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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This school desegregation case concerns the Denver, Colorado, school system. That system has never been operated under a constitutional or statutory provision that mandated or permitted racial segregation in public education. Rather, the gravamen of this action, brought in June 1969 in the District Court for the District of Colorado by parents of Denver schoolchildren, is that respondent School Board alone, by use of various techniques such as the manipulation of student attendance zones, schoolsite selection and a neighborhood school policy, created or maintained racially or ethnically (or both racially and ethnically) segregated schools throughout the school district, entitling petitioners to a decree directing desegregation of the entire school district.
The boundaries of the school district are coterminous with the boundaries of the city and county of Denver. There were in 1969, 119 schools with 96,580 pupils in the school system. In early 1969, the respondent School Board adopted three resolutions, Resolutions 1520, 1524, and 1531, designed to desegregate the schools in the Park Hill area in the northeast portion of the city. Following an election which produced a Board majority opposed to the resolutions, the resolutions were rescinded and replaced with a voluntary student transfer program. Petitioners then filed this action, requesting an injunction against the rescission of the resolutions and an order directing that the respondent School Board desegregate and afford equal educational opportunity “for the School District as a whole.” App. 32a. The District Court found that by the construction of a new, relatively small elementary school, Barrett, in the middle of the Negro community west of Park Hill, by the gerrymandering of student attendance zones, by the use of so-called “optional zones,” and by the excessive use of mobile classroom units, among other things, the respondent School Board had engaged over almost a decade after 1960 in an unconstitutional policy of deliberate racial segregation with respect to the Park Hill schools. The court therefore ordered the Board to desegregate those schools through the implementation of the three rescinded resolutions. 303 F. Supp. 279 and 289 (1969).
Segregation in Denver schools is not limited, however, to the schools in the Park Hill area, and not satisfied with their success in obtaining relief for Park Hill, petitioners pressed their prayer that the District Court order desegregation of all segregated schools in the city of Denver, particularly the heavily segregated schools in the core city area. But that court concluded that its finding of a purposeful and systematic program of racial segregation affecting thousands of students in the Park Hill area did not, in itself, impose on the School Board an affirmative duty to eliminate segregation throughout the school district. Instead, the court fractionated the district and held that petitioners had to make a fresh showing of de jure segregation in each area of the city for which they sought relief. Moreover, the District Court held that its finding of intentional segregation in Park Hill was not in any sense material to the question of segregative intent in other areas of the city. Under this restrictive approach, the District Court concluded that petitioners’ evidence of intentionally discriminatory School Board action in areas of the district other than Park Hill was insufficient to “dictate the conclusion that this is de jure segregation which calls for an all-out effort to desegregate. It is more like de facto segregation, with respect to which the rule is that the court cannot order desegregation in order to provide a better balance.” 313 P. Supp. 61, 73 (1970).
Nevertheless, the District Court went on to hold that the proofs established that the segregated core city schools were educationally inferior to the predominantly “white” or “Anglo” schools in other parts of the district — that is, “separate facilities... unequal in the quality of education provided.” Id., at 83. Thus, the court held that, under the doctrine of Plessy v. Ferguson, 163 U. S. 537 (1896), respondent School Board constitutionally “must at a minimum... offer an equal educational opportunity,” 313 F. Supp., at 83, and, therefore, although all-out desegregation “could not be decreed,... the only feasible and constitutionally acceptable program — the only program which furnishes anything approaching substantial equality — is a system of desegregation and integration which provides compensatory education in an integrated environment.” 313 F. Supp. 90, 96 (1970). The District Court then formulated a varied remedial plan to that end which was incorporated in the Final Decree.
Respondent School Board appealed, and petitioners cross-appealed, to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. That court sustained the District Court’s finding that the Board had engaged in an unconstitutional policy of deliberate racial segregation with respect to the Park Hill schools and affirmed the Final Decree in that respect. As to the core city schools, however, the Court of Appeals reversed the legal determination of the District Court that those schools were maintained in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because of the unequal educational opportunity afforded, and therefore set aside so much of the Final Decree as required desegregation and educational improvement programs for those schools. 445 F. 2d 990 (1971). In reaching that result, the Court of Appeals also disregarded respondent School Board's deliberate racial segregation policy respecting the Park Hill schools and accepted the District Court’s finding that petitioners had not proved that respondent had a like policy addressed specifically to the core city schools.
We granted petitioners’ petition for certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ judgment insofar as it reversed that part of the District Court’s Final Decree as pertained to the core city schools. 404 U. S. 1036 (1972). The judgment of the Court of Appeals in that respect is modified to vacate instead of reverse the Final Decree. The respondent School Board has cross-petitioned for certiorari to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals insofar as it affirmed that part of the District Court’s Final Decree as pertained to the Park Hill schools. Docket No. 71-572, School District No. 1 v. Keyes. The cross-petition is denied.
I
Before turning to the primary question we decide today, a word must be said about the District Court’s method of defining a “segregated” school. Denver is a triethnic, as distinguished from a bi-racial, community. The overall racial and ethnic composition of the Denver public schools is 66% Anglo, 14% Negro, and 20% His-pano. The District Court, in assessing the question of de jure segregation in the core city schools, preliminarily resolved that Negroes and Hispanos should not be placed in the same category to establish the segregated character of a school. 313 F. Supp., at 69. Later, in determining the schools that were likely to produce an inferior educational opportunity, the court concluded that a school would be considered inferior only if it had “a concentration of either Negro or His-pano students in the general area of 70 to 75 percent.” Id., at 77. We intimate no opinion whether the District Court’s 70%-to-75% requirement was correct. The District Court used those figures to signify educationally inferior schools, and there is no suggestion in the record that those same figures were or would be used to define a “segregated” school in the de jure context. What is or is not a segregated school will necessarily depend on the facts of each particular case. In addition to the racial and ethnic composition of a school’s student body, other factors, such as the racial and ethnic composition of faculty and staff and the community and administration attitudes toward the school, must be taken into consideration. The District Court has recognized these specific factors as elements of the definition of a “segregated” school, id., at 74, and we may therefore infer that the court will consider them again on remand.
We conclude, however, that the District Court erred in separating Negroes and Hispanos for purposes of defining a "segregated” school. We have held that His-panos constitute an identifiable class for purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment. Hernandez v. Texas, 347 U. S. 475 (1954). See also United States v. Texas Education Agency, 467 F. 2d 848 (CA5 1972) (en banc); Cisneros v. Corpus Christi Independent School District, 467 F. 2d 142 (CA5 1972) (en banc); Alvarado v. El Paso Independent School District, 445 F. 2d 1011 (CA5 1971); Soria v. Oxnard School District, 328 F. Supp. 155 (CD Cal. 1971); Romero v. Weakley, 226 F. 2d 399 (CA9 1955). Indeed, the District Court recognized this in classifying predominantly Hispano schools as "segregated” schools in their own right. But there is also much evidence that in the Southwest Hispanos and Negroes have a great many things in common. The United States Commission on Civil Rights has recently published two Reports on Hispano education in the Southwest. Focusing on students in the States of Arizona, California, Colorado, New Mexico, and Texas, the Commission concluded that Hispanos suffer from the same educational inequities as Negroes and American Indians. In fact, the District Court itself recognized that “[o]ne of the things which the Hispano has in common with the Negro is economic and cultural deprivation and discrimination.” 313 F. Supp., at 69. This is agreement that, though of different origins, Negroes and His-panos in Denver suffer identical discrimination in.treatment when compared with the treatment afforded Anglo students. In that circumstance, we think petitioners are entitled to have schools with a combined predominance of Negroes and Hispanos included in the category of “segregated” schools.
II
In our view, the only other question that requires our decision at this time is that subsumed in Question 2 of the questions presented by petitioners, namely, whether the District Court and the Court of Appeals applied an incorrect legal standard in addressing petitioners’ contention that respondent School Board engaged in an unconstitutional policy of deliberate segregation in the core city schools. Our conclusion is that those courts did not apply the correct standard in addressing that contention.
Petitioners apparently concede for the purposes of this case that in the case of a school system like Denver’s, where no statutory dual system has ever existed, plaintiffs must prove not only that segregated schooling exists but also that it was brought about or maintained by intentional state action. Petitioners proved that for almost a decade after 1960 respondent School Board had engaged in an unconstitutional policy of deliberate racial segregation in the Park Hill schools. Indeed, the District Court found that “[bjetween 1960 and 1969 the Board’s policies with respect to these northeast Denver schools show an undeviating purpose to isolate Negro students” in segregated schools "while preserving the Anglo character of [other] schools.” 303 F. Supp., at 294. This finding did not relate to an insubstantial or trivial fragment of the school system. On the contrary, respondent School Board was found guilty of following a deliberate segregation policy at schools attended, in 1969, by 37.69% of Denver’s total Negro school population, including one-fourth of the Negro elementary pupils, over two-thirds of the Negro junior high pupils, and over two-fifths of the Negro high school pupils. In addition, there was uncontroverted evidence that teachers and staff had for years been assigned on the basis of a minority teacher to a minority school throughout the school system. Respondent argues, however, that a finding of state-imposed segregation as to a substantial portion of the school system can be viewed in isolation from the rest of the district, and that even if state-imposed segregation does exist in a substantial part of the Denver school system, it does not follow that the District Court could predicate on that fact a finding that the entire school system is a dual system. We do not agree. We have never suggested that plaintiffs in school desegregation cases must bear the burden of proving the elements of de jure segregation as to each and every school or each and every student within the school system. Rather, we have held that where plaintiffs prove that a current condition of segregated schooling exists within a school district where a dual system was compelled or authorized by statute at the time of our decision in Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483 (1954) (Brown I), the State automatically assumes an affirmative duty “to effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system,” Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294, 301 (1955) (Brown II), see also Green v. County School Board, 391 U. S. 430, 437-438 (1968), that is, to eliminate from the public schools within their school system “all vestiges of state-imposed segregation.” Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education, 402 U. S. 1, 15 (1971);
This is not a case, however, where a statutory dual system has ever existed. Nevertheless, where-plaintiffs prove that the school authorities have carried out a systematic program of segregation affecting a substantial portion of the students, schools, teachers, and facilities within the school system, it is only common sense to conclude that there exists a predicate for a finding of the existence of a dual school system. Several considerations support this conclusion. First, it is obvious that a practice of concentrating Negroes in certain schools by structuring attendance zones or designating “feeder” schools on the basis of race has the reciprocal effect of keeping other nearby schools predominantly white. Similarly, the practice of building a school — such as the Barrett Elementary School in this case — to a certain size and in a certain location, “with conscious knowledge that it would be a segregated school,” 303 F. Supp., at 285, has a substantial reciprocal effect on the racial composition of other nearby schools. So also, the use of mobile classrooms, the drafting of student transfer policies, the transportation of students, and the assignment of faculty and staff, on racially identifiable bases, have the clear effect of earmarking schools according to their racial composition, and this, in turn, together with the elements of student assignment and school construction, may have a profound reciprocal effect on the racial composition of residential neighborhoods within a metropolitan area, thereby causing further racial concentration within the schools. We recognized this in Swann when we said:
“They [school authorities] must decide questions of location and capacity in light of population growth, finances, land values, site availability, through an almost endless list of factors to be considered. The result of this will be a decision which, when combined with one technique or another of student assignment, will determine the racial composition of the student body in each school in the system. Over the long run, the consequences of the choices will be far reaching. People gravitate toward school facilities, just as schools are located in response to the needs of people. The location of schools may thus influence the patterns of residential development of a metropolitan area and have important impact on composition of inner-city neighborhoods.
“In the past, choices in this respect have been used as a potent weapon for creating or maintaining a state-segregated school system. In addition to the classic pattern of building schools specifically intended for Negro or white students, school authorities have sometimes, since Brown, closed schools which appeared likely to become racially mixed through changes in neighborhood residential patterns. This was sometimes accompanied by building new schools in the areas of white suburban expansion farthest from Negro population centers in order to maintain the separation of the races with a minimum departure from the formal principles of ‘neighborhood zoning.’ Such a policy does more than simply influence the short-run composition of the student body of a new school. It may well promote segregated residential patterns which, when combined with ‘neighborhood zoning,’ further lock the school system into the mold of separation of the races. Upon a proper showing a district court may consider this in fashioning a remedy.” 402 U. S., at 20-21.
