition to describing this triggering condition, the affidavit referred to two attachments, which described Grubbs’ residence and the items officers would seize. These attachments, but not the body of the affidavit, were incorporated into the requested warrant. The affidavit concluded:
“Based upon the foregoing facts, I respectfully submit there exists probable cause to believe that the items set forth in Attachment B to this affidavit and the search warrant, will be found [at Grubbs’ residence], which residence is further described at Attachment A.” Ibid.
The Magistrate Judge issued the warrant as requested. Two days later, an undercover postal inspector delivered the package. Grubbs’ wife signed for it and took the unopened package inside. The inspectors detained Grubbs as he left his home a few minutes later, then entered the house and commenced the search. Roughly 30 minutes into the search, Grubbs was provided with a copy of the warrant, which included both attachments but not the supporting affidavit that explained when the warrant would be executed. Grubbs consented to interrogation by the postal inspectors and admitted ordering the videotape. He was placed under arrest, and various items were seized, including the videotape.
A grand jury for the Eastern District of California indicted Grubbs on one count of receiving a visual depiction of a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct. See 18 U. S. C. § 2252(a)(2). He moved to suppress the evidence seized during the search of his residence, arguing as relevant here that the warrant was invalid because it failed to list the triggering condition. After an evidentiary hearing, the District Court denied the motion. Grubbs pleaded guilty, but reserved his right to appeal the denial , of his motion to suppress.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. 377 F. 3d 1072, amended, 389 F. 3d 1306 (2004). Relying on Circuit precedent, it held that “the particularity requirement of the Fourth Amendment applies with full force to the conditions precedent to an anticipatory search warrant.” 377 F. 3d, at 1077-1078 (citing United States v. Hotal, 143 F. 3d 1223, 1226 (CA9 1998)). An anticipatory warrant defective for that reason may be “cur[ed]” if the conditions precedent are set forth in an affidavit that is incorporated in the warrant and “presented to the person whose property is being searched.” 377 F. 3d, at 1079. Because the postal inspectors “failed to present the affidavit — the only document in which the triggering conditions were listed” — to Grubbs or his wife, the “warrant was . . . inoperative, and the search was illegal.” Ibid. We granted certiorari. 545 U. S. 1164 (2005).
II
Before turning to the Ninth Circuit’s conclusion that the warrant at issue here ran afoul of the Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement, we address the antecedent question whether anticipatory search warrants are categorically unconstitutional. An anticipatory warrant is “a warrant based upon an affidavit showing probable cause that at some future time (but not presently) certain evidence of crime will be located at a specified place.” 2 W. LaFave, Search and Seizure § 3.7(c), p. 398 (4th ed. 2004). Most anticipatory warrants subject their execution to some condition precedent other than the mere passage of time — a so-called “triggering condition.” The affidavit at issue here, for instance, explained that “[execution of th[e] search warrant will not occur unless and until the parcel [containing child pornography] has been received by a person(s) and has been physically taken into the residence.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 72a. If the government were to execute an anticipatory warrant before the triggering condition occurred, there would be no reason to believe the item described in the warrant could be found at the searched location; by definition, the triggering condition which establishes probable cause has not yet been satisfied when the warrant is issued. Grubbs argues that for this reason anticipatory warrants contravene the Fourth Amendment’s provision that “no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause.”
We reject this view, as has every Court of Appeals to confront the issue, see, e. g., United States v. Loy, 191 F. 3d 360, 364 (CA3 1999) (collecting cases). Probable cause exists when “there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place.” Illinois v. Gates, 462 U. S. 213, 238 (1983). Because the probable-cause requirement looks to whether evidence will be found when the search is conducted, all warrants are, in a sense, “anticipatory.” In the typical case where the police seek permission to search a house for an item they believe is already located there, the magistrate’s determination that there is probable cause for the search amounts to a prediction that the item will still be there when the warrant is executed. See People v. Glen, 30 N. Y. 2d 252, 258, 282 N. E. 2d 614, 617 (1972) (“[PJresent possession is only probative of the likelihood of future possession”). The anticipatory nature of warrants is even clearer in the context of electronic surveillance. See, e. g., Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967). When police request approval to tap a telephone line, they do so based on the probability that, during the course of the surveillance, the subject will use the phone to engage in crime-related conversations. The relevant federal provision requires a judge authorizing “interception of wire, oral, or electronic communications” to determine that “there is probable cause for belief that particular communications concerning [one of various listed offenses] will be obtained through such interception.” 18 U. S. C. §2518(3)(b) (emphasis added); see also United States v. Ricciardelli, 998 F. 2d 8, 11, n. 3 (CA1 1993) (“[T]he magistrate issues the warrant on the basis of a substantial probability that crime-related conversations will ensue”). Thus, when an anticipatory warrant is issued, “the fact that the contraband is not presently located at the place described in the warrant is immaterial, so long as there is probable cause to believe that it will be there when the search warrant is executed.” United States v. Garcia, 882 F. 2d 699, 702 (CA2 1989) (quoting United States v. Lowe, 575 F. 2d 1193, 1194 (CA6 1978); internal quotation marks omitted).
Anticipatory warrants are, therefore, no different in principle from ordinary warrants. They require the magistrate to determine (1) that it is now probable that (2) contraband, evidence of a crime, or a fugitive will be on the described premises (3) when the warrant is executed. It should be noted, however, that where the anticipatory warrant places a condition (other than the mere passage of time) upon its execution, the first of these determinations goes not merely to what will probably be found if the condition is met. (If that were the extent of the probability determination, an anticipatory warrant could be issued for every house in the country, authorizing search and seizure ¿/contraband should be delivered — though for any single location there is no likelihood that contraband will be delivered.) Rather, the probability determination for a conditioned anticipatory warrant looks also to the likelihood that the condition will occur, and thus that a proper object of seizure will be on the described premises. In other words, for a conditioned anticipatory warrant to comply with the Fourth Amendment’s requirement of probable cause, two prerequisites of probability must be satisfied. It must be true not only that if the triggering condition occurs “there is a fair probability that contraband or evidence of a crime will be found in a particular place,” Gates, supra, at 238, but also that there is probable cause to believe the triggering condition will occur. The supporting affidavit must provide the magistrate with sufficient information to evaluate both aspects of the probable-cause determination. See Garcia, supra, at 703.
In this case, the occurrence of the triggering condition— successful delivery of the videotape to Grubbs’ residence— would plainly establish probable cause for the search. In addition, the affidavit established probable cause to believe the triggering condition would be satisfied. Although it is possible that Grubbs could have refused delivery of the videotape he had ordered, that was unlikely. The Magistrate therefore “had a ‘substantial basis for . . . conclud[ing]’ that probable cause existed.” Gates, supra, at 238-239 (quoting Jones v. United States, 362 U. S. 257, 271 (1960)).
Ill
The Ninth Circuit invalidated the anticipatory search warrant at issue here because the warrant failed to specify the triggering condition. The Fourth Amendment’s particularity requirement, it held, “applies with fall force to the conditions precedent to an anticipatory search warrant.” 377 F. 3d, at 1077-1078.
The Fourth Amendment, however, does not set forth some general “particularity requirement.” It specifies only two matters that must be “particularly describ[ed]” in the warrant: “the place to be searched” and “the persons or things to be seized.” We have previously rejected efforts to expand the scope of this provision to embrace unenumerated matters. In Dalia v. United States, 441 U. S. 238 (1979), we considered an order authorizing the interception of oral communications by means of a “bug” installed by the police in the petitioner’s office. The petitioner argued that, if a covert entry is necessary to install such a listening device, the authorizing order must “explicitly set forth its approval of such entries before the fact.” Id., at 255. This argument fell before the “‘precise and clear’” words of the Fourth Amendment: “Nothing in the language of the Constitution or in this Court’s decisions interpreting that language suggests that, in addition to the [requirements set forth in the text], search warrants also must include a specification of the precise manner in which they are to be executed.” Ibid. (quoting Stanford v. Texas, 379 U. S. 476, 481 (1965)); 441 U. S., at 257. The language of the Fourth Amendment is likewise decisive here; its particularity requirement does not include the conditions precedent to execution of the warrant.
Respondent, drawing upon the Ninth Circuit’s analysis below, relies primarily on two related policy rationales. First, he argues, setting forth the triggering condition in the warrant itself is necessary “to delineate the limits of the executing officer’s power.” Brief for Respondent 20. This is an application, respondent asserts, of the following principle: “[I]f there is a precondition to the valid exercise of executive power, that precondition must be particularly identified on the face of the warrant.” Id., at 23. That principle is not to be found in the Constitution. The Fourth Amendment does not require that the warrant set forth the magistrate’s basis for finding probable cause, even though probable cause is the quintessential “precondition to the valid exercise of executive power.” Much less does it require description of a triggering condition.
Second, respondent argues that listing the triggering condition in the warrant is necessary to “ ‘assur[e] the individual whose property is searched or seized of the lawful authority of the executing officer, his need to search, and the limits of his power to search.’” Id., at 19 (quoting United States v. Chadwick, 433 U. S. 1, 9 (1977)). The Ninth Circuit went even further, asserting that if the property owner were not informed of the triggering condition, he “would ‘stand [no] real chance of policing the officers’ conduct.’ ” 377 F. 3d, at 1079 (quoting Ramirez v. Butte-Silver Bow County, 298 F. 3d 1022, 1027 (CA9 2002)). This argument assumes that the executing officer must present the property owner with a copy of the warrant before conducting his search. See 377 F. 3d, at 1079, n. 9. In fact, however, neither the Fourth Amendment nor Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 41 imposes such a requirement. See Groh v. Ramirez, 540 U. S. 551, 562, n. 5 (2004). “The absence of a constitutional requirement that the warrant be exhibited at the outset of the search, or indeed until the search has ended, is ... evidence that the requirement of particular description does not protect an interest in monitoring searches.” United States v. Stefonek, 179 F. 3d 1030, 1034 (CA7 1999) (citations omitted). The Constitution protects property owners not by giving them license to engage the police in a debate over the basis for the warrant, but by interposing, ex ante, the “deliberate, impartial judgment of a judicial officer . . . between the citizen and the police,” Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, 481-482 (1963), and by providing, ex post, a right to suppress evidence improperly obtained and a cause of action for damages.
Hs * *
Because the Fourth Amendment does not require that the triggering condition for an anticipatory search warrant be set forth in the warrant itself, the Court of Appeals erred in invalidating the warrant at issue here. 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.
This issue is “predicate to an intelligent resolution of the question presented.” Ohio v. Robinette, 519 U. S. 33, 38 (1996) (internal quotation marks omitted). It makes little sense to address what the Fourth Amendment requires of anticipatory search warrants if it does not allow them at all. Cf. Wilkinson v. Austin, 545 U. S. 209, 221 (2005) (addressing whether inmates had a liberty interest in avoiding assignment to a “Super-max” prison, despite the State’s concession that they did, because “[w]e need reach the question of what process is due only if the inmates establish a constitutionally protected liberty interest”).
For this reason, probable cause may cease to exist after a warrant is issued. The police may learn, for instance, that contraband is no longer located at the place to be searched. See, e. g., United States v. Bowling, 900 F. 2d 926, 932 (CA6 1990) (recognizing that a fruitless consent search could “dissipat[e] the probable cause that justified a warrant”). Or the probable-cause showing may have grown “stale” in view of the time that has passed since the warrant was issued. See United States v. Wagner, 989 F. 2d 69, 75 (CA2 1993) (“[T]he facts in an affidavit supporting a search warrant must be sufficiently close in time to the issuance of the warrant and the subsequent search conducted so that probable cause can be said to exist as of the time of the search and not simply as of some time in the past”); see also Sgro v. United States, 287 U. S. 206, 210-211 (1932).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | A | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Alito
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case arises out of a decision by the Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service (APHIS) to deregulate a variety of genetically engineered alfalfa. The District Court held that APHIS violated the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 83 Stat. 852, 42 U. S. C. §4321 et seq., by issuing its deregulation decision without first completing a detailed assessment of the environmental consequences of its proposed course of action. To remedy that violation, the District Court vacated the agency’s decision completely deregulating the alfalfa variety in question; ordered APHIS not to act on the deregulation petition in whole or in part until it had completed a detailed environmental review; and enjoined almost all future planting of the genetically engineered alfalfa pending the completion of that review. The Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s entry of permanent injunctive relief. The main issue now in dispute concerns the breadth of that relief. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and remand for further proceedings.
I
A
The Plant Protection Act (PPA), 114 Stat. 438, 7 U. S. C. §7701 et seq., provides that the Secretary of the Department of Agriculture (USDA) may issue regulations “to prevent the introduction of plant pests into the United States or the dissemination of plant pests within the United States.” § 7711(a). The Secretary has delegated that authority to APHIS, a division of the USDA. 7 CFR §§ 2.22(a), 2.80(a)(36) (2010). Acting pursuant to that delegation, APHIS has promulgated regulations governing “the introduction of organisms and products altered or produced through genetic engineering that are plant pests or are believed to be plant pests.” See § 340.0(a)(2), and n. 1. Under those regulations, certain genetically engineered plants are presumed to be “plant pests” — and thus “regulated articles” under the PPA — until APHIS determines otherwise. See ibid.; §§340.1, 340.2, 340.6; see also App. 183. However, any person may petition APHIS for a determination that a regulated article does not present a plant pest risk and therefore should not be subject to the applicable regulations. 7 U. S. C. § 7711(c)(2); 7 CFR § 340.6. APHIS may grant such a petition in whole or in part. § 340.6(d)(3).
In deciding whether to grant nonregulated status to a genetically engineered plant variety, APHIS must comply with NEPA, which requires federal agencies “to the fullest extent possible” to prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) for “every recommendation or report on proposals for legislation and other major Federal actio[n] significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.” 42 U. S. C. § 4332(2)(C). The statutory text “speaks solely in terms of proposed actions; it does not require an agency to consider the possible environmental impacts of less imminent actions when preparing the impact statement on proposed actions.” Kleppe v. Sierra Club, 427 U. S. 390, 410, n. 20 (1976).
An agency need not complete an EIS for a particular proposal if it finds, on the basis of a shorter “environmental assessment” (EA), that the proposed action will not have a significant impact on the environment. 40 CFR §§ 1508.9(a), 1508.13 (2009). Even if a particular agency proposal requires an EIS, applicable regulations allow the agency to take at least some action in furtherance of that proposal while the EIS is being prepared. See § 1506.1(a) (“[N]o action concerning the proposal shall be taken which would: (1) Have an adverse environmental impact; or (2) Limit the choice of reasonable alternatives”); § 1506.1(c) (“While work on a required program environmental impact statement is in progress and the action is not covered by an existing program statement, agencies shall not undertake in the interim any major Federal action covered by the program which may significantly affect the quality of the human environment unless such action” satisfies certain requirements).
B
This case involves Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA), a kind of alfalfa crop that has been genetically engineered to be tolerant of glyphosate, the active ingredient of the herbicide Roundup. Petitioner Monsanto Company (Monsanto) owns the intellectual property rights to RRA. Monsanto licenses those rights to co-petitioner Forage Genetics International (FGI), which is the exclusive developer of RRA seed.
APHIS initially classified RRA as a regulated article, but in 2004 petitioners sought nonregulated status for two strains of RRA. In response, APHIS prepared a draft EA assessing the likely environmental impact of the requested deregulation. It then published a notice in the Federal Register advising the public of the deregulation petition and soliciting public comments on its draft EA. After considering the hundreds of public comments that it received, APHIS issued a “Finding of No Significant Impact” and decided to deregulate RRA unconditionally and without preparing an EIS. Prior to this decision, APHIS had authorized almost 300 field trials of RRA conducted over a period of eight years. App. 348.