In short, common sense dictates the conclusion that racially inspired school board actions have an impact beyond the particular schools that are the subjects of those actions. This is not to say, of course, that there can never be a case in which the geographical structure of, or the natural boundaries within, a school district may have the effect of dividing the district into separate, identifiable and unrelated units. Such a determination is essentially a question of fact to be resolved by the trial court in the first instance, but such cases must be rare. In the absence of such a determination, proof of state-imposed segregation in a substantial portion of the district will suffice to support a finding by the trial court of the existence of a dual system. Of course, where that finding is made, as in cases involving statutory dual systems, the school authorities have an affirmative duty “to effectuate a transition to a racially nondiscriminatory school system.” Brown II, supra, at 301.
On remand, therefore, the District Court should decide in the first instance whether respondent School Board's deliberate racial segregation policy with respect to the Park Hill schools constitutes the entire Denver school system a dual school system. We observe that on the record now before us there is indication that Denver is not a school district which might be divided into separate, identifiable and unrelated units. The District Court stated, in its summary of findings as to the Park Hill schools, that there was “a high degree of interrelationship among these schools, so that any action by the Board affecting the racial composition of one would almost certainly have an effect on the others.” 303 F. Supp., at 294. And there was cogent evidence that the ultimate effect of the Board’s actions in Park Hill was not limited to that area: the three 1969 resolutions designed to desegregate the Park Hill schools changed the attendance patterns of at least 29 schools attended by almost one-third of the pupils in the Denver school system. This suggests that the official segregation in Park Hill affected the racial composition of schools throughout the district.
On the other hand, although the District Court did not state this, or indeed any, reason why the Park Hill finding was disregarded when attention was turned to the core city schools — beyond saying that the Park Hill and core city areas were in its view “different”— the areas, although adjacent to each other, are separated by Colorado Boulevard, a six-lane highway. From the record, it is difficult to assess the actual significance of Colorado Boulevard to the Denver school system. The Boulevard runs the length of the school district, but at least two elementary schools, Teller and Steck, have attendance zones which cross the Boulevard. Moreover, the District Court, although referring to the Boulevard as “a natural dividing line,” 303 F. Supp., at 282, did not feel constrained to limit its consideration of de jure segregation in the Park Hill area to those schools east of the Boulevard. The court found that by building Barrett Elementary School west of the Boulevard and by establishing the Boulevard as the eastern boundary of the Barrett attendance zone, the Board was able to maintain for a number of years the Anglo character of the Park Hill schools. This suggests that Colorado Boulevard is not to be regarded as the type of barrier that of itself could confine the impact of the Board’s actions to an identifiable area of the school district, perhaps because a major highway is generally not such an effective buffer between adjoining areas. Cf. Davis v. Board of School Commissioners of Mobile County, 402 U. S. 33 (1971). But this is a factual question for resolution by the District Court on remand. In any event, inquiry whether the District Court and the Court of Appeals applied the correct legal standards in addressing petitioners’ contention of deliberate segregation in the core city schools is not at an end even if it be true that Park Hill may be separated from the rest of the Denver school district as a separate, identifiable, and unrelated unit.
Ill
The District Court proceeded on the premise that the finding as to the Park Hill schools was irrelevant to the consideration of the rest of the district, and began its examination of the core city schools by requiring that petitioners prove all of the essential elements of de jure segregation — that is, stated simply, a current condition of segregation resulting from intentional state action directed specifically to the core city schools. The segregated character of the core city schools could not be and is not denied. Petitioners’ proof showed that at the time of trial 22 of the schools in the core city area were less than 30% in Anglo enrollment and 11 of the schools were less than 10% Anglo. Petitioners also introduced substantial evidence demonstrating the existence of a disproportionate racial and ethnic composition of faculty and staff at these schools.
On the question of segregative intent, petitioners presented evidence tending to show that the Board, through its actions over a period of years, intentionally created and maintained the segregated character of the core city schools. Respondents countered this evidence by arguing that the segregation in these schools is the result of a racially neutral “neighborhood school policy” and that the acts of which petitioners complain are explicable within the bounds of that policy. Accepting the School Board's explanation, the District Court and the Court of Appeals agreed that a finding of de jure segregation as to the core city schools was not permissible since petitioners had failed to prove “(1) a racially discriminatory purpose and (2) a causal relationship between the acts complained of and the racial imbalance admittedly existing in those schools.” 445 F. 2d, at 1006. This assessment of petitioners' proof was clearly incorrect.
Although petitioners had already proved the existence of intentional school segregation in the Park Hill schools, this crucial finding was totally ignored when attention turned to the core city schools. Plainly, a finding of intentional segregation as to a portion of a school system is not devoid of probative value in assessing the school authorities’ intent with respect to other parts of the same school system. On the contrary, where, as here, the case involves one school board, a finding of intentional segregation on its part in one portion of a school system is highly relevant to the issue of the board’s intent with respect to other segregated schools in the system. This is merely an application of the well-settled evidentiary principle that “the prior doing of other similar acts, whether clearly a part of a scheme or not, is useful as reducing the possibility that the act in question was done with innocent intent.” 2 J. Wigmore, Evidence 200 (3d ed. 1940). “Evidence that similar and related offenses were committed... tend[s] to show a consistent pattern of conduct highly relevant to the issue of intent.” Nye & Nissen v. United States, 336 U. S. 613, 618 (1949). Similarly, a finding of illicit intent as to a meaningful portion of the item under consideration has substantial probative value on the question of illicit intent as to the remainder. See, for example, the cases cited in 2 Wigmore, supra, at 301-302. And “[t]he foregoing principles are equally as applicable to civil cases as to criminal cases....” Id., at 300. See also C. McCormick, Evidence 329 (1954).
Applying these principles in the special context of school desegregation cases, we hold that a finding of intentionally segregative school board actions in a meaningful portion of a school system, as in this case, creates a presumption that other segregated schooling within the system is not adventitious. It establishes, in other words, a prima facie case of unlawful segregative design on the part of school authorities, and shifts to those authorities the burden of proving that other segregated schools within the system are not also the result of intentionally segregative actions. This is true even if it is determined that different areas of the school district should be viewed independently of each other because, even in that situation, there is high probability that where school authorities have effectuated an intentionally segregative policy in a meaningful portion of the school system, similar impermissible considerations have motivated their actions in other areas of the system. We emphasize that the differentiating factor between de jure segregation and so-called de facto segregation to which we referred in Swann is purpose or intent to segregate. Where school authorities have been found to have practiced purposeful segregation in part of a school system, they may be expected to oppose system-wide desegregation, as did the respondents in this case, on the ground that their purposefully segregative actions were isolated and individual events, thus leaving plaintiffs with the burden of proving otherwise. But at that point where an intentionally segrega-tive policy is practiced in a meaningful or significant segment of a school system, as in this case, the school authorities cannot be heard to argue that plaintiffs have proved only “isolated and individual” unlawfully segrega-tive actions. In that circumstance, it is both fair and reasonable to require that the school authorities bear the burden of showing that their actions as to other segregated schools within the system were not also motivated by segregative intent.
This burden-shifting principle is not new or novel. There are no hard-and-fast standards governing the allocation of the burden of proof in every situation. The issue, rather, “is merely a question of policy and fairness based on experience in the different situations.” 9 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 2486, at 275 (3d ed. 1940). In the context of racial segregation in public education, the courts, including this Court, have recognized a variety of situations in which “fairness” and “policy” require state authorities to bear the burden of explaining actions or conditions which appear to be racially motivated. Thus, in Swann, 402 U. S., at 18, we observed that in a system with a “history of segregation,” “where it is possible to identify a 'white school' or a ‘Negro school’ simply by reference to the racial composition of teachers and staff, the quality of school buildings and equipment, or the organization of sports activities, a prima jade case of violation of substantive constitutional rights under the Equal Protection Clause is shown.” Again, in a school system with a history of segregation, the discharge of a disproportionately large number of Negro teachers incident to desegregation “thrust [s] upon the School Board the burden of justifying its conduct by clear and convincing evidence.” Chambers v. Hendersonville City Board of Education, 364 F. 2d 189, 192 (CA4 1966) (en banc). See also United States v. Jefferson County Board of Education, 372 F. 2d 836, 887-888 (CA5 1966), aff’d en banc, 380 F. 2d 385 (1967); North Carolina Teachers Assn. v. Asheboro City Board of Education, 393 F. 2d 736, 743 (CA4 1968) (en banc); Williams v. Kimbrough, 295 F. Supp. 578, 585 (WD La. 1969); Bonner v. Texas City Independent School District, 305 F. Supp. 600, 621 (SD Tex. 1969). Nor is this burden-shifting principle limited to former statutory dual systems. See, e. g., Davis v. School District of the City of Pontiac, 309 F. Supp. 734, 743, 744 (ED Mich. 1970), aff’d, 443 F. 2d 573 (CA6 1971); United States v. School District No. 151, 301 F. Supp. 201, 228 (ND Ill. 1969), modified on other grounds, 432 F. 2d 1147 (CA7 1970). Indeed, to say that a system has a “history of segregation” is merely to say that a pattern of intentional segregation has been established in the past. Thus, be it a statutory dual system or an allegedly unitary system where a meaningful portion of the system is found to be intentionally segregated, the existence of subsequent or other segregated schooling within the same system justifies a rule imposing on the school authorities the burden of proving that this segregated schooling is not also the result of intentionally segregative acts.
In discharging that burden, it is not enough, of course, that the school authorities rely upon some allegedly logical, racially neutral explanation for their actions. Their burden is to adduce proof sufficient to support a finding that segregative intent was not among the factors that motivated their actions. The courts below attributed much significance to the fact that many of the Board’s actions in the core city area antedated our decision in Brown. We reject any suggestion that remoteness in time has any relevance to the issue of intent. If the actions of school authorities were to any degree motivated by segregative intent and the segregation resulting from those actions continues to exist, the fact of remoteness in time certainly does not make those actions any less “intentional.”
This is not to say, however, that the prima facie case may not be met by evidence supporting a finding that a lesser degree of segregated schooling in the core city area would not have resulted even if the Board had not acted as it did. In Sioann, we suggested that at some point in time the relationship between past segregative acts and present segregation may become so attenuated as to be incapable of supporting a finding of de jure segregation warranting judicial intervention. 402 U. S., at 31-32. See also Hobson v. Hansen, 269 F. Supp. 401, 495 (DC 1967), aff’d sub nom. Smuck v. Hobson, 132 U. S. App. D. C. 372, 408 F. 2d 175 (1969). We made it clear, however, that a connection between past segregative acts and present segregation may be present even when not apparent and that close examination is required before concluding that the connection does not exist. Intentional school segregation in the past may have been a factor in creating a natural environment for the growth of further segregation. Thus, if respondent School Board cannot disprove segregative intent, it can rebut the prima facie case only by showing that its past segregative acts did not create or contribute to the current segregated condition of the core city schools.
The respondent School Board invoked at trial its “neighborhood school policy” as explaining racial and ethnic concentrations within the core city schools, arguing that since the core city area population had long been Negro and Hispano, the concentrations were necessarily the result of residential patterns and not of purposefully segregative policies. We have no occasion to consider in this case whether a “neighborhood school policy” of itself will justify racial or ethnic concentrations in the absence of a finding that school authorities have committed acts constituting de jure segregation. It is enough that we hold that the mere assertion of such a policy is not dis-positive where, as in this case, the school authorities have been found to have practiced de jure segregation in a meaningful portion of the school system by techniques that indicate that the “neighborhood school” concept has not been maintained free of manipulation. Our observations in Swann, supra, at 28, are particularly instructive on this score:
“Absent a constitutional violation there would be no basis for judicially ordering assignment of students on a racial basis. All things being equal, with no history of discrimination, it might well be desirable to assign pupils to schools nearest their homes. But all things are not equal in a system that has been deliberately constructed and maintained to enforce racial segregation....