Approximately eight months after APHIS granted RRA nonregulated status, respondents (two conventional alfalfa seed farms and environmental groups concerned with food safety) filed this action against the Secretary of Agriculture and certain other officials in Federal District Court, challenging APHIS's decision to completely deregulate RRA. Their complaint alleged violations of NEPA, the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (ESA), 87 Stat. 884, 16 U. S. C. § 1531 et seq., and the PPA. Respondents did not seek preliminary injunctive relief pending resolution of those claims. Hence, RRA enjoyed nonregulated status for approximately two years. During that period, more than 3,000 farmers in 48 States planted an estimated 220,000 acres of RRA. App. 350.
In resolving respondents’ NEPA claim, the District Court accepted APHIS’s determination that RRA does not have any harmful health effects on humans or livestock. App. to Pet. for Cert. 43a; accord, id., at 45a. Nevertheless, the District Court held that APHIS violated NEPA by deregulating RRA without first preparing an EIS. In particular, the court found that APHIS’s EA failed to answer substantial questions concerning two broad consequences of its proposed action: first, the extent to which complete deregulation would lead to the transmission of the gene conferring glyphosate tolerance from RRA to organic and conventional alfalfa; and, second, the extent to which the introduction of RRA would contribute to the development of Roundup-resistant weeds. Id., at 52a. In light of its determination that the deregulation decision ran afoul of NEPA, the District Court dismissed without prejudice respondents’ claims under the ESA and PPA.
After these rulings, the District Court granted petitioners permission to intervene in the remedial phase of the lawsuit. The court then asked the parties to submit proposed judgments embodying their preferred means of remedying the NEPA violation. APHIS’s proposed judgment would have ordered the agency to prepare an EIS, vacated the agency’s deregulation decision, and replaced that decision with the terms of the judgment itself. Id., at 184a (proposed judgment providing that “[the federal] defendants’ [June 14,] 2005 Determination of Nonregulated Status for Alfalfa Genetically Engineered for Tolerance to the Herbicide Glyphosate is hereby vacated and replaced by the terms of this judgment” (emphasis added)). The terms of the proposed judgment, in turn, would have permitted the continued planting of RRA pending completion of the EIS, subject to six restrictions. Those restrictions included, among other things, mandatory isolation distances between RRA and non-genetically-engineered alfalfa fields in order to mitigate the risk of gene flow; mandatory harvesting conditions; a requirement that planting and harvesting equipment that had been in contact with RRA be cleaned prior to any use with conventional or organic alfalfa; identification and handling requirements for RRA seed; and a requirement that all RRA seed producers and hay growers be under contract with either Monsanto or FGI and that their contracts require compliance with the other limitations set out in the proposed judgment.
The District Court rejected APHIS’s proposed judgment. In its preliminary injunction, the District Court prohibited almost all future planting of RRA pending APHIS’s completion of the required EIS. But in order to minimize the harm to farmers who had relied on APHIS’s deregulation decision, the court expressly allowed those who had already purchased RRA to plant their seeds until March 30, 2007. Id., at 58a. In its subsequently entered permanent injunction and judgment, the court (1) vacated APHIS’s deregulation decision; (2) ordered APHIS to prepare an EIS before it made any decision on Monsanto’s deregulation petition; (3) enjoined the planting of any RRA in the United States after March 30, 2007, pending APHIS’s completion of the required EIS; and (4) imposed certain conditions (suggested by APHIS) on the handling and identification of already-planted RRA. Id., at 79a, 109a. The District Court deified petitioners’ request for an evidentiary hearing.
The Government, Monsanto, and FGI appealed, challenging the scope of the relief granted but not disputing the existence of a NEPA violation. See Geertson Seed Farms v. Johanns, 570 F. 3d 1130, 1136 (2009). A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Based on its review of the record, the panel first concluded that the District Court had “recognized that an injunction does not ‘automatically issue’ when a NEPA violation is found” and had instead based its issuance of injunctive relief on the four-factor test traditionally used for that purpose. Id., at 1137. The panel held that the District Court had not committed clear error in making any of the subsidiary factual findings on which its assessment of the four relevant factors was based. And the panel rejected the claim that the District Court had not given sufficient deference to APHIS’s expertise concerning the likely effects of allowing continued planting of RRA on a limited basis. In the panel’s view, APHIS’s proposed interim measures would have perpetuated a system that had been found by the District Court to have caused environmental harm in the past. Id., at 1139. Hence, the panel concluded that the District Court had not abused its discretion “in choosing to reject APHIS’s proposed mitigation measures in favor of a broader injunction to prevent more irreparable harm from occurring.” Ibid.
The panel majority also rejected petitioners’ alternative argument that the District Court had erred in declining to hold an evidentiary hearing before entering its permanent injunction. Writing in dissent, Judge N. Randy Smith disagreed with that conclusion. In his view, the District Court was required to conduct an evidentiary hearing before issuing a permanent injunction unless the facts were undisputed or the adverse party expressly waived its right to such a hearing. Neither of those two exceptions, he found, applied here.
We granted certiorari. 558 U. S. 1142 (2010).
II
A
At the threshold, respondents contend that petitioners lack standing to seek our review of the lower court rulings at issue here. We disagree.
Standing under Article III of the Constitution requires that an injury be concrete, particularized, and actual or imminent; fairly traceable to the challenged action; and redressable by a favorable ruling. Horne v. Flores, 557 U. S. 433, 445 (2009). Petitioners here satisfy all three criteria. Petitioners are injured by their inability to sell or license RRA to prospective customers until such time as APHIS completes the required EIS. Because that injury is caused by the very remedial order that petitioners challenge on appeal, it would be redressed by a favorable ruling from this Court.
Respondents do not dispute that petitioners would have standing to contest the District Court’s permanent injunction order if they had pursued a different litigation strategy. Instead, respondents argue that the injury of which petitioners complain is independently caused by a part of the District Court’s order that petitioners failed to challenge, namely, the vacatur of APHIS’s deregulation decision. The practical consequence of the vacatur, respondents contend, was to restore RRA to the status of a regulated article; and, subject to certain exceptions not applicable here, federal regulations ban the growth and sale of regulated articles. Because petitioners did not specifically challenge the District Court’s vacatur, respondents reason, they lack standing to challenge a part of the District Court’s order (i. e., the injunction) that does not cause petitioners any injury not also caused by the vacatur. See Brief for Respondents 19-20.
Respondents’ argument fails for two independent reasons. First, although petitioners did not challenge the vacatur directly, they adequately preserved their objection that the vacated deregulation decision should have been replaced by APHIS’s proposed injunction. Throughout the remedial phase of this litigation, one of the main disputes between the parties has been whether the District Court was required to adopt APHIS’s proposed judgment. See, e. g., IntervenorAppellants’ Opening Brief in No. 07-16458 etc. (CA9), p. 59 (urging the Court of Appeals to “vacate the district court’s judgment and remand this case to the district court with instructions to enter APHIS’s proposed relief”); Opening Brief of Federal Defendants-Appellants in No. 07-16458 etc. (CA9), pp. 21, 46 (“The blanket injunction should be narrowed in accordance with APHIS’s proposal”); see also Tr. of Oral Arg. 6, 25-27, 53-54. That judgment would have replaced the vacated deregulation decision with an order' expressly allowing continued planting of RRA subject to certain limited conditions. App. to Pet. for Cert. 184a (proposed judgment providing that “[the federal] defendants’ 14 June 2005 Determination of Nonregulated Status for Alfalfa Genetically Engineered for Tolerance to the Herbicide Glyphosate is hereby vacated and replaced by the terms of this judgment” (emphasis added)). Accordingly, if the District Court had adopted the agency’s suggested remedy, there would still be authority for the continued planting of RRA, because there would, in effect, be a new deregulation decision.
Second, petitioners in any case have standing to challenge the part of the District Court’s order enjoining partial deregulation. Respondents focus their standing argument on the part of the judgment enjoining the planting of RRA, but the judgment also states that “[b]efore granting Monsanto’s deregulation petition, even in part, the federal defendants shall prepare an environmental impact statement.” Id., at 108a (emphasis added); see also id., at 79a (“The Court will enter a final judgment... ordering the government to prepare an EIS before it makes a decision on Monsanto’s deregulation petition”). As respondents concede, that part of the judgment goes beyond the vacatur of APHIS’s deregulation decision. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 37, 46.