"... 'Racially neutral’ assignment plans proposed by school authorities to a district court may be inadequate ; such plans may fail to counteract the continuing effects of past school segregation resulting from discriminatory location of school sites or distortion of school size in order to achieve or maintain an artificial racial separation. When school authorities present a district court with a ‘loaded game board,’ affirmative action in the form of remedial altering of attendance zones is proper to achieve truly nondiscriminatory assignments. In short, an assignment plan is not acceptable simply because it appears to be neutral.”
Thus, respondent School Board having been found to have practiced deliberate racial segregation in schools attended by over one-third of the Negro school population, that crucial finding establishes a prima facie case of intentional segregation in the core city schools. In such case, respondent's neighborhood school policy is not to be determinative “simply because it appears to be neutral.”
IV
In summary, the District Court on remand, first, will afford respondent School Board the opportunity to prove its contention that the Park Hill area is a separate, identifiable and unrelated section of the school district that should'be treated as isolated from the rest of the district. If respondent School Board fails to prove that contention, the District Court, second, will determine whether respondent School Board’s conduct over almost a decade after 1960 in carrying out a policy of deliberate racial segregation in the Park Hill schools constitutes the entire school system a dual school system. If the District Court determines that the Denver school system is a dual school system, respondent School Board has the affirmative duty to desegregate the entire system “root and branch.” Green v. County School Board, 391 U. S., at 438. If the District Court determines, however, that the Denver school system is not a dual school system by reason of the Board’s actions in Park Hill, the court, third, will afford respondent School Board the opportunity to rebut petitioners’ prima facie case of intentional segregation in the core city schools raised by the finding of intentional segregation in the Park Hill schools. There, the Board’s burden is to show that its policies and practices with respect to schoolsite location, school size, school renovations and additions, student-attendance zones, student assignment and transfer options, mobile classroom units, transportation of students, assignment of faculty and staff, etc., considered together and premised on the Board’s so-called “neighborhood school” concept, either were not taken in effectuation of a policy to create or maintain segregation in the core city schools, or, if unsuccessful in that effort, were not factors in causing the existing condition of segregation in these schools. Considerations of “fairness” and “policy” demand no less in light of the Board’s intentionally segrega-tive actions. If respondent Board fails to rebut petitioners’ prima facie case, the District Court must, as in the case of Park Hill, decree all-out desegregation of the core city schools.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is modified to vacate instead of reverse the parts of the Final Decree that concern the core city schools, and the case is remanded to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
[Map of elementary school boundaries follows this page.]
Mr. Chief Justice Burger concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice White took no part in the decision of this case.
Mr. Justice Douglas.
While I join the opinion of the Court, I agree with my Brother Powell that there is, for the purposes of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as applied to the school cases, no difference between de facto and de jure segregation. The school board is a state agency and the lines that it draws, the locations it selects for school sites, the allocation it makes of students, the budgets it prepares are state action for Fourteenth Amendment purposes.
As Judge Wisdom cogently stated in United States v. Texas Education Agency, 467 F. 2d 848, segregated schools are often created, not by dual school systems decreed by the legislature, but by the administration of school districts by school boards. Each is state action within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. “Here school authorities assigned students, faculty, and professional staff; employed faculty and staff; chose sites for schools; constructed new schools and renovated old ones; and drew attendance zone lines. The natural and foreseeable consequence of these actions was segregation of Mexican-Americans. Affirmative action to the contrary would have resulted in desegregation. When school authorities, by their actions, contribute to segregation in education, whether by causing additional segregation or maintaining existing segregation, they deny to the students equal protection of the laws.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion to affirm is granted and the judgment is affirmed.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Burton, Mr. Justice Harlan, and Mr. Justice Whittaker dissent for the reasons set forth in their dissenting opinions in City of Detroit v. Murray Corp., 355 U. S. 489, 495, 505, 511, decided March 3, 1958.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Kentucky law provides that “[a] health insurer shall not discriminate against any provider who is located within the geographic coverage area of the health benefit plan and who is willing to meet the terms and conditions for participation established by the health insurer, including the Kentucky state Medicaid program and Medicaid partnerships.” Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §304.17A-270 (West 2001). Moreover, any “health benefit plan that includes chiropractic benefits shall ... [p]ermit any licensed chiropractor who agrees to abide by the terms, conditions, reimbursement rates, and standards of quality of the health benefit plan to serve as a participating primary chiropractic provider to any person covered by the plan.” §304.17A-171(2). We granted certiorari to decide whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) pre-empts either, or both, of these “Any Willing Provider” (AWP) statutes.
I
Petitioners include several health maintenance organizations (HMOs) and a Kentucky-based association of HMOs. In order to control the quality and cost of health-care delivery, these HMOs have contracted with selected doctors, hospitals, and other health-care providers to create exclusive “provider networks.” Providers in such networks agree to render health-care services to the HMOs’ subscribers at discounted rates and to comply with other contractual requirements. In return, they receive the benefit of patient volume higher than that achieved by nonnetwork providers who lack access to petitioners’ subscribers.
Kentucky’s AWP statutes impair petitioners’ ability to limit the number of providers with access to their networks, and thus their ability to use the assurance of high patient volume as the quid pro quo for the discounted rates that network membership entails. Petitioners believe that AWP laws will frustrate their efforts at cost and quality control, and will ultimately deny consumers the benefit of their cost-reducing arrangements with providers.
In April 1997, petitioners filed suit against respondent, the Commissioner of Kentucky’s Department of Insurance, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky, asserting that ERISA, 88 Stat. 832, as amended, pre-empts Kentucky’s AWP laws. ERISA preempts all state laws “insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan,” 29 U. S. C. § 1144(a), but state “law[s]. .. which regulat[e] insurance, banking, or securities” are saved from pre-emption, § 1144(b)(2)(A). The District Court concluded that although both AWP statutes “relate to” employee benefit plans under § 1144(a), each law “regulates insurance” and is therefore saved from preemption by § 1144(b)(2)(A). App. to Pet. for Cert. 64a-84a. In affirming the District Court, the Sixth Circuit also concluded that the AWP laws “regulat[e] insurance” and fall within ERISA’s saving clause. Kentucky Assn. of Health Plans, Inc. v. Nichols, 227 F. 3d 352, 363-372 (2000). Relying on UNUM Life Ins. Co. of America v. Ward, 526 U. S. 358 (1999), the Sixth Circuit first held that Kentucky’s AWP laws regulate insurance “as a matter of common sense,” 227 F. 3d, at 364, because they are “specifically directed toward ‘insurers’ and the insurance industry ...,” id., at 366. The Sixth Circuit then considered, as “checking points or guideposts” in its analysis, the three factors used to determine whether a practice fits within “the business of health insurance” in our cases interpreting the McCarran-Ferguson Act. Id., at 364. These factors are: “first, whether the practice has the effect of transferring or spreading a policyholder’s risk; second, whether the practice is an integral part of the policy relationship between the insurer and the insured; and third, whether the practice is limited to entities within the insurance industry.” Union Labor Life Ins. Co. v. Pireno, 458 U. S. 119, 129 (1982). The Sixth Circuit found all three factors satisfied. 227 F. 3d, at 368-371. Notwithstanding its analysis of the McCarran-Ferguson factors, the Sixth Circuit reiterated that the “basic test” under ERISA’s saving clause is whether, from a commonsense view, the Kentucky AWP laws regulate insurance. Id., at 372. Finding that the laws passed both the “common sense” test and the McCarran-Ferguson “checking points,” the Sixth Circuit upheld Kentucky’s AWP statutes. Ibid.
We granted certiorari, 536 U. S. 956 (2002).
II
To determine whether Kentucky s AWP statutes are saved from pre-emption, we must ascertain whether they are “law[s]... which regulat[e] insurance” under § 1144(b)(2)(A).
It is well established in our case law that a state law must be “specifically directed toward” the insurance industry in order to fall under ERISA’s saving clause; laws of general application that have some bearing on insurers do not qualify. Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U. S. 41, 50 (1987); see also Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, 536 U. S. 355, 366 (2002); FMC Corp. v. Holliday, 498 U. S. 52, 61 (1990). At the same time, not all state laws “specifically directed toward” the insurance industry will be covered by § 1144(b)(2)(A), which saves laws that regulate insurance, not insurers. As we explained in Rush Prudential, insurers must be regulated “with respect to their insurance practices,” 536 U. S., at 366. Petitioners contend that Kentucky’s AWP laws fall outside the scope of § 1144(b)(2)(A) for two reasons. First, because Kentucky has failed to “specifically direc[t]” its AWP laws toward the insurance industry; and second, because the AWP laws do not regulate an insurance practice. We find neither contention persuasive.
A
Petitioners claim that Kentucky’s statutes are not “specifically directed toward” insurers because they regulate not only the insurance industry but also doctors who seek to form and maintain limited provider networks with HMOs. That is to say, the AWP laws equally prevent providers from entering into limited network contracts with insurers, just as they prevent insurers from creating exclusive networks in the first place. We do not think it follows that Kentucky has failed to specifically direct its AWP laws at the insurance industry.
Neither of Kentucky’s AWP statutes, by its terms, imposes any prohibitions or requirements on health-care providers. See Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §304.17A-270 (West 2001) (imposing obligations only on “health insurer[s]” not to discriminate against any willing provider); § 304.17A-171 (imposing obligations only on “health benefit plants] that includ[e] chiropractic benefits”). And Kentucky health-care providers are still capable of entering exclusive networks with insurers who conduct business outside the Commonwealth of Kentucky or who are otherwise not covered by §§304.17A-270 or 304.17A-171. Kentucky’s statutes are transgressed only when a “health insurer,” or a “health benefit plan that includes chiropractic benefits,” excludes from its network a provider who is willing and able to meet its terms.
It is of course true that as a consequence of Kentucky’s AWP laws, entities outside the insurance industry (such as health-care providers) will be unable to enter into certain agreements with Kentucky insurers. But the same could be said about the state laws we held saved from pre-emption in FMC Corp. and Rush Prudential. Pennsylvania’s law prohibiting insurers from exercising subrogation rights against an insured’s tort recovery, see FMC Corp., supra, at 55, n. 1, also prevented insureds from entering into enforceable contracts with insurers allowing subrogation. Illinois’ requirement that HMOs provide independent review of whether services are “medically necessary,” Rush Prudential, supra, at 372, likewise excluded insureds from joining an HMO that would have withheld the right to independent review in exchange for a lower premium. Yet neither case found the effects of these laws on noninsurers, significant though they may have been, inconsistent with the requirement that laws saved from pre-emption by § 1144(b)(2)(A) be “specifically directed toward” the insurance industry. Regulations “directed toward” certain entities will almost always disable other entities from doing, with the regulated entities, what the regulations forbid; this does not suffice to place such regulation outside the scope of ERISA’s saving clause.
B
Petitioners claim that the AWP laws do not regulate insurers with respect to an insurance practice because, unlike the state laws we held saved from pre-emption in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U. S. 724 (1985), UNUM, and Rush Prudential, they do not control the actual terms of insurance policies. Rather, they focus upon the relationship between an insurer and third-party providers — which in petitioners’ view does not constitute an “insurance practice.”
In support of their contention, petitioners rely on Group Life & Health Ins. Co. v. Royal Drug Co., 440 U. S. 205, 210 (1979), which held that third-party provider arrangements between insurers and pharmacies were not “the ‘business of insurance’” under §2(b) of the McCarran-Ferguson Act. ERISA’s saving clause, however, is not concerned (as is the McCarran-Ferguson Act provision) with how to characterize conduct undertaken by private aetors, but with how to characterize state laws in regard to what they “regulate.” It does not follow from Royal Drug that a law mandating certain insurer-provider relationships fails to “regulate insurance.” Suppose a state law required all licensed attorneys to participate in 10 hours of continuing legal education (CLE) each year. This statute “regulates” the practice of law— even though sitting through 10 hours of CLE classes does not constitute the practice of law — because the State has conditioned the right to practice law on certain requirements, which substantially affect the product delivered by lawyers to their clients. Kentucky’s AWP laws operate in a similar manner with respect to the insurance industry: Those who wish to provide health insurance in Kentucky (any “health insurer”) may not discriminate against any willing provider. This “regulates” insurance by imposing conditions on the right to engage in the business of insurance; whether or not an HMO’s contracts with providers constitute “the business of insurance” under Royal Drug is beside the point.