At oral argument, respondents contended that the restriction on APHIS’s ability to effect a partial deregulation of RRA does not cause petitioners “an actual or an imminent harm.” Id., at 39-40. In order for a partial deregulation to occur, respondents argued, the case would have to be remanded to the agency, and APHIS would have to prepare an EA “that may or may not come out in favor of a partial deregulation.” Id., at 40. Because petitioners cannot prove that those two events would happen, respondents contended, the asserted harm caused by the District Court’s partial deregulation ban is too speculative to satisfy the actual or imminent injury requirement.
We reject this argument. If the injunction were lifted, we do not see why the District Court would have to remand the matter to the agency in order for APHIS to effect a partial deregulation. And even if a remand were required, we perceive no basis on which the District Court could decline to remand the matter to the agency so that it could determine whether to pursue a partial deregulation during the pendency of the EIS process.
Nor is any doubt as to whether APHIS would issue a new EA in favor of a partial deregulation sufficient to defeat petitioners’ standing. It is undisputed that petitioners have submitted a deregulation petition and that a partial deregulation of the kind embodied in the agency’s proposed judgment would afford petitioners much of the relief that they seek; it is also undisputed that, absent the District Court’s order, APHIS could attempt to effect such a partial deregulation pending its completion of the EIS. See id., at 7-8, 25-27,38. For purposes of resolving the particular standing question before us, we need not decide whether or to what extent a party challenging an injunction that bars an agency from granting certain relief must show that the agency would be likely to afford such relief if it were free to do so. In this case, as is clear from APHIS’s proposed judgment and from its briefing throughout the remedial phase of this litigation, the agency takes the view that a partial deregulation reflecting its proposed limitations is in the public interest. Thus, there is more than a strong likelihood that APHIS would partially deregulate RRA were it not for the District Court’s injunction. The District Court’s elimination of that likelihood is plainly sufficient to establish a constitutionally cognizable injury. Moreover, as respondents essentially conceded at oral argument, that injury would be redressed by a favorable decision here, since “vacating the current injunction... will allow [petitioners] to go back to the agency, [to] seek a partial deregulation,” even if the District Court’s vacatur of APHIS’s deregulation decision is left intact. Id., at 39. We therefore hold that petitioners have standing to seek this Court’s review.
B
We next consider petitioners’ contention that respondents lack standing to seek injunctive relief. See Daimler-Chrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U. S. 332, 352 (2006) (“[A] plaintiff must demonstrate standing separately for each form of relief sought” (internal quotation marks omitted)). Petitioners argue that respondents have failed to show that any of the named respondents is likely to suffer a constitutionally cognizable injury absent injunctive relief. See Brief for Petitioners 40. We disagree.
Respondents include conventional alfalfa farmers. Emphasizing “the undisputed concentration of alfalfa seed farms,” the District Court found that those farmers had “established a ‘reasonable probability’ that their organic and conventional alfalfa crops will be infected with the engineered gene” if RRA is completely deregulated. App. to Pet. for Cert. 50a. A substantial risk of gene flow injures respondents in several ways. For example, respondents represent that, in order to continue marketing their product to consumers who wish to buy non-genetically-engineered alfalfa, respondents would have to conduct testing to find out whether and to what extent their crops have been contaminated. See, e. g., Record, Doc. 62, p. 5 (Declaration of Phillip Geertson in Support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Judgment) (Geertson Declaration) (“Due to the high potential for contamination, I will need to test my crops for the presence of genetically engineered alfalfa seed. This testing will be a new cost to my seed business and we will have to raise our seed prices to cover these costs, making our prices less competitive”); id., Doc. 57, p. 4 (Declaration of Patrick Trask in Support of Plaintiff’s Motion for Summary Judgment) (“To ensure that my seeds are pure, I will need to test my crops and obtain certification that my seeds are free of genetically engineered alfalfa”); see also id., Doc. 55, p. 2 (“[T]here is zero tolerance for contaminated seed in the organic market”). Respondents also allege that the risk of gene flow will cause them to take certain measures to minimize the likelihood of potential contamination and to ensure an adequate supply of non-genetically-engineered alfalfa. See, e. g., Geertson Declaration 3 (noting the “increased cost of alfalfa breeding due to potential for genetic contamination”); id., at 6 (“Due to the threat of contamination, I have begun contracting with growers outside of the United States to ensure that I can supply genetically pure, conventional alfalfa seed. Finding new growers has already resulted in increased administrative costs at my seed business”).
Such harms, which respondents will suffer even if their crops are not actually infected with the Roundup Ready gene, are sufficiently concrete to satisfy the injury-in-fact prong of the constitutional standing analysis. Those harms are readily attributable to APHIS’s deregulation decision, which, as the District Court found, gives rise to a significant risk of gene flow to non-genetically-engineered varieties of alfalfa. Finally, a judicial order prohibiting the growth and sale of all or some genetically engineered alfalfa would remedy respondents’ injuries by eliminating or minimizing the risk of gene flow to conventional and organic alfalfa crops. We therefore conclude that respondents have constitutional standing to seek injunctive relief from the complete deregulation order at issue here.
Petitioners appear to suggest that respondents fail to satisfy the “zone of interests” test we have previously articulated as a prudential standing requirement in cases challenging agency compliance with particular statutes. See Reply Brief for Petitioners 12 (arguing that protection against the risk of commercial harm “is not an interest that NEPA was enacted to address”); Bennett v. Spear, 520 U. S. 154, 162-163 (1997). That argument is unpersuasive because, as the District Court found, respondents’ injury has an environmental as well as an economic component. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 49a. In its ruling on the merits of respondents’ NEPA claim, the District Court held that the risk that the RRA gene conferring glyphosate resistance will infect conventional and organic alfalfa is a significant environmental effect within the meaning of NEPA. Petitioners did not appeal that part of the court’s ruling, and we have no occasion to revisit it here. Respondents now seek injunctive relief in order to avert the risk of gene flow to their crops — the very-same effect that the District Court determined to be a significant environmental concern for purposes of NEPA. The mere fact that respondents also seek to avoid certain economic harms that are tied to the risk of gene flow does not strip them of prudential standing.
In short, respondents have standing to seek injunctive relief, and petitioners have standing to seek this Court’s review of the Ninth Circuit’s judgment affirming the entry of such relief. We therefore proceed to the merits of the case.
Ill
A
The District Court sought to remedy APHIS’s NEPA violation in three ways: First, it vacated the agency’s decision completely deregulating RRA; second, it enjoined APHIS from deregulating RRA, in whole or in part, pending completion of the mandated EIS; and third, it entered a nationwide injunction prohibiting almost all future planting of RRA. Id., at 108a-110a. Because petitioners and the Government do not argue otherwise, we assume without deciding that the District Court acted lawfully in vacating the deregulation decision. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 7 (“[T]he district court could have vacated the order in its entirety and sent it back to the agency”); accord, id., at 15-16. We therefore address only the latter two aspects of the District Court’s judgment. Before doing so, however, we provide a brief overview of the standard governing the entry of injunctive relief.
B
“[A] plaintiff seeking a permanent injunction must satisfy a four-factor test before a court may grant such relief. A plaintiff must demonstrate: (1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury; (2) that remediés available at law, such as monetary damages, are inadequate to compensate for that injury; (3) that, considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and (4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.” eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L. L. C., 547 U. S. 388, 391 (2006). The traditional four-factor test applies when a plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction to remedy a NEPA violation. See Winter v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 555 U. S. 7, 31-33 (2008).
Petitioners argue that the lower courts in this case proceeded on the erroneous assumption that an injunction is generally the appropriate remedy for a NEPA violation. In particular, petitioners note that the District Court cited preWinter Ninth Circuit precedent for the proposition that, in “'the run of the mill NEPA case,’” an injunction delaying the contemplated government project is proper '"until the NEPA violation is cured.’ ” App. to Pet. for Cert. 65a (quoting Idaho Watersheds Project v. Hahn, 307 F. 3d 815, 833 (CA9 2002)); see also App. to Pet. for Cert. 55a (quoting same language in preliminary injunction order). In addition, petitioners observe, the District Court and the Court of Appeals in this case both stated that, “in unusual circumstances, an injunction may be withheld, or, more likely, limited in scope” in NEPA eases. Id., at 66a (quoting National Parks & Conservation Assn. v. Babbitt, 241 F. 3d 722, 737, n. 18 (CA9 2001); internal quotation marks omitted); 570 F. 3d, at 1137.
Insofar as the statements quoted above are intended to guide the determination whether to grant injunctive relief, they invert the proper mode of analysis. An injunction should issue only if the traditional four-factor test is satisfied. See Winter, supra, at 31-33. In contrast, the statements quoted above appear to presume that an injunction is the proper remedy for a NEPA violation except in unusual circumstances. No such thumb on the scales is warranted. Nor, contrary to the reasoning of the Court of Appeals, could any such error be cured by a court’s perfunctory recognition that “an injunction does not automatically issue” in NEPA cases. See 570 F. 3d, at 1137 (internal quotation marks omitted). It is not enough for a court considering a request for injunctive relief to ask whether there is a good reason why an injunction should not issue; rather, a court must determine that an injunction should issue under the traditional four-factor test set out above.
Notwithstanding the lower cpurts’ apparent reliance on the incorrect standard set out in the pre-Winter Circuit precedents quoted above, respondents argue that the lower courts in fact applied the traditional four-factor test. In their view, the statements that injunctive relief is proper in the “run-of-the-mill” NEPA case, and that such injunctions are granted except in “unusual circumstances,” are descriptive rather than prescriptive. See Brief for Respondents 28, n. 14. We need not decide whether respondents’ characterization of the lower court opinions in this case is sound. Even if it is, the injunctive relief granted here cannot stand.
C
We first consider whether the District Court erred in enjoining APHIS from partially deregulating RRA during the pendency of the EIS process.
The relevant part of the District Court’s judgment states that, “[bjefore granting Monsanto’s deregulation petition, even in part, the federal defendants shall prepare an environmental impact statement.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 108a (emphasis added); see also id., at 79a (“The Court will enter a final judgment... ordering the government to prepare an EIS before it makes a decision on Monsanto’s deregulation petition”). The plain text of the order prohibits any partial deregulation, not just the particular partial deregulation embodied in APHIS’s proposed judgment. We think it is quite clear that the District Court meant just what it said. The related injunction against planting states that “no [RRA]... may be planted” “[u]ntil the federal defendants prepare the EIS and decide the deregulation petition.” Id., at 108a (emphasis added). That injunction, which appears in the very same judgment and directly follows the injunction against granting Monsanto’s petition “even in part,” does not carve out an exception for planting subsequently authorized by a valid partial deregulation decision.
In our view, none of the traditional four factors governing the entry of permanent injunctive relief supports the District Court’s injunction prohibiting partial deregulation. To see why that is so, it is helpful to understand how the injunction prohibiting a partial deregulation fits into the broader dispute between the parties.
Respondents in this case brought suit under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) to challenge a particular agency order: APHIS’s decision to completely deregulate RRA. The District Court held that the order in question was procedurally defective, and APHIS decided not to appeal that determination. At that point, it was for the agency to decide whether and to what extent it would pursue a partial deregulation. If the agency found, on the basis of a new EA, that a limited and temporary deregulation satisfied applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, it could proceed with such a deregulation even if it had not yet finished the onerous EIS required for complete deregulation. If and when the agency were to issue a partial deregulation order, any party aggrieved by that order could bring a separate suit under the APA to challenge the particular deregulation attempted. See 5 U. S. C. § 702.
In this ease, APHIS apparently sought to “streamline” the proceedings by asking the District Court to craft a remedy that, in effect, would have partially deregulated RRA until such time as the agency had finalized the EIS needed for a complete deregulation. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 16, 23-24; App. to Pet. for Cert. 69a. To justify that disposition, APHIS and petitioners submitted voluminous documentary submissions in which they purported to show that the risk of gene flow would be insignificant if the District Court allowed limited planting and harvesting subject to APHIS’s proposed conditions. Respondents, in turn, submitted considerable evidence of their own that seemed to cut the other way. This put the District Court in an unenviable position. “The parties’ experts disagreed over virtually every factual issue relating to possible environmental harm, including the likelihood of genetic contamination and why some contamination had already occurred.” 570 F. 3d, at 1135.
The District Court may well have acted within its discretion in refusing to craft a judicial remedy that would have authorized the continued planting and harvesting of RRA while the EIS is being prepared. It does not follow, however, that the District Court was within its rights in enjoining APHIS from allowing such planting and harvesting pursuant to the authority vested in the agency by law. When the District Court entered its permanent injunction, APHIS had not yet exercised its authority to partially deregulate RRA. Until APHIS actually seeks to effect a partial deregulation, any judicial review of such a decision is premature.
Nor can the District Court’s injunction be justified as a prophylactic measure needed to guard against the possibility that the agency would seek to effect on its own the particular partial deregulation scheme embodied in the terms of APHIS’s proposed judgment. Even if the District Court was not required to adopt that judgment, there was no need to stop the agency from effecting a partial deregulation in accordance with the procedures established by law. Moreover, the terms of the District Court’s injunction do not just enjoin the particular partial deregulation embodied in APHIS’s proposed judgment. Instead, the District Court barred the agency from pursuing any deregulation — no matter how limited the geographic area in which planting of RRA would be allowed, how great the isolation distances mandated between RRA fields and fields for growing non-genetically-engineered alfalfa, how stringent the regulations governing harvesting and distribution, how robust the enforcement mechanisms available at the time of the decision, and — consequently—no matter how small the risk that the planting authorized under such conditions would adversely affect the environment in general and respondents in particular.
The order enjoining any partial deregulation was also inconsistent with other aspects of the very same judgment. In fashioning its remedy for the NEPA violation, the District Court steered a “middle course” between more extreme options on either end. See id., at 1136. On the one hand, the District Court rejected APHIS’s proposal (supported by petitioners) to allow continued planting and harvesting of RRA subject to the agency’s proposed limitations. On the other hand, the District Court did not bar continued planting of RRA as a regulated article under permit from APHIS, see App. to Pet. for Cert. 75a, and it expressly allowed farmers to harvest and sell RRA planted before March 30, 2007, id., at 76a-79a. If the District Court was right to conclude that any partial deregulation, no matter how limited, required the preparation of an EIS, it is hard to see why the limited planting and harvesting that the District Court allowed did not also require the preparation of an EIS. Conversely, if the District Court was right to conclude that the limited planting and harvesting it allowed did not require the preparation of an EIS, then an appropriately limited partial deregulation should likewise have been possible.
Based on the analysis set forth above, it is clear that the order enjoining any deregulation whatsoever does not satisfy the traditional four-factor test for granting permanent injunctive relief. Most importantly, respondents cannot show that they will suffer irreparable injury if APHIS is allowed to proceed with any partial deregulation, for at least two independent reasons.
First, if and when APHIS pursues a partial deregulation that arguably runs afoul of NEPA, respondents may file a new suit challenging such action and seeking appropriate preliminary relief. See 5 U. S. C. §§702, 705. Accordingly, a permanent injunction is not now needed to guard against any present or imminent risk of likely irreparable harm.