We emphasize that conditions on the right to engage in the business of insurance must also substantially affect the risk pooling arrangement between the insurer and the insured to be covered by ERISA’s saving clause. Otherwise, any state law aimed at insurance companies could be deemed a law that “regulates insurance,” contrary to our interpretation of § 1144(b)(2)(A) in Rush Prudential, 536 U. S., at 364. A state law requiring all insurance companies to pay their janitors twice the minimum wage would not “regulate insurance,” even though it would be a prerequisite to engaging in the business of insurance, because it does not substantially affect the risk pooling arrangement undertaken by insurer and insured. Petitioners contend that Kentucky’s AWP statutes fail this test as well, since they do not alter or affect the terms of insurance policies, but concern only the relationship between insureds and third-party providers, Brief for Petitioners 29. We disagree. We have never held that state laws must alter or control the actual terms of insurance policies to be deemed “laws . . . which regulat[e] insurance” under § 1144(b)(2)(A); it suffices that they substantially affect the risk pooling arrangement between insurer and insured. By expanding the number of providers from whom an insured may receive health services, AWP laws alter the scope of permissible bargains between insurers and insureds in a manner similar to the mandated-benefit laws we upheld in Metropolitan Life, the notice-prejudice rule we sustained in UNUM, and the independent-review provisions we approved in Rush Prudential. No longer may Kentucky insureds seek insurance from a closed network of health-care providers in exchange for a lower premium. The AWP prohibition substantially affects the type of risk pooling arrangements that insurers may offer.
W H-(
Our prior decisions construing § 1144(b)(2)(A) have relied, to varying degrees, on our cases interpreting §§ 2(a) and 2(b) of the McCarran-Ferguson Act. In determining whether certain practices constitute “the business of insurance” under the McCarran-Ferguson Act (emphasis added), our cases have looked to three factors: “first, whether the practice has the effect of transferring or spreading a policyholder’s risk; second, whether the practice is an integral part of the policy relationship between the insurer and the insured; and third, whether the practice is limited to entities within the insurance industry.” Pireno, 458 U. S., at 129.
We believe that our use of the McCarran-Ferguson case law in the ERISA context has misdirected attention, failed to provide clear guidance to lower federal courts, and, as this case demonstrates, added little to the relevant analysis. That is unsurprising, since the statutory language of § 1144(b)(2)(A) differs substantially from that of the McCarran-Ferguson Act. Rather than concerning itself with whether certain practices constitute “[t]he business of insurance,” 15 U. S. C. § 1012(a), or whether a state law was “enacted . . . for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance,” § 1012(b) (emphasis added), 29 U. S. C. § 1144(b)(2)(A) asks merely whether a state law is a “law ... which regulates insurance, banking, or securities.” What is more, the McCarran-Ferguson factors were developed in cases that characterized conduct by private actors, not state laws. See Pireno, supra, at 126 (“The only issue before us is whether petitioners’ peer review practices are exempt from antitrust scrutiny as part of the ‘business of insurance’ ” (emphasis added)); Royal Drug, 440 U. S., at 210 (“The only issue before us is whether the Court of Appeals was correct in concluding that these Pharmacy Agreements are not the ‘business of insurance’ within the meaning of §2(b) of the McCarran-Ferguson Act” (emphasis added)).
Our holdings in UNUM and Rush Prudential — that a state law may fail the first McCarran-Ferguson factor yet still be saved from pre-emption under § 1144(b)(2)(A) — raise more questions than they answer and provide wide opportunities for divergent outcomes. May a state law satisfy any two of the three McCarran-Ferguson factors and still fall under the saving clause? Just one? What happens if two of three factors are satisfied, but not “securely satisfied” or “clearly satisfied,” as they were in UNUM and Rush Prudential? 526 U. S., at 374; 536 U. S., at 373. Further confusion arises from the question whether the state law itself or the conduct regulated by that law is the proper subject to which one applies the McCarran-Ferguson factors. In Pilot Life, we inquired whether Mississippi’s law of bad faith has the effect of transferring or spreading risk, 481 U. S., at 50, whether that law is integral to the insurer-insured relationship, id., at 51, and whether that law is limited to the insurance industry, ibid. Rush Prudential, by contrast, focused the McCarran-Ferguson inquiry on the conduct regulated by the state law, rather than the state law itself. 536 U. S., at 373 (“It is obvious enough that the independent review requirement regulates ‘an integral part of the policy relationship between the insurer and insured’” (emphasis added)); id., at 374 (“The final factor, that the law be aimed at a ■practice . . . limited to entities within the insurance industry’ is satisfied ..(emphasis added; citation omitted)).
We have never held that the McCarran-Ferguson factors are an essential component of the § 1144(b)(2)(A) inquiry. Metropolitan Life initially used these factors only to buttress its previously reached conclusion that Massachusetts’ mandated-benefit statute was a “law . . . which regulates insurance” under § 1144(b)(2)(A). 471 U. S., at 742-743. Pilot Life referred to them as mere “considerations [to be] weighed” in determining whether a state law falls under the saving clause. 481 U. S., at 49. UNUM emphasized that the McCarran-Ferguson factors were not “ ‘require[d]’ ” in the saving clause analysis, and were only “checking points” to be used after determining whether the state law regulates insurance from a “common-sense” understanding. 526 U. S., at 374. And Rush Prudential called the factors “guideposts,” using them only to “confirm our conclusion” that Illinois’ statute regulated insurance under § 1144(b)(2)(A). 536 U. S., at 378.
Today we make a clean break from the McCarran-Ferguson factors and hold that for a state law to be deemed a “law .. . which regulates insurance” under § 1144(b)(2)(A), it must satisfy two requirements. First, the state law must be specifically directed toward entities engaged in insurance. See Pilot Life, supra, at 50, UNUM, supra, at 368; Rush Prudential, supra, at 366. Second, as explained above, the state law must substantially affect the risk pooling arrangement between the insurer and the insured. Kentucky’s law satisfies each of these requirements.
* * H:
For these reasons, we affirm the judgment of the Sixth Circuit.
It is so ordered.
Petitioners also contend that Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §304.17A-270 (West 2001) is not “specifically directed toward” insurers because it applies to “self-insurer or multiple employer welfare arrangement[s] not exempt from state regulation by ERISA.” § 304.17A-005(23). We do not think § 304.17A-270’s application to self-insured non-ERISA plans forfeits its status as a “law . . . which regulates insurance” under 29 U. S. C. § 1144(b)(2)(A). ERISA’s saving clause does not require that a state law regulate “insurance companies” or even “the business of insurance” to be saved from pre-emption; it need only be a “law ... which regulates insurance,” ibid, (emphasis added), and self-insured plans engage in the same sort of risk pooling arrangements as separate entities that provide insurance to an employee benefit plan. Any contrary view would render superfluous ERISA’s “deemer clause,” § 1144(b)(2)(B), which provides that an employee benefit plan covered by ERISA may not “be deemed to be an insurance company or other insurer ... or to be engaged in the business of insurance ... for purposes of any law of any State purporting to regulate insurance companies [or] insurance contracts. . . .” That clause has effect only on state laws saved from pre-emption by § 1144(b)(2)(A) that would, in the absence of § 1144(b)(2)(B), be allowed to regulate self-insured employee benefit plans. Under petitioners’ view, such laws would never be saved from pre-emption in the first place. (The deemer clause presents no obstacle to Kentucky’s law, which reaches only those employee benefit plans “not exempt from state regulation by ERISA.”)
Both of Kentucky’s AWP laws apply to all HMOs, including HMOs that do not act as insurers but instead provide only administrative services to self-insured plans. Petitioners maintain that the application to noninsur-ing HMOs forfeits the laws’ status as “law[s] . . . which regulat[e] insurance.” § 1144(b)(2)(A). We disagree. To begin with, these noninsuring HMOs would be administering self-insured plans, which we think suffices to bring them within the activity of insurance for purposes of § 1144(b)(2)(A). Moreover, we think petitioners’ argument is foreclosed by Rush Prudential HMO, Inc. v. Moran, 536 U. S. 355, 372 (2002), where we noted that Illinois’ independent-review laws contained “some over-breadth in the application of [215 Ill. Comp. Stat., ch. 125,] § 4-10 [(2000)] beyond orthodox HMOs,” yet held that “there is no reason to think Congress would have meant such minimal application to noninsurers to remove a state law entirely from the category of insurance regulation saved from preemption.”
Section 2 of the McCarran-Ferguson Act provides:
“(a) The business of insurance, and every person engaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation 'or taxation of such business.
“(b) No Act of Congress shall be construed to invalidate, impair, or supersede any law enacted by any State for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance, or which imposes a fee or tax upon such business, unless such Act specifically relates to the business of insurance: Provided, That after June 30, 1948, the Act of July 2, 1890, as amended, known as the Sherman Act, and the Act of October 15,1914, as amended, known as the Clayton Act, and the Act of September 26,1914, known as the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, shall be applicable to the business of insurance to the extent that such business is not regulated by State law.” 59 Stat. 34, 15 U. S. C. § 1012 (emphasis added).
While the Ninth Circuit concluded in Cisneros v. UNUM Life Ins. Co. of America, 134 F. 3d 939, 945-946 (1998), aff’d in part, rev’d and remanded in part, UNUM Life Ins. Co. of America v. Ward, 526 U. S. 358 (1999), that “the notice-prejudice rule does not spread the policyholder’s risk within the meaning of the first McCarran-Ferguson factor,” our test requires only that the state law substantially affect the risk pooling arrangement between the insurer and insured; it does not require that the state law actually spread risk. See supra, at 337-338. The notice-prejudice rule governs whether or not an insurance company must cover claims submitted late, which dictates to the insurance company the conditions under which it must pay for the risk that it has assumed. This certainly qualifies as a substantial effect on the risk pooling arrangement between the insurer and insured.
This approach rendered the third McCarran-Ferguson factor a mere repetition of the prior inquiry into whether a state law is “specifically directed toward” the insurance industry under the “common-sense view.” UNUM Life Ins. Co. of America v. Ward, supra, at 375; Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U. S. 41, 50 (1987).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded for further consideration in light of Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353.
Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan dissent for the reasons stated in their opinions in Douglas v. California, 372 U. S., at 358, 360.
Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Hobbs Act makes it a crime for a person to affect commerce, or to attempt to do so, by robbery. 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). The Act defines "commerce" broadly as interstate commerce "and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction." § 1951(b)(3). This case requires us to decide what the Government must prove to satisfy the Hobbs Act's commerce element when a defendant commits a robbery that targets a marijuana dealer's drugs or drug proceeds.
The answer to this question is straightforward and dictated by our precedent. We held in Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 125 S.Ct. 2195, 162 L.Ed.2d 1 (2005), that the Commerce Clause gives Congress authority to regulate the national market for marijuana, including the authority to proscribe the purely intrastate production, possession, and sale of this controlled substance. Because Congress may regulate these intrastate activities based on their aggregate effect on interstate commerce, it follows that Congress may also regulate intrastate drug theft . And since the Hobbs Act criminalizes robberies and attempted robberies that affect any commerce "over which the United States has jurisdiction," § 1951(b)(3), the prosecution in a Hobbs Act robbery case satisfies the Act's commerce element if it shows that the defendant robbed or attempted to rob a drug dealer of drugs or drug proceeds. By targeting a drug dealer in this way, a robber necessarily affects or attempts to affect commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.
In this case, petitioner Anthony Taylor was convicted on two Hobbs Act counts based on proof that he attempted to rob marijuana dealers of their drugs and drug money. We hold that this evidence was sufficient to satisfy the Act's commerce element.
I
Beginning as early as 2009, an outlaw gang called the "Southwest Goonz" committed a series of home invasion robberies targeting drug dealers in the area of Roanoke, Virginia. 754 F.3d 217, 220 (C.A.4 2014). For obvious reasons, drug dealers are more likely than ordinary citizens to keep large quantities of cash and illegal drugs in their homes and are less likely to report robberies to the police. For participating in two such home invasions, Taylor was convicted of two counts of Hobbs Act robbery, in violation of § 1951(a), and one count of using a firearm in furtherance of a crime of violence, in violation of § 924(c).