Second, a partial deregulation need not cause respondents any injury at all, much less irreparable injury; if the scope of the partial deregulation is sufficiently limited, the risk of gene flow to their crops could be virtually nonexistent. For example, suppose that APHIS deregulates RRA only in a remote part of the country in which respondents neither grow nor intend to grow non-genetically-engineered alfalfa, and in which no conventional alfalfa farms are currently located. Suppose further that APHIS issues an accompanying administrative order mandating isolation distances so great as to eliminate any appreciable risk of gene flow to the crops of conventional farmers who might someday choose to plant in the surrounding area. See, e. g., Brief in Opposition 9, n. 6 (quoting study concluding “ ‘that in order for there to be zero tolerance of any gene flow between [an RRA] seed field and a conventional seed field, those fields would have to have a five-mile isolation distance between them’ ”); see also Tr. of Oral Arg. 15-16 (representation from the Solicitor General that APHIS may impose conditions on the deregulation of RRA via issuance of an administrative
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
We noted probable jurisdiction in this case, 406 U. S. 956, to review the judgment of a three-judge district court, holding that Indiana’s system of administering unemployment insurance was in conflict with § 303 (a)(1) of the Social Security Act, 49 Stat. 626, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §503 (a)(1). Before the three-judge court entered its injunction, Indiana’s practice was to discontinue unemployment benefits upon a determination of ineligibility, that determination taking place without the benefit of a full hearing for the erstwhile beneficiary.
After several months of effort, however, the class representative in this litigation, Mrs. Burney, succeeded in obtaining a reversal of the initial determination of ineligibility. She has now received full retroactive compensation.
The full settlement of Mrs. Burney’s financial claim raises the question whether there continues to be a case or controversy in this lawsuit. Though the appellee purports to represent a class of all present and future recipients of unemployment insurance, there are no named representatives of the class except Mrs. Burney, who has been paid. Cf. Bailey v. Patterson, 369 U. S. 31, 32-33. Accordingly, the judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the District Court to consider whether it has become moot.
It is so ordered.
The three-judge court was convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281, 2284, to consider the prayer for an injunction against enforcement of the Indiana statute, Ind. Ann. Stat. § 52M542a (e) (Supp. 1970), on the grounds that it violated the appellee’s right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court did not reach this issue.
The District Court entered a temporary restraining order against the appellants on May 7,1971. Presumably, the appellee’s payments were then restored pending the outcome of her hearing before a referee, which took place, on July 1, 1971. On July 13, 1971, the referee affirmed the determination of ineligibility. Mrs. Burney then appealed to the Division Review Board. After the judgment and injunction were entered by the District Court, the Review Board reversed the referee and awarded payments to Mrs. Burney. This latter determination was unrelated to the injunction.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer: | I | sc_issuearea |
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Mr. Justice White, Mr. Justice Blackmun, and Mr. Justice Stevens joined.
Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U. S. 573 (1974), held that under the nonstatutory maritime wrongful-death action fashioned by Moragne v. States Marine Lines, 398 U. S. 375 (1970), the widow of a longshoreman mortally injured aboard a vessel in state territorial waters could recover damages for the loss of her deceased husband’s “society.” The question in this case is whether general maritime law authorizes the wife of a harbor worker injured nonfatally aboard a vessel in state territorial waters to maintain an action for damages for the loss of her husband’s society. We conclude that general maritime law does afford the wife such a cause of action.
I
Respondent Gilberto Alvez lost an eye while working as a lasher aboard petitioner’s vessel SS Export Builder in New York waters. He commenced an action for damages against petitioner in the New York Supreme Court on grounds of negligence and unseaworthiness. Leave to amend respondent’s complaint to add his spouse as a plaintiff for loss of society was denied by the New York Supreme Court, Special Term, on the authority of Igneri v. Cie. de Transports Oceaniques, 323 P. 2d 257 (CA2 1963), cert. denied, 376 U. S. 949 (1964), in which the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit ruled that an injured longshoreman’s wife was not entitled to compensation for loss of her husband’s society. App. to Pet. for Cert. Al. The Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court reversed, and granted Alvez’ motion to amend, reasoning that Gaudet, rather than Igneri, was controlling authority. 59 App. Div. 2d 883, 399 N. Y. S. 2d 673 (1st Dept. 1977). Upon certification (App. to Pet. for Cert. A6-A7), the New York Court of Appeals agreed that the vitality of Igneri had been sapped by Gaudet and by other developments in the law, and held that Mrs. Alvez should be permitted to maintain her claim for loss of society under maritime law. 46 N. Y. 2d 634, 389 N. E. 2d 461 (1979). We granted certiorari. 444 U. S. 924 (1979). We affirm.
II
At oral argument, the Court raised, sua sponte, the question whether this case fell within the Court's statutory jurisdiction to review “[fjinal judgments or decrees rendered by the highest court of a State in which a decision could be had_” 28 U. S. C. § 1257.
The question is a close one. The New York Court of Appeals order granting leave to amend the complaint was only the predicate to a decision on the merits of the claim for loss of society; that order, therefore, is not “final” in the strict sense of a decree that leaves nothing further to be addressed by the state courts. Nor does the Court of Appeals judgment, as originally entered, readily fit into any of the categorical exceptions to strict finality which the Court has developed in construing § 1257. See Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, 420 U. S. 469, 476-487 (1975). Thus, were the case in the posture in which it stood when the petition for certio-rari was filed, we might well determine that the judgment lacked sufficient characteristics of finality to warrant an assertion of our appellate jurisdiction.
Since the writ of certiorari was granted, however, this case — including the claim for loss of society — has been tried, and respondent Alvez has prevailed. Tr. of Oral Arg. 7-8. Counsel for petitioner American Export Lines has informed the Court at oral argument that petitioner’s appeal from the trial verdict against it will not challenge that element of the verdict which awarded damages for loss of society to Mrs. Alvez. Id., at 10, 41-42. Furthermore, it is conceded that no federal question, except that which we are now asked to resolve, remains in the litigation. Id., at 6.
So far as respondent’s wife’s claim for loss of society is concerned, it thus appears that “the federal issue, finally decided by the highest court in the State, will survive and require decision regardless of the outcome of future state-court proceedings.” Cox Broadcasting, supra, at 480; see Radio Station WOW v. Johnson, 326 U. S. 120, 123-127 (1945). As a practical matter, then, we conclude that the judgment below upholding the legal tenability of Mrs. Alvez’ claim falls— at present — within a categorical exception to strict finality. “[N]ow that the case is before us . . . the eventual costs, as all the parties recognize, will certainly be less if we now pass on the questions presented here rather than send the case back with those issues undecided.” Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp., 379 U. S. 148, 153 (1964).
Ill
In Igneri v. Cie. de Transports Oceaniques, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit rejected the loss-of-society claim of a longshoreman’s wife in a maritime personal injury action. The Igneri opinion was carefully constructed within the framework of then-applicable doctrines governing maritime remedies. At the time, there was no clear decisional authority sustaining a general maritime law right of recovery for loss of society. 323 F. 2d, at 265-266; compare Savage v. New York, N. & H. S. S. Co., 185 F. 778, 781 (CA2 1911) (adopting opinion of Hough, District Judge) (dictum), with New York & Long Branch Steamboat Co. v. Johnson, 195 F. 740 (CA3 1912). It was also thought established, as Igneri stated, “that the damages recoverable by a seaman’s widow suing for wrongful death under the Jones Act do not include recovery for loss of consortium,” 323 F. 2d, at 266 (emphasis added); see Michigan Central R. Co. v. Vreeland, 227 U. S. 59 (1913). Too, it was far from evident that the rule of Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U. S. 85 (1946), entitling a longshoreman to maintain an action for unseaworthiness, would extend to permit recovery for loss of society by his spouse. 323 F. 2d, at 267-268. Thus, the principles of maritime law prevalent in 1963 militated against, rather than supported, the creation of a right to recover for loss of society in Igneri.
Subsequent developments, however, have altered the legal setting within which we confront a claim for loss of society due to personal injury. In 1970, Moragne v. States Marine Lines, 398 U. S. 375, overruled The Harrisburg, 119 U. S. 199 (1886), and held that an action for wrongful death based upon unseaworthiness is maintainable under general federal maritime law. Moragne itself did not fully define the new, nonstatutory, cause of action, and its contours were further shaped some four years later by Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U. S. 573 (1974). Gaudet held, inter alia, that the maritime wrongful-death remedy created by Moragne encompassed the recovery of damages for loss of society by a decedent's widow. So, it is no longer correct to assume— as did Igneri — that the warranty of seaworthiness affords no relief to the spouse of a longshoreman. More importantly, Gaudet provides the conclusive decisional recognition of a right to recover for loss of society that Igneri found lacking.
To be sure, Gaudet upheld a claim for loss of society in the context of a wrongful-death action. But general federal maritime law is a source of relief for a longshoreman’s personal injury, Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn, 346 U. S. 406, 412-414 (1953), just as it is a source of remedy for wrongful death, Moragne, supra. Within this single body of judge-formulated law, there is no apparent reason to differentiate between fatal and nonfatal injuries in authorizing the recovery of damages for loss of society. The vitality of the longshoreman is logically irrelevant once we have accepted the principle that injury suffered by a longshoreman’s spouse from loss of society should be compensable, when proved. Nothing intrinsic to the Gaudet rule, therefore, should cabin its application to wrongful death.
Petitioner argues that the reach of Gaudet’& principle must be limited by the fact that no right to recover for loss of society due to maritime injury has been recognized by Congress under § 2 of the Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA), 46 U. S. C. § 762; see Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham, 436 U. S. 618, 620 (1978), or the Jones Act, 46 U. S. C. § 688. But it is a settled canon of maritime jurisprudence that “ ‘it better becomes the humane and liberal character of proceedings in admiralty to give than to withhold the remedy, when not required to withhold it by established and inflexible rules.’ ” Moragne v. States Marine Lines, supra, at 387, quoting, with approval, The Sea Gull, 21 F. Cas. 909, 910 (No. 12,578) (CC Md. 1865); accord, Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, supra, at 583. Plainly, neither statute embodies an “established and inflexible” rule here foreclosing recognition of a claim for loss of society by judicially crafted general maritime law.
DOHSA comprehends relief for fatal injuries incurred on the high seas, 46 U. S. C. § 761. To be sure, Mobil Oil Corp. v. Higginbotham, supra, construed DOHSA to forbid general maritime law supplementation of the' elements of compensation for which the Act provides. But Higginbotham never intimated that the preclusive effect of DOHSA extends beyond the statute’s ambit. To the contrary, while treating the statutory remedies for wrongful deaths on the high seas as exclusive, Higginbotham expressly reaffirmed that Gaudet governs recoveries for wrongful deaths on territorial waters. 436 U. S., at 623-625; see Moragne, supra, at 397-398. And if DOHSA does not pre-empt general maritime law where fatalities occur within territorial waters, it follows a fortiori that the Act does not exclude federal maritime law as a source of relief for nonfatal injuries upon the same waters.
Nor do we read the Jones Act as sweeping aside general maritime law remedies. Notwithstanding our sometime treatment of longshoremen as pseudo-seamen for certain Jones Act purposes, International Stevedoring Co. v. Haverty, 272 U. S. 50 (1926); cf. Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, supra, at 100-102, the Jones Act does not exhaustively or exclusively regulate longshoremen’s remedies, see Moragne, 398 U. S., at 395-396, and n. 12; Pope & Talbot, Inc. v. Hawn, supra, at 413-414; Igneri, 323 F. 2d, at 266. Furthermore, the Jones Act lacks such preclusive effect even with respect to true seamen; thus, we have held that federal maritime law permits the dependents of seamen killed within territorial seas to recover for violation of a duty of seaworthiness that entails a stricter standard of care than the Jones Act. Moragne, supra, at 396, n. 12; see Gilmore & Black, supra n. 9, at 367-368.
Apart from the question of statutory pre-emption, the liability schemes incorporated in DOHSA and the Jones Act should not be accorded overwhelming analogical weight in formulating remedies under general maritime law. The two statutes were enacted within days to address related problems — yet they are “hopelessly inconsistent with each other.” Gilmore & Black, supra n. 9, at 359; see id., at 360-367. The Jones Act itself was not the product of careful drafting or attentive legislative review, id., at 277, 327; assuming that the statute bars damages for loss of society, it does so solely by virtue of judicial interpretation of the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 45 U. S. C. § 51 et seg., which was incorporated into the Jones Act, see, e. g., Ivy v. Security Barge Lines, Inc., 606 F. 2d 524, 526 (CA5 1979) (en banc), cert. pending, No. 79-1228. Thus, a remedial omission in the Jones Act is not evidence of considered congressional policymaking that should command our adherence in analogous contexts. And we have already indicated that “no intention appears that the [Death on the High Seas] Act have the effect of foreclosing any nonstatu-tory federal remedies that might be found appropriate to effectuate the policies of general maritime law.” Moragne, supra, at 400; Gaudet, 414 U. S., at 588, n. 22.
Far more persuasive at the present juncture are currently prevailing views about compensation for loss of society. Cf. Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, supra, at 587-588. As the Court of Appeals observed in Igneri:
“At least this much is true. If the common law recognized a wife’s claim for loss of consortium, uniformly or nearly so, a United States admiralty court would approach the problem here by asking itself why it should not likewise do so. . . .” 323 F. 2d, at 260.
At the time Igneri was decided, governing law in the relevant jurisdictions was substantially divided over the wife’s right to recover for loss of consortium. Id., at 260-264. But the state of the law is very different today. Currently, a clear majority of States permit a wife to recover damages for loss of consortium from personal injury to her husband. Furthermore, even in Igneri’s day, the generally accepted rule allowed a husband to gain damages for loss of consortium with his tortiously injured wife, id., at 260; so “clearly authorized” a common-law principle would have been translated into maritime law by the Igneri analysis, id., at 260, 267. And if Igneri implies that a husband may collect compensation under maritime law for loss of consortium with his injured wife, it follows that the same relief is due the wife who suffers a comparable loss because of wounds suffered by her husband, see, e. g., Duncan v. General Motors Corp., 499 F. 2d 835 (CA10 1974); cf. Orr v. Orr, 440 U. S. 268 (1979).
Admiralty jurisprudence has always been inspirited with a “special solicitude for the welfare of those men who under [take] to venture upon hazardous and unpredictable sea voyages.” Moragne v. States Marine Lines, supra, at 387. As in Moragne and Gaudet, “[o]ur approach to the resolution, of the issue before us . . [is] consistent with the extension of this 'special solicitude’ to the dependents of [seafarers]. . . Oaudet, supra, at 577. The decision of the New York Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
The Chief Justice concurs in the judgment.
“The term 'society’ embraces a broad range of mutual benefits each family member receives from the others’ continued existence, including love, affection, care, attention, companionship, comfort, and protection.” Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U. S., at 585.
Alvez’ injury was sustained before the effective date of the 1972 Amendments to the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U. S. C. § 901 et seq. Petitioner also impleaded Alvez’ employer, Joseph Vinal Ship Maintenance, Inc., for indemnification.
Since Gaudet, one Federal Court of Appeals has expressly aligned itself with the Igneri rule, Christofferson v. Halliburton Co., 534 F. 2d 1147 (CA5), rehearing en banc denied, 542 F. 2d 1174 (1976), and a number of state and federal district courts have divided on the issue, compare, e. g., Pesce v. Summa Corp., 54 Cal. App. 3d 86, 126 Cal. Rptr. 451 (1975), and Giglio v. Farrell Lines, Inc., 424 F. Supp. 927 (SDNY 1977), appeal denied, No. 77-8014 (CA2, Feb. 17, 1977), with Davidson v. Schlussel Reederei KG, 295 So. 2d 700 (Fla. App. 1974), and Westcott v. McAllister Bros., Inc., 463 F. Supp. 1039 (SDNY 1978).
See Note, The Finality Rule for Supreme Court Review of State Court Orders, 91 Harv. L. Rev. 1004 (1978).
“Question: Mr. Carr [attorney for petitioner], what happens if the appellate division reverses?
“Mr. Carr: If the appellate division reverses, it would not reverse on the question of Juanita Alvez’s claim for consortium. If the appellate division reverses, it would probably reverse on—
“Question: Correct.
“Mr. Carr: —instructions to the jury that may have been—
“Question: Then the appellate division leaves that intact, the $50,000, right?
“Mr. Carr: Yes, sir.
“Question: Could I ask you if the New York court system has finally disposed of this federal issue of the right of the wife?
“Mr. Carr: The New York state court system has finally disposed of the issue of the right of the wife.
“Question: You have lost at trial?