The first attempted drug robbery for which Taylor was convicted occurred in August 2009. Id ., at 220. Taylor and others targeted the home of Josh Whorley, having obtained information that Whorley dealt "exotic and high grade" marijuana. Ibid. "The robbers expected to find both drugs and money" in Whorley's home. Ibid. Taylor and the others broke into the home, searched it, and assaulted Whorley and his girlfriend. They demanded to be told the location of money and drugs but, not locating any, left with only jewelry, $40, two cell phones, and a marijuana cigarette. Ibid.
The second attempted drug robbery occurred two months later in October 2009 at the home of William Lynch. Ibid. A source informed the leader of the gang that, on a prior occasion, the source had robbed Lynch of 20 pounds of marijuana in front of Lynch's home. The gang also received information that Lynch continued to deal drugs. Taylor and others broke into Lynch's home, held his wife and young children at gunpoint, assaulted his wife, and demanded to know the location of his drugs and money. Again largely unsuccessful, the robbers made off with only a cell phone. Id., at 221.
For his participation in these two home invasions, Taylor was indicted under the Hobbs Act on two counts of affecting commerce or attempting to do so through robbery. App. 11a-13a. His first trial resulted in a hung jury. On retrial, at the urging of the Government, the District Court precluded Taylor from introducing evidence that the drug dealers he targeted might be dealing in only locally grown marijuana. Id., at 60a; see 754 F.3d, at 221. During the second trial, Taylor twice moved for a judgment of acquittal on the ground that the prosecution had failed to meet its burden on the commerce element, Tr. 445-447, 532-533; see 754 F.3d, at 221, but the District Court denied those motions, holding that the proof that Taylor attempted to rob drug dealers was sufficient as a matter of law to satisfy that element. Tr. 446, 532-533. The jury found Taylor guilty on both of the Hobbs Act counts and one of the firearms counts. App. 67a-69a.
On appeal, Taylor challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to prove the commerce element of the Hobbs Act, but the Fourth Circuit affirmed. "Because drug dealing in the aggregate necessarily affects interstate commerce," the court reasoned, "the government was simply required to prove that Taylor depleted or attempted to deplete the assets of such an operation." 754 F.3d, at 224.
We granted certiorari to resolve a conflict in the Circuits regarding the demands of the Hobbs Act's commerce element in cases involving the theft of drugs and drug proceeds from drug dealers. 576 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 26, 192 L.Ed.2d 998 (2015).
II
A
The Hobbs Act provides in relevant part as follows:
"Whoever in any way or degree obstructs, delays, or affects commerce or the movement of any article or commodity in commerce, by robbery ... or attempts or conspires so to do ... shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both." 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a).
The Act then defines the term "commerce" to mean
"commerce within the District of Columbia, or any Territory or Possession of the United States; all commerce between any point in a State, Territory, Possession, or the District of Columbia and any point outside thereof; all commerce between points within the same State through any place outside such State; and all other commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction." § 1951(b)(3).
The language of the Hobbs Act is unmistakably broad. It reaches any obstruction, delay, or other effect on commerce, even if small, and the Act's definition of commerce encompasses "all ... commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction." Ibid. We have noted the sweep of the Act in past cases. United States v. Culbert, 435 U.S. 371, 373, 98 S.Ct. 1112, 55 L.Ed.2d 349 (1978) ("These words do not lend themselves to restrictive interpretation"); Stirone v. United States, 361 U.S. 212, 215, 80 S.Ct. 270, 4 L.Ed.2d 252 (1960) (The Hobbs Act "speaks in broad language, manifesting a purpose to use all the constitutional power Congress has to punish interference with interstate commerce by extortion, robbery or physical violence").
B
To determine how far this commerce element extends-and what the Government must prove to meet it-we look to our Commerce Clause cases. We have said that there are three categories of activity that Congress may regulate under its commerce power: (1) "the use of the channels of interstate commerce"; (2) "the instrumentalities of interstate commerce, or persons or things in interstate commerce, even though the threat may come only from intrastate activities"; and (3) "those activities having a substantial relation to interstate commerce, ... i.e., those activities that substantially affect interstate commerce." United States v. Lopez, 514 U.S. 549, 558-559, 115 S.Ct. 1624, 131 L.Ed.2d 626 (1995). We have held that activities in this third category-those that "substantially affect" commerce-may be regulated so long as they substantially affect interstate commerce in the aggregate, even if their individual impact on interstate commerce is minimal. See Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U.S. 111, 125, 63 S.Ct. 82, 87 L.Ed. 122 (1942) ("[E]ven if appellee's activity be local and though it may not be regarded as commerce, it may still, whatever its nature, be reached by Congress if it exerts a substantial economic effect on interstate commerce").
While this final category is broad, "thus far in our Nation's history our cases have upheld Commerce Clause regulation of intrastate activity only where that activity is economic in nature." United States v. Morrison, 529 U.S. 598, 613, 120 S.Ct. 1740, 146 L.Ed.2d 658 (2000).
In this case, the activity at issue, the sale of marijuana, is unquestionably an economic activity. It is, to be sure, a form of business that is illegal under federal law and the laws of most States. But there can be no question that marijuana trafficking is a moneymaking endeavor-and a potentially lucrative one at that.
In Raich, the Court addressed Congress's authority to regulate the marijuana market. The Court reaffirmed "Congress' power to regulate purely local activities that are part of an economic 'class of activities' that have a substantial effect on interstate commerce." 545 U.S., at 17, 125 S.Ct. 2195. The production, possession, and distribution of controlled substances constitute a "class of activities" that in the aggregate substantially affect interstate commerce, and therefore, the Court held, Congress possesses the authority to regulate (and to criminalize) the production, possession, and distribution of controlled substances even when those activities occur entirely within the boundaries of a single State. Any other outcome, we warned, would leave a gaping enforcement hole in Congress's regulatory scheme. Id., at 22, 125 S.Ct. 2195.
The case now before us requires no more than that we graft our holding in Raich onto the commerce element of the Hobbs Act. The Hobbs Act criminalizes robberies affecting "commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction." § 1951(b)(3). Under Raich, the market for marijuana, including its intrastate aspects, is "commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction." It therefore follows as a simple matter of logic that a robber who affects or attempts to affect even the intrastate sale of marijuana grown within the State affects or attempts to affect commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction.
C
Rejecting this logic, Taylor takes the position that the robbery or attempted robbery of a drug dealer's inventory violates the Hobbs Act only if the Government proves something more. This argument rests in part on the fact that Raich concerned the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), the criminal provisions of which lack a jurisdictional element. See 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a), 844. The Hobbs Act, by contrast, contains such an element-namely, the conduct criminalized must affect or attempt to affect commerce in some way or degree. See 18 U.S.C. § 1951(a). Therefore, Taylor reasons, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt either (1) that the particular drugs in question originated or were destined for sale out of State or (2) that the particular drug dealer targeted in the robbery operated an interstate business. See Brief for Petitioner 25-27; Reply Brief 8. The Second and Seventh Circuits have adopted this same argument. See United States v. Needham, 604 F.3d 673, 681 (C.A.2 2010) ; United States v. Peterson, 236 F.3d 848, 855 (C.A.7 2001).
This argument is flawed. It confuses the standard of proof with the meaning of the element that must be proved. There is no question that the Government in a Hobbs Act prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant engaged in conduct that satisfies the Act's commerce element, but the meaning of that element is a question of law. And, as noted, Raich established that the purely intrastate production and sale of marijuana is commerce over which the Federal Government has jurisdiction. Therefore, if the Government proves beyond a reasonable doubt that a robber targeted a marijuana dealer's drugs or illegal proceeds, the Government has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction was affected.
The only way to escape that conclusion would be to hold that the Hobbs Act does not exercise the full measure of Congress's commerce power. But we reached the opposite conclusion more than 50 years ago, see Stirone, 361 U.S., at 215, 80 S.Ct. 270 and it is not easy to see how the expansive language of the Act could be interpreted in any other way.
This conclusion does not make the commerce provision of the Hobbs Act superfluous. That statute, unlike the criminal provisions of the CSA, applies to forms of conduct that, even in the aggregate, may not substantially affect commerce. The Act's commerce element ensures that applications of the Act do not exceed Congress's authority. But in a case like this one, where the target of a robbery is a drug dealer, proof that the defendant's conduct in and of itself affected or threatened commerce is not needed. All that is needed is proof that the defendant's conduct fell within a category of conduct that, in the aggregate, had the requisite effect.
D
Contrary to the dissent, see post, at 2087 - 2088 (opinion of THOMAS, J.), today's holding merely applies-it in no way expands-Raich 's interpretation of the scope of Congress's power under the Commerce Clause. The dissent resists the substantial-effects approach and the aggregation principle on which Raich is based, see post, at 2087 - 2088. But we have not been asked to reconsider Raich . So our decision in Raich controls the outcome here. As long as Congress may regulate the purely intrastate possession and sale of illegal drugs, Congress may criminalize the theft or attempted theft of those same drugs.
We reiterate what this means. In order to obtain a conviction under the Hobbs Act for the robbery or attempted robbery of a drug dealer, the Government need not show that the drugs that a defendant stole or attempted to steal either traveled or were destined for transport across state lines. Rather, to satisfy the Act's commerce element, it is enough that a defendant knowingly stole or attempted to steal drugs or drug proceeds, for, as a matter of law, the market for illegal drugs is "commerce over which the United States has jurisdiction." And it makes no difference under our cases that any actual or threatened effect on commerce in a particular case is minimal. See Perez v. United States, 402 U.S. 146, 154, 91 S.Ct. 1357, 28 L.Ed.2d 686 (1971) ("Where the class of activities is regulated and that class is within the reach of federal power, the courts have no power 'to excise, as trivial, individual instances' of the class" (emphasis deleted)).
E
In the present case, the Government met its burden by introducing evidence that Taylor's gang intentionally targeted drug dealers to obtain drugs and drug proceeds. One of the victims had been robbed of substantial quantities of drugs at his residence in the past, and the other was thought to possess high-grade marijuana. The robbers also made explicit statements in the course of the robberies revealing that they believed that the victims possessed drugs and drug proceeds. Tr. 359 (asking Lynch "where the weed at"); id ., at 93 (asking Whorley "where the money was at, where the weed was at"); id ., at 212-213 (asking Whorley, "Where is your money and where is your weed at?"). Both robberies were committed with the express intent to obtain illegal drugs and the proceeds from the sale of illegal drugs. Such proof is sufficient to meet the commerce element of the Hobbs Act.
Our holding today is limited to cases in which the defendant targets drug dealers for the purpose of stealing drugs or drug proceeds. We do not resolve what the Government must prove to establish Hobbs Act robbery where some other type of business or victim is targeted. See, e.g., Stirone, supra, at 215, 80 S.Ct. 270 (Government offered evidence that the defendant attempted to extort a concrete business that actually obtained supplies and materials from out of State).
* * *
The judgment of the Fourth Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
On the night of January 2, 1936, Dr. Silber C. Peacock, a Chicago physician, left his Edgewater Beach apartment in response to an emergency telephone call to attend a sick child. He never returned. The next day his lifeless body was found in his automobile on a Chicago street. It was apparent that he had been brutally murdered. On Wednesday, March 25, 1936, the petitioner, Emil Reck, and three others were arrested by the Chicago police on suspicion of stealing bicycles. Late the following Saturday afternoon Reck confessed to participation in the murder of Dr. Peacock. The. next day he signed another written confession. At Reek’s subsequent trial in the Criminal Court of Cook County, Illinois, the two confessions were, over timely objection, received in evidence against him. The jury found Reck guilty of murder, and he was sentenced to prison for a term of 199 years.
The conviction was affirmed by the Illinois Supreme Court, People v. Reck, 392 Ill. 311, 64 N. E. 2d 526. Several years later Reck filed a petition under the Illinois Post-Conviction Hearing Act, alleging that his confessions had been procured by coercion and that their use as evidence at his trial had, therefore, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. After a hearing, the Criminal Court of Cook County denied relief. The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed the Criminal Court’s finding that due process had not been violated at Reek’s trial. Reck v. People, 7 Ill. 2d 261, 130 N. E. 2d 200. This Court denied certiorari “without prejudice to an application for a writ of habeas corpus in an appropriate United States District Court.” Reck v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 942.
Reck then filed a petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The writ issued, and at the hearing the District Court received in evidence the transcripts of all relevant proceedings in the Illinois courts. In an opinion reviewing in detail the circumstances surrounding Reek’s confession, the District Court held “the Due Process Clause not violated in the instant case.” 172 F. Supp. 734. The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed, one judge dissenting, 274 F. 2d 250, and we granted certiorari, 363 U. S. 838. The only question presented is whether the State of Illinois violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by using as evidence at Reek’s trial confessions which he had been coerced into making.
The question whether there has been a violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by the introduction of an involuntary confession is one which it is the ultimate responsibility of this Court to determine. See Malinski v. New York, 324 U. S. 401, 404; Thomas v. Arizona, 356 U. S. 390, 393; Watts v. Indiana, 338 U. S. 49, 51-52. After thoroughly reviewing the record in this case, we are satisfied that the district judge’s summary of the undisputed facts is accurate and complete. Neither in brief nor oral argument did the respondent take issue with these findings. No useful purpose would be served by attempting to paraphrase the district judge’s words:
“. . . Emil Reck was at the 'time of this horrible crime but nineteen years old. Throughout his life he had been repeatedly classified as mentally retarded and deficient by psychologists and psychiatrists of the Institute for Juvenile Research in Chicago. At one time he had been committed to an institution for the feebleminded, where he had spent a year. He dropped out of school at the age of 16, never having completed the 7th grade, and was found to have the intelligence of a child between 10 and 11 years of age at the time of his trial. Aside from his retardation, he was never a behavior problem and bore no criminal record.
“Reek was arrested in Chicago without a warrant at 11:00 a. m.- Wednesday, March 26, 1936, on suspicion of stealing bicycles. He was then shuttled between the North Avenue Police Station and the Shakespeare Avenue Police Station until 1:15 p. m., at which time he was returned to the North Avenue Police Station and there interrogated mainly about bicycle thefts until 6:30 or 7:00 p. m. He was then taken to the Warren Avenue Police Station where he spent the night. During this time he was fed a ham sandwich and coffee at the North Avenue Station and a bologna sausage sandwich at the North Avenue Station and a bologna sausage sandwich at the Warren Avenue Station.
“On Thursday, at 10:00 a. m., Reck was brought back to the North Avenue Station where he was interrogated some six or seven hours about various crimes in the District. Afterwards, he was sent to the Shakespeare Station and later that evening he was taken downtown to the Detective Bureau where he was exhibited at a so-called ‘show-up.’ The record does not indicate where Reck spent the night. The record shows that Reck was fed an egg sandwich and a glass of milk on Thursday but apparently nothing else.
“The record is silent as to where Reck spent Friday morning but it is clear that interrogation was resumed sometime in the early afternoon. Friday evening over one hundred people congregated in the North Avenue Police Station where Reck was exhibited on the second floor. Shortly after 7:00 p. m. Reck fainted and was brought to the Cook County Hospital where he was examined by an intern who found no marks or bruises upon his body and rejected him for treatment. Reck was then taken directly back to the North Avenue Station where he was immediately again placed on exhibition. He again became sick and was taken to an unfurnished handball room, where a Sergeant Aitken, assigned to the Peacock murder investigation, questioned him about the Peacock murder for a short period of time. Reck again became sick and a Dr. Abraham was called who later testified that Reck was' extremely nervous, that he was exposed and that his shirt was unbuttoned and hanging outside of his pants. He was rubbing his abdomen and complaining of pain in that region. After an examination of 60 to 90 seconds, Dr. Abraham left and Reck was questioned intermittently and exhibited to civilians until approximately 9:30 p. m. when he became ill and vomited a considerable amount of blood on the floor.
“Reck was again brought to the Cook County Hospital at 10:15 p. m. on Friday where he was placed in a ward and given injections of morphine, atropine, and ipecac twice during the evening. At about 2:00 a. m. two physicians, Doctor Scatliff and Doctor Day, who were members of a Chicago Medical Society which had been assisting the police in the Peacock murder came at the request of Prosecutor Kearney to see if there were any marks of brutality on Reck. They found the door to Reek’s room barred by a police officer. After securing permission from one, Police Captain O’Connell, they went in and found Reck asleep and therefore made only a cursory examination in the dark which revealed nothing conclusive. At 9:00 a. m. on Saturday, Reck told Dr. Zachary Felsher of the Cook County Hospital that the police had been beating him in the stomach. He also told Dr. Weissman of the same hospital that he had been beaten in the abdomen and chest over a three-day period. This was the first time since his arrest some 70 hours before that Reck had conversed with any civilian outside the presence of police officers. His father had attempted to see Reck on Thursday and Friday at the North Avenue Police Station and on Saturday at the Cook County Hospital. Each time he was refused.
“At 9:30 a. m. on Saturday, Reck was removed from the hospital in a wheelchair and was questioned about the Peacock murder as soon as he was transferred into Captain O’Connell’s car to be transported to the North Avenue Police Station, where the questioning continued until the afternoon, when he was taken to the State’s Attorney’s office at approximately 2:00 p.m.
“Previously to this, on Friday evening, two of the boys, Nash and Goeth, who had been arrested with Reck, had confessed to the murder of Dr. Peacock, implicating Reck and one other boy, Livingston. At about 3:00 a. m. on Saturday, Livingston also agreed to sign a confession. (Upon arraignment, Livingston pleaded not guilty and alleged that he was subjected to physical abuse by the police.)
“On Saturday afternoon, Reck was questioned about the whereabouts of the gun which Goeth had told police that Reck possessed. After intensive interrogation, Reck admitted that Goeth had told him of the Peacock murder. About 4:30 p. m. in front of a group of officers and prosecutors, Reck was confronted with Nash and Goeth. Nash told the story which became his signed confession. Reck denied participation in the crime. Goeth then made the statement that Nash was telling the truth and implicated Reck. At this point Reck stated that he was present at the crime but that Livingston and not he struck Dr. Peacock.
“At 5:55 p. m. of the same Saturday, March 28, 1936, a joint confession was taken, at which time Reck was very weak and sick looking. At this point, Reck had been in custody almost 80 hours without counsel, without contact with his family, without a court appearance and without charge or bail. The text of this joint confession reveals mostly yes and no answer in the case of Reck. The interrogation did not deal with the gun or the automobile used in the crime and was signed by all that Saturday night.
“On Sunday, Reck was again interrogated in the State’s Attorney’s office and at 4:30 p. m. his individual statement was taken which was more or less a reiteration of the joint confession. The boys then washed up and were given clean clothes. Thereafter, in a formal ceremony in front of numerous officers and prosecutors as well as twelve invited civilians, the statements were read to the boys, they were duly cautioned and the confessions were then signed. The boys did not know there were civilians present and were not permitted counsel. At this time Reck had been without solid food since Friday when he had an egg sandwich. He was placed on a milk diet by the doctor Friday night at the hospital.
“Reck was held in custody Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, March 30 through April 1. Why, is not revealed in the record. On Thursday, April 2, 1936, Reck was arraigned in open court and pleaded not guilty. He had not seen his father or other relatives or any lawyer during this entire period.”
As the district judge further noted, the record “carries an unexpressed import of police brutality. . . .” Reck testified at length to beatings inflicted upon him on each of the four days he was in police custody before he confessed. His testimony was corroborated. The police, however, denied beating Reck, and, in view of this conflict in the evidence, we proceed upon the premise, as did the District Court, that the officers did not inflict deliberate physical abuse or injury upon Reck during the period they held him in their custody. See Thomas v. Arizona, 356 U. S. 390, 402-403; Stein v. New York, 346 U. S. 156, 183-184; Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U. S. 143, 152-153; Ward v. Texas, 316 U. S. 547, 551-552.
But it is hardly necessary to state that the question whether a confession was extracted by coercion does not depend simply upon whether the police resorted to the crude tactic of deliberate physical abuse. “[T]he blood of the accused is not the only hallmark of an unconstitutional inquisition.” Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U. S. 199, 206. The question in each case is whether a defendant’s will was overborne at the time he confessed. Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227; Watts v. Indiana, 338 U. S. 49, 52, 53; Leyra v. Denno, 347 U. S. 556, 558. If so, the confession cannot be deemed “the product of a rational intellect and a free will,” Blackburn, swpra, at 208. In resolving the issue all the circumstances attendant upon the confession must be taken into account. See Fikes v. Alabama, 352 U. S. 191, 198; Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U. S. 560, 567. Physical mistreatment is but one such circumstance, albeit a circumstance which by itself weighs heavily. But other circumstances may combine to produce an effect just as impellingly coercive as the deliberate use of the third degree. Such, we think, were the undisputed circumstances of this case, as set out in detail by the District Court.
At the time of his arrest Reck was a nineteen-year-old youth of subnormal intelligence. He had no prior criminal record or experience with the police. He was held nearly eight days without a judicial hearing. Four of those days preceded his first confession. During that period Reck was subjected each day to six- or seven-hour stretches of relentless and incessant interrogation. The questioning was conducted by groups of officers. For the first three days the interrogation ranged over a wide variety of crimes. On the night of the third day of his detention the interrogation turned to the crime for which petitioner stands convicted. During this same four-day period he was shuttled back and forth between police stations and interrogation rooms. In addition, Reck was intermittently placed on public exhibition in “show-ups.” On the night before his confession, petitioner became ill while on display in such a “show-up.” He was taken to the hospital, returned to the police station and put back on public display. When he again became ill he was removed from the “show-up,” but interrogation in the windowless “handball court” continued relentlessly until he grew faint and vomited blood on the floor. Once more he was taken to the hospital, where he spent the night under the influence of drugs. The next morning he was removed from the hospital in a wheel chair, and intensive interrogation was immediately resumed. Some eight hours later Reck signed his first confession. The next afternoon he signed a second.
During the entire period preceding his confessions Reck was without adequate food, without counsel, and without the assistance of family or friends. He was, for all practical purposes, held incommunicado. He was physically weakened and in intense pain. We conclude that this total combination of circumstances “is so inherently coercive that its very existence is irreconcilable with the possession of mental freedom by a lone suspect against whom its full coercive force is brought to bear.” Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U. S. 143, 154.
It is true that this case lacks the physical brutality present in Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278, the threat of mob violence apparent in Payne v. Arkansas, 356 U. S. 560, the thirty-six hours of consecutive questioning found in Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U. S. 143, the threats against defendant’s family used in Harris v. South Carolina, 338 U. S. 68, or the deception employed in Spano v. New York, 360 U. S. 315, and Leyra v. Denno, 347 U. S. 556. Nor was Reek’s mentality apparently so irrational as that of the petitioner in Blackburn v. Alabama, 361 U. S. 199. However, it is equally true that Reek’s youth, his subnormal intelligence, and his lack of previous experience with the police make it impossible to equate his powers of resistance to overbearing police tactics with those of the defendants in Stein v. New York, 346 U. S. 156, or Lisenba v. California, 314 U. S. 219.
Although the process of decision in this area, as in most, requires more than a mere color-matching of cases, it is not inappropriate to compare this case with Turner v. Pennsylvania, 338 U. S. 62, where we held a confession inadmissible on a record disclosing circumstances less compelling. Decision in Turner rested basically on three factors: the length of detention, the amount and manner of interrogation, and the fact that Turner had been held incommunicado by the police. Turner had been in custody for four nights and five days before he confessed. He had been questioned intermittently, as much as six hours in a day, sometimes by one, sometimes by several officers. He had been interrogated a total of some twenty-three hours. Reck was held the same length of time, under basically the same circumstances, before his second confession. He was held some twenty-four hours less than Turner before his first confession, but during that period he was subjected to more concentratedly intensive interrogation, in longer stretches. He also spent considerable periods of time on public display in “show-ups,” a factor not present in Turner. In addition, Reck was weakened by illness, pain, and lack of food. Finally, unlike Turner, Reck must be regarded as a case of at least borderline mental retardation. The' record here thus presents a totality of coercive circumstances far more aggravated than those which dictated our decision in Turner. See also Johnson v. Pennsylvania, 340 U. S. 881; Fikes v. Alabama, 352 U. S. 191.