“Mr. Carr: Well, I don’t like to put it that way.
“Question: Well, judgment has gone against you, your client?
“Mr. Carr: There is judgment against my client. . . .
“Question: Well, on the consortium issue the judgment has gone against your client?
“Mr. Carr: Yes, indeed it has, Your Honor.
“Question: And that issue has not — if you want to appeal in the state court system, the right of the wife is not subject to relitigation, is it?
“Mr. Carr: The right of the wife is final as far as the New York state court system is concerned.
“Question: Except as to amount, I suppose.
“Mr. Carr: Except as to amount.
“Question: Conceivably a reviewing court might reduce it.
“Mr. Carr: With respect to exeessiveness, that is so. But as far as the wife’s right of consortium, that right is final in the state courts and cannot be relitigated in that forum.
“Mr. Carr: The appellate division would say this is res judicata, this has been decided by the New York state Court of Appeals and does not permit you to pursue the matter further.”
The dissent argues, post, at 287, n. 1, that petitioner’s counsel’s assertion that the New York courts would not reverse Mrs. Alvez’ trial victory, Tr. of Oral Arg. 10, is contradicted by statements of respondent Alvez’ counsel indicating or implying that American Export Lines “might find some grounds for error in the record,” id., at 21; see id., at 20. But respondent Alvez’ counsel could have said nothing else: since he is not representing petitioner American Export Lines, respondent Alvez’ attorney could hardly have conceded any element of petitioner’s case in the state courts. What is relevant, then, is petitioner’s counsel’s answer to this Court that “the appellate division . . . would not reverse on the question of Juanita Alvez’s claim for consortium. . . . [The New York courts] would leave it intact.” Id., at 10. Since American Export Lines’ counsel was aware of this Court’s concerns, it is fair to read this response as a concession by counsel — who was in a position to know his client’s strategy in the state courts — that Mrs. Alvez’ claim was no longer in jeopardy.
Our ruling on finality only extends, of course, to Mrs. Alvez’ claim for loss of society, since we do not understand counsel for petitioner to concede that the other claims tried are beyond challenge. The fact that these other claims are nonfinal, however, need not preclude us from considering the final determination as to Mrs. Alvez’ claim. Cf. Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp., 379 U. S. 148, 153 (1964).
Gaudet’s discussion of the issue of double liability did state:
“[D]ecedent’s recovery did not include damages for the dependents’ loss of services or of society, and funeral expenses. Indeed, these losses — unique to the decedent's dependents — could not accrue until the decedent's death.” 414 U. S., at 591-592.
In Christofferson v. Halliburton Co., 534 F. 2d, at 1150, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit inferred from that passage an intention to limit Gaudet to the wrongful-death context. But no such limitation is implicit. As a matter of logic, Gaudet’s statement that double liability is precluded in wrongful-death cases is not equivalent to the proposition that only wrongful-death cases preclude double liability. Moreover, the Gaudet opinion itself noted that damages may be assessed for loss of society in personal injury cases, 414 U. S., at 589-590; see Christofferson, supra, at 1153-1154 (Freeman, J., dissenting).
Haverty was largely, if not completely, superseded by the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act of 1927, 33 U. S. C. § 901 et seq. See Swanson v. Marra Bros., 328 U. S. 1 (1946). But see G. Gilmore & C. Black, The Law of Admiralty 330, 454r-455 (2d ed. 1975). Sieracki has been overtaken by .the 1972 Amendments to the Longshoremen’s Act. See Gilmore & Black, supra, at 449.
Respondent Joseph Yinal Ship Maintenance, Inc., the interests of which parallel petitioner’s, has advanced the argument that recovery for loss of society is barred by the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act as applicable at the time of the injury — i. e., before the 1972 Amendments. It does not appear that this contention was raised below; in any event, it has no merit. Whatever the limitations on recovery against employers under the pre-1972 LHWCA, longshoremen retained additional rights based upon the warranty of seaworthiness. See Seas Shipping Co. v. Sieracki, 328 U. S. 85 (1946); cf. Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, supra.
Forty-one States and the District of Columbia allow recovery by a wife or couple: Swartz v. United States Steel Corp., 293 Ala. 439, 304 So. 2d 881 (1974); Schreiner v. Fruit, 519 P. 2d 462 (Alaska 1974); Glendale v. Bradshaw, 108 Ariz. 582, 503 P. 2d 803 (1972); Missouri Pacific Transp. Co. v. Miller, 227 Ark. 351, 299 S. W. 2d 41 (1957); Rodriguez v. Bethlehem Steel Corp., 12 Cal. 3d 382, 525 P. 2d 669 (1974); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 14-2-209 (1973); Hopson v. St. Mary’s Hospital, 176 Conn. 485, 408 A. 2d 260 (1979); Yonner v. Adams, 53 Del. 229, 167 A. 2d 717 (1961); Hitaffer v. Argonne Co., 87 U. S. App. D. C. 57, 183 F. 2d 811 (1950); Gates v. Foley, 247 So. 2d 40 (Fla. 1971); Brown v. Georgia-Tennessee Coaches, Inc., 88 Ga. App. 519, 77 S. E. 2d 24 (1953); Nishi v. Hartwell, 52 Haw. 188, 473 P. 2d 116 (1970); Nichols v. Sonneman, 91 Idaho 199, 418 P. 2d 562 (1966); Dini v. Naiditch, 20 Ill. 2d 406, 170 N. E. 2d 881 (1960); Troue v. Marker, 253 Ind. 284, 252 N. E. 2d 800 (1969); Acuff v. Schmit, 248 Iowa 272, 78 N. W. 2d 480 (1956); Kan. Stat. Ann. § 23-205 (Supp. 1979); Kotsiris v. Ling, 451 S. W. 2d 411 (Ky. 1970); Me. Rev. Stat. Ann., Tit. 19, § 167-A (Supp. 1979); Deems v. Western Maryland R. Co., 247 Md. 95, 231 A. 2d 514 (1967); Diaz v. Eli Lilly & Co., 364 Mass. 153, 302 N. E. 2d 555 (1973); Montgomery v. Stephan, 359 Mich. 33, 101 N. W. 2d 227 (1960); Thill v. Modern Erecting Co., 284 Minn. 508, 170 N. W. 2d 865 (1969); Miss. Code Ann. § 93-3-1 (1972); Novak v. Kansas City Transit, Inc., 365 S. W. 2d 539 (Mo. 1963); Duffy v. Lipsman-Fulkerson & Co., 200 F. Supp. 71 (Mont. 1961) (applying Montana law); Luther v. Maple, 250 F. 2d 916 (CA8 1958) (applying Nebraska law) (semble); General Electric Co. v. Bush, 88 Nev. 360, 498 P. 2d 366 (1972); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 507:8-a (1968); Ekalo v. Constructive Serv. Corp., 46 N. J. 82, 215 A. 2d 1 (1965); Millington v. Southeastern Elevator Co., 22 N. Y. 2d 498, 239 N. E. 2d 897 (1968); Clouston v. Remlinger Oldsmobile Cadillac, Inc., 22 Ohio St. 2d 65, 258 N. E. 2d 230 (1970); Okla. Stat., Tit. 32, § 15 (Supp. 1979); Ore. Rev. Stat. § 108.010 (1975); Hopkins v. Blanco, 457 Pa. 90, 320 A. 2d 139 (1974); Mariani v. Nanni, 95 R. I. 153, 185 A. 2d 119 (1962); Hoekstra v. Helgeland, 78 S. D. 82, 98 N. W. 2d 669 (1959); Tenn. Code Ann. § 25-109 (Supp. 1979); Whittlesey v. Miller, 572 S. W. 2d 665 (Tex. 1978); Vt. Stat. Ann., Tit. 12, §5431 (Supp. 1979); W. Va. Code § 48-3-19a (1976); Moran v. Quality Aluminum Casting Co., 34 Wis. 2d 542, 150 N. W. 2d 137 (1967). See also Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U. S., at 587; see generally W. Prosser, Law of Torts 895-896 (4th ed. 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: | H | sc_issuearea |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.