It cannot fairly be said on this record that “[t]he inward consciousness of having committed a murder and a robbery and of being confronted with evidence of guilt which [petitioner] could neither deny nor explain seems enough to account for the confessions here.” Stein v. New York, 346 U. S. 156, 185. It is true that, as in Stein, Reck did not confess until confronted with the incriminating statements of his companions. But beyond this the circumstances in Stein bear little resemblance to those involved in this case. The defendants in Stein were questioned a total of twelve hours during a thirty-two-hour detention. Part of that time was spent working out a “bargain” with police officers. Neither defendant was “young, soft, ignorant or timid.” Stein, supra, at 185. Nor were they “inexperienced in the ways of crime or its detection” or “dumb as to their rights.” Id., at 186. By contrast, Reck was in fact young and ignorant. He was in fact inexperienced in the ways of crime and its detection. Moreover, he was subjected to pressures much greater than were the defendants in Stein. He was held incommunicado and questioned over a much longer period. He was physically ill during much of that time, in pain, and weakened by lack of food. Confrontation with the confessions of his companions in these circumstances could well have been the event which made further resistance seem useless to Reck, whether he was guilty or not. On this record, therefore, the fact that his confession came hard upon the confessions of others who implicated him has little independent significance.
The State has made no effort to distinguish between the Saturday and Sunday confessions. Nor could it properly do so. The coercive circumstances preceding the first confession existed through Sunday. Reck remained in police custody, without a judicial hearing. He was subjected to further interrogation. He did not see counsel, family or friends between Saturday afternoon and Sunday afternoon. There are no other facts in the record suggesting that the Sunday confession was an act independent of the confession extracted on Saturday. Both confessions are subject to the same infirmities. Under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment neither was admissible at Reek’s trial.
The petitioner’s detention is in violation of the Constitution of the United States, and he is therefore entitled to be released. The judgments of the Court of Appeals and the District Court are vacated and the case remanded to the latter. On remand, the District Court should enter such orders as are appropriate and consistent with this opinion allowing the State a reasonable time in which to retry the petitioner. Cf. Rogers v. Richmond, 365 U. S. 534, 549; Irvin v. Dowd, 366 U. S. 717, 729.
Vacated and remanded.
So far as the record shows, this was the first time after the trial that petitioner raised this issue.
The transcripts of the pre-trial sanity proceedings, of the proceedings at the hearing on the admissibility of the confessions conducted by the trial judge outside 'the presence of the jury, of the trial proceedings in the presence of the jury, and of the proceedings at the post-conviction hearing.
The brief factual summary in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Illinois affirming the denial of post-conviction relief is entirely consistent with these findings:
“Petitioner was in the custody of the police for a week, during which time he was frequently ill, fainted several times, vomited blood on the floor of the police station and was twice taken to the hospital on a stretcher. During that week no formal charge was placed against petitioner, and he was confined practically incommunicado.” 7 Ifl. 2d 261, 264, 130 N. E. 2d 200, 202.
This was also the implicit finding of the trial 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:
|
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 Rehnquist
announced the judgment of the Court, and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Part II, and an opinion with respect to Part III, in which The Chief Justice, Justice White, and Justice O’Connor joined.
In Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U. S. 658 (1978), this Court held that municipalities are “persons” subject to damages liability under § 1 of the Ku Klux Act of 1871, 42 U. S. C. §1983, for violations of that Act visited by municipal officials. The Court noted, however, that municipal liability could not be premised on the mere fact that the municipality employed the offending official. Instead, we held that municipal liability could only be imposed for injuries inflicted pursuant to government “policy or custom.” Id., at 694. We noted at that time that we had “no occasion to address . . . the full contours of municipal immunity under § 1983 . . . ,” id., at 695, and expressly left such development “to another day.” Today we take a small but necessary step toward defining those contours.
I
On October 4, 1980, Officer Julian Rotramel, a member of the Oklahoma City police force, shot and killed Albert Tuttle outside the We’ll Do Club, a bar in Oklahoma City. Officer Rotramel, who had been on the force for 10 months, had responded to an all points bulletin indicating that there was a robbery in progress at the Club. The bulletin, in turn, was the product of an anonymous telephone call. The caller had reported the robbery in progress, and had described the robber and reported that the robber had a gun. The parties stipulated at trial that Tuttle had placed the call.
Rotramel was the first officer to reach the bar, and the testimony concerning what happened thereafter is sharply conflicting. Rotramel’s version was that when he entered the bar Tuttle walked toward him, and Rotramel grabbed Tuttle’s arm and requested that he stay within the bar. Tuttle matched the description contained in the bulletin. Rotramel proceeded to question the barmaid concerning the reported robbery, but while doing so he once again had to restrain Tuttle from leaving, this time by grabbing Tuttle’s arm and holding it. The barmaid testified that she told Rotramel that no robbery had occurred. Rotramel testified that while he was questioning the barmaid Tuttle kept bending towards his boots, and attempting to squirm from the officer’s grip. Tuttle finally broke away from Rotramel, and, ignoring the officer’s commands to “halt,” went outside. When Rotramel cleared the threshold to the outside door, he saw Tuttle crouched down on the sidewalk, with his hands in or near his boot. Rotramel again ordered Tuttle to halt, but when Tuttle started to come out of his crouch Rotramel discharged his weapon. Rotramel testified at trial that he believed Tuttle had removed a gun from his boot, and that his life was in danger. Tuttle died from the gunshot wound. When his boot was removed at the hospital prior to surgery, a toy pistol fell out.
Respondent Rose Marie Tuttle is Albert Tuttle’s widow, and the administratrix of his estate. She brought suit under § 1983 in the United States District Court, Western District of Oklahoma, against Rotramel and the city, alleging that their actions had deprived Tuttle of certain of his constitutional rights. At trial respondent introduced evidence concerning the facts surrounding the incident, and also adduced testimony from an expert in police training practices. The expert testified that, based upon Rotramel’s conduct during the incident in question and the expert’s review of the Oklahoma City police training curriculum, it was his opinion that Rotramel’s training was grossly inadequate. Respondent introduced no evidence that Rotramel or any other member of the Oklahoma City police force had been involved in a similar incident.
The case was presented to the jury on the theory that Rotramel’s act had deprived Tuttle of life without due process of law, or that he had violated Tuttle’s rights by using “excessive force in his apprehension.” App. 38. With respect to respondent’s suit against Rotramel individually, the jury was charged that Rotramel was entitled to qualified immunity to the extent that he had acted in good faith and with a reasonable belief that his actions were lawful. Respondent also sought to hold the city liable under Monell, presumably on the theory that a municipal “custom or policy” had led to the constitutional violations. With respect to municipal liability the trial judge instructed the jury:
“If a police officer denies a person his constitutional rights, the city that employs that officer is not liable for such a denial of the right simply because of the employment relationship. . . . But there are circumstances under which a city is liable for a deprivation of a constitutional right. Where the official policy of the city causes an employee of the city to deprive a person of such rights in the execution of that policy, the city may be liable.
“It is the plaintiff’s contention that such a policy existed and she relies upon allegations that the city is grossly negligent in training of police officers, in its failure to supervise police officers; and in its failure to review and discipline its officers. The plaintiff has alleged that the failure of the city to adequately supervise, train, review, and discipline the police officers constitutes deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of the decedent and acquiescence in the probability of serious police misconduct. . . .
“Absent more evidence of supervisory indifference, such as acquiescence in a prior matter of conduct, official policy such as to impose liability . . . under the federal Civil Rights Act cannot ordinarily be inferred from a single incident of illegality such as a first excessive use of force to stop a suspect; but a single, unusually excessive use of force may be sufficiently out of the ordinary to warrant an inference that it was attributable to inadequate training or supervision amounting to ‘deliberate indifference’ or ‘gross negligence’ on the part of the officials in charge. The city cannot be held liable for simple negligence. Furthermore, the plaintiff must show a causal link between the police misconduct and the adoption of a policy or plan by the defendant municipality.” Id., at 42-44. (Emphasis supplied.)
The jury returned a verdict in favor of Rotramel but against the city, and awarded respondent $1,500,000 in damages. The city appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, arguing, inter alia, that the trial court had improperly instructed the jury on the standard for municipal liability. In particular, petitioner claimed it was error to instruct the jury that a municipality could be held liable for a “policy” of “inadequate training” based merely upon evidence of a single incident of unconstitutional activity. The Court of Appeals rejected petitioner’s claims. 728 F. 2d 456 (1984).
Viewing the instructions “as a whole,” that court first determined that the trial court properly had instructed the jury that proof of “gross negligence” was required to hold the city liable for inadequate training. The court then addressed petitioner’s contention that the trial court nevertheless had erred in instructing the jury that petitioner could be held liable based on proof of a single unconstitutional act. It distinguished cases indicating that proof of more than a single incident is required, and decided that where, as here, the act “was so plainly and grossly negligent that it spoke out very positively on the issue of lack of training . . . ,” the “single incident rule is not to be considered as an absolute . . . .” Id., at 461. The instruction at issue was therefore “proper.” Id., at 459. The court also referred to “independent evidence” of inadequate training, and concluded that the “action, coupled with the clearly inadequate training,” was sufficient to justify municipal liability. Id., at 461. We granted certiorari because the Court of Appeals’ holding that proof of a single incident of unconstitutional activity by a police officer could suffice to establish municipal liability seemed to conflict with the decisions of other Courts of Appeals. 469 U. S. 814 (1984). See, e. g., Languirand v. Hayden, 717 F. 2d 220, 228-230 (CA5 1983); Wellington v. Daniels, 717 F. 2d 932, 936-937 (CA4 1983). But cf. Owens v. Haas, 601 F. 2d 1242, 1246-1247 (CA2 1979). We reverse.
II
Before proceeding to the merits, we must address respondent’s procedural argument that petitioner failed to object at trial to the “single incident” instruction with sufficient specificity to satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51, and that therefore the question is not preserved for our review. We disagree. Respondent first referred to the requirements of Rule 51 in one sentence of her brief on the merits in this Court, at which time respondent did not even suggest that the “single incident” question was not preserved. The issue was raised again at oral argument, and respondent has filed a supplemental postargument brief on the question. But respondent’s present protests cannot obscure her prior failures. In the Court of Appeals petitioner argued that proof of a single incident of the use of unreasonable force was insufficient to justify municipal liability, and specifically referred to the trial court’s single-incident instruction highlighted above. The claim was rejected on the merits, and the Court of Appeals’ opinion does not even mention the requirements of Rule 51, so it seems clear that respondent did not refer to the Rule below. The petition for certiorari again centered on the single-incident issue, but respondent’s brief in opposition did not hint that the “questions presented” might not be properly preserved. Respondent’s attempt to avoid the question now comes far too late.
We do not mean to give short shrift to the provisions of Rule 51. Indeed, respondent’s argument might have prevailed had it been made to the Court of Appeals. But we do not think that judicial economy is served by invoking the Rule at this point, after we have granted certiorari and the case has received plenary consideration on the merits. Our decision to grant certiorari represents a commitment of scarce judicial resources with a view to deciding the merits of one or more of the questions presented in the petition. Nonjurisdictional defects of this sort should be brought to our attention no later than in respondent’s brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari; if not, we consider it within our discretion to deem the defect waived. Here we granted cer-tiorari to review an issue squarely presented to and decided by the Court of Appeals, and we will proceed to decide it. Cf. On Lee v. United States, 343 U. S. 747, 749-750, n. 3 (1952).
Ill
Respondent’s lawsuit is brought pursuant to 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Although this Court has decided a host of cases under this statute in recent years, it can never hurt to embark on statutory construction with the Act’s precise language in mind. The statute states:
“Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State . . . , 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. ...”
By its terms, of course, the statute creates no substantive rights; it merely provides remedies for deprivations of rights established elsewhere. See Baker v. McCollan, 443 U. S. 137, 140, 144, n. 3 (1979). Here respondent’s claim is that her husband was deprived of his life “without due process of law,” in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, or that he was deprived of his right to be free from the use of “excessive force in his apprehension” — presumably a right secured by the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. Having established a deprivation of a constitutional right, however, respondent still must establish that the city was the “person” who “cause[d] [Tuttle] to be subjected” to the deprivation. Monell teaches that the city may only be held accountable if the deprivation was the result of municipal “custom or policy.”
In Monell, the plaintiffs challenged the defendant’s policy of compelling pregnant employees to take unpaid sick leave before such leave was necessary for medical reasons, on the ground that the policy violated the Due Process or Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Since the defendant was a municipal entity, this Court first addressed whether such an entity was a suable “person” as that term is used in §1983. The Court’s analysis focused on § 1983’s legislative history, and in particular on the debate surrounding the proposed “Sherman amendment” to the 1871 Ku Klux Act, from which § 1983 is derived. The Sherman amendment would have held municipalities responsible for damage to person or property caused by private persons “riotously and tumultuously assembled.” Cong. Globe, 42d Cong., 1st Sess., 749 (1871). Congress’ refusal to adopt this amendment, and the reasons given, were the basis for this Court’s holding in Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 187-192 (1961), that municipalities were not suable “persons” under § 1983; a more extensive analysis of the Act’s legislative history led this Court in Monell to overrule that part of Monroe. The principal objections to the Sherman amendment voiced in the 42d Congress were that the section appeared to impose a federal obligation to keep the peace — a requirement the Congressmen thought was of doubtful constitutionality, but which in any event seemed to place the municipalities in the position of insurers for harms suffered within their borders. The Monell Court found that these concerns, although fatal to the Sherman amendment, were nevertheless consistent with holding a municipality liable “for its own violations of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Monell, 436 U. S., at 683 (emphasis supplied).
Having determined that municipalities were suable “persons,” the Monell Court went on to discuss the circumstances under which municipal liability could be imposed. The Court’s holding that a city could not be held liable under § 1983 based upon theories akin to respondeat superior was based in part upon the language of the statute, and in part upon the rejection of the proposed Sherman amendment mentioned above. The Court noted that §1983 only imposes liability for deprivations “cause[dj” by a particular defendant, and that it was hard to find such causation where liability is imposed merely because of an employment relationship. It also considered Congress’ rejection of the Sherman amendment to be telling evidence that municipal liability should not be imposed when the municipality was not itself at fault. Given this legislative history, the Monell Court held that only deprivations visited pursuant to municipal “custom” or “policy” could lead to municipal liability. This language tracks the language of the statute; it also provides a fault-based analysis for imposing municipal liability.
The Monell Court went on to hold that the sick-leave policy at issue was “unquestionably” “the moving force of the constitutional violation found by the District Court,” and that it therefore had “no occasion to address . . . what the full contours of municipal liability may be.” Id., at 694-695. Subsequent decisions of this Court have added little to the Monell Court’s formulation, beyond reaffirming that the municipal policy must be “the moving force of the constitutional violation.” Polk County v. Dodson, 454 U. S. 312, 326 (1981). Cases construing Monell in the Courts of Appeals, however, have served to highlight the full range of questions, and subtle factual distinctions, that arise in administering the “policy” or “custom” standard. See, e. g., Bennett v. City of Slidell, 728 F. 2d 762 (CA5 1984); Gilmere v. City of Atlanta, 737 F. 2d 894 (CA11 1984), reheard en banc, January 1985; Languirand, 717 F. 2d, at 220.
With the development of municipal liability under § 1983 in this somewhat sketchy state, we turn to examine the basis upon which respondent seeks to have liability imposed upon the city. Respondent did not claim in the District Court that Oklahoma City had a “custom” or “policy” of authorizing its police force to use excessive force in the apprehension of suspected criminals, and the jury was not instructed on that theory of municipal liability. Rather, respondent’s theory of liability was that the “policy” in question was the city’s policy of training and supervising police officers, and that this “policy” resulted in inadequate training, and the constitutional violations alleged. Respondent in her brief says:
“Respondent offered direct evidence that the shooting was caused by municipal policies. The officer who shot Tuttle testified that city training policies were inadequate and had led to Tuttle’s death. The official who was Chief of Police when Tuttle was shot insisted that the shooting was entirely consistent with city policy.” Brief for Respondent 13-14.
The District Court apparently accepted this theory of liability, though it charged the jury that the city’s “policymakers” could not merely have been “negligent” in establishing training policies, but that they must have been guilty of “gross negligence” or “deliberate indifference” to the “police misconduct” that they could thus engender.
Respondent then proceeds to argue that the question presented by petitioner — whether a single isolated incident of the use of excessive force by a police officer establishes an official custom or policy of a municipality — is in truth not presented by this record because there was more evidence of an official “policy” of “inadequate training” than might be inferred from the incident giving rise to Tuttle’s death. But unfortunately for respondent, the instruction given by the District Court allowed the jury to impose liability on the basis of such a single incident without the benefit of the additional evidence. The trial court stated that the jury could “infer,” from “a single, unusually excessive use of force . . . that it was attributable to inadequate training or supervision amounting to ‘deliberate indifference’ or ‘gross negligence’ on the part of the officials in charge.” App. 44.
We think this inference unwarranted; first, in its assumption that the act at issue arose from inadequate training, and second, in its further assumption concerning the state of mind of the municipal policymakers. But more importantly, the inference allows a § 1983 plaintiff to establish municipal liability without submitting proof of a single action taken by a municipal policymaker. The foregoing discussion of the origins of MonelVs “policy or custom” requirement should make clear that, at the least, that requirement was intended to prevent the imposition of municipal liability under circumstances where no wrong could be ascribed to municipal decisionmakers. Presumably, here the jury could draw the stated inference even in the face of uncontradicted evidence that the municipality scrutinized each police applicant and met the highest training standards imaginable. To impose liability under those circumstances would be to impose it simply because the municipality hired one “bad apple.”
The fact that in this case respondent introduced independent evidence of inadequate training makes no difference, because the instruction allowed the jury to impose liability even if it did not believe respondent’s expert at all. Nor can we read this charge “as a whole” to avoid the difficulty. There is nothing elsewhere in this charge that would detract from the jury’s perception that it could impose liability based solely on this single incident. Indeed, that was the intent of the charge, and that is what the Court of Appeals held in upholding it. The Court of Appeals’ references to “independent evidence” in portions of its opinion are thus irrelevant; the general verdict yields no opportunity for determining whether liability was premised on the independent evidence, or solely on the inference sanctioned by the instruction. Cf. Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 367-368 (1931).
Respondent contends that Monell suggests the contrary result, because it “expressly provided that an official ‘decision’ would suffice to establish liability, although a single decision will often have only a single victim.” App. 14. But this very contention illustrates the wide difference between the municipal “policy” at issue in Monell and the “policy” alleged here. The “policy” of the New York City Department of Social Services that was challenged in Monell was a policy that by its terms compelled pregnant employees to take mandatory leaves of absence before such leaves were required for medical reasons; this policy in and of itself violated the constitutional rights of pregnant employees by reason of our decision in Cleveland Board of Education v. LaFleur, 414 U. S. 632 (1974). Obviously, it requires only one application of a policy such as this to satisfy fully Monell’s requirement that a municipal corporation be held liable only for constitutional violations resulting from the municipality’s official policy.
Here, however, the “policy” that respondent seeks to rely upon is far more nebulous, and a good deal further removed from the constitutional violation, than was the policy in Monell. To establish the constitutional violation in Monell no evidence was needed other than a statement of the policy by the municipal corporation, and its exercise; but the type of “policy” upon which respondent relies, and its causal relation to the alleged constitutional violation, are not susceptible to such easy proof. In the first place, the word “policy” generally implies a course of action consciously chosen from among various alternatives; it is therefore difficult in one sense even to accept the submission that someone pursues a “policy” of “inadequate training,” unless evidence be adduced which proves that the inadequacies resulted from conscious choice — that is, proof that the policymakers deliberately chose a training program which would prove inadequate. And in the second place, some limitation must be placed on establishing municipal liability through policies that are not themselves unconstitutional, or the test set out in Monell will become a dead letter. Obviously, if one retreats far enough from a constitutional violation some municipal “policy” can be identified behind almost any such harm inflicted by a municipal official; for example, Rotramel would never have killed Tuttle if Oklahoma City did not have a “policy” of establishing a police force. But Monell must be taken to require proof of a city policy different in kind from this latter example before a claim can be sent to a jury on the theory that a particular violation was “caused” by the municipal “policy.” At the very least there must be an affirmative link between the policy and the particular constitutional violation alleged.
Here the instructions allowed the jury to infer a thoroughly nebulous “policy” of “inadequate training” on the part of the municipal corporation from the single incident described earlier in this opinion, and at the same time sanctioned the inference that the “policy” was the cause of the incident. Such an approach provides a means for circumventing Monell’s limitations altogether. Proof of a single incident of unconstitutional activity is not sufficient to impose liability under Monell, unless proof of the incident includes proof that it was caused by an existing, unconstitutional municipal policy, which policy can be attributed to a municipal policymaker. Otherwise the existence of the unconstitutional policy, and its origin, must be separately proved. But where the policy relied upon is not itself unconstitutional, considerably more proof than the single incident will be necessary in every case to establish both the requisite fault on the part of the municipality, and the causal connection between the “policy” and the constitutional deprivation. Under the charge upheld by the Court of Appeals the jury could properly have imposed liability on the city based solely upon proof that it employed a nonpolicymaking officer who violated the Constitution. The decision of the Court of Appeals is accordingly
Reversed.
Justice Powell took no part in the decision of this case.
This case was tried some three weeks prior to our decision in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800 (1982), which modified the standard for qualified executive immunity. An executive official is now entitled to immunity unless he violated “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id., at 818.
The actual “question presented” in the petition for certiorari is:
“Whether a single isolated incident of the use of excessive force by a police officer establishes an official policy or practice of a municipality sufficient to render the municipality liable for damages under 42 U. S. C. § 1983.” Pet. for Cert. i.
Although much of the petition for certiorari was directed to pointing out the general uncertainties concerning municipal liability for “inadequate training” of its police force, and although respondent’s brief in opposition said nothing to dispel the notion that this general question was presented, we confine our holding to the above question. In reaching our conclusion, however, we find it necessary to discuss the many unanswered questions concerning municipal liability that we must assume have an answer in order to properly address this question.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 51 requires counsel objecting to a jury instruction to “stat[e] distinctly the matter to which he objects and the grounds of his objection.” Apparently, the only objection to the single-incident instruction contained in the record consists of the statement: “we make a second objection, your honor, particularly to the one, the Oklahoma City language, the language in the light of the City of Oklahoma City, which is single occurrence language.” Tr. 693
The trial court correctly charged the jury that a federal right — here a constitutional right — had to be violated to establish liability under § 1983. Petitioner did not object to the trial court’s description of the rights at issue, and we do not pass on whether the jury was correctly charged on this aspect of the case. The facts of this case are, of course, very similar to the facts of Tennessee v. Garner, ante, p. 1, in which we recently held that “[wjhere the officer has probable cause to believe that the suspect poses a threat of serious physical harm, either to the officer or to others, it is not constitutionally unreasonable to prevent escape by using deadly force.” Ante, at 11. Here the jury’s verdict in favor of Rotramel must have been based upon a finding that he acted in “good faith and with a reasonable belief in the legality of his actions.” We note that this Court has never held that every instance of use of “unreasonable force” in effecting an arrest constitutes a violation of the Fourth Amendment; nor has this Court held under circumstances such as these that there has been a deprivation of life “without due process of law.”
Although apparently agreeing with the result we reach in light of Monell, see post, at 842, Justice Stevens’ dissent would have us overrule Monell’s limitation on municipal liability altogether. We see no reason here to depart from the important and established principle of stare deci-sis. The question we address involves only statutory construction, so any error we may commit is subject to reversal by Congress. Cf. Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U. S. 393, 406-407 (1932) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). In addition, the law in this area has taken enough 90-degree turns in recent years. Monell was decided only seven years ago. That decision, of course, overruled Monroe v. Pape’s 17-year-old holding that municipalities were never subject to suit under § 1983. One reason why courts render decisions and written opinions is so that parties can order their conduct accordingly, and we may assume that decisions on issues such as this are appropriately considered by municipalities in ordering their financial affairs. The principle of stare decisis gives rise to and supports these legitimate expectations, and, where our decision is subject to correction by Congress, we do a great disservice when we subvert these concerns and maintain the law in a state of flux.
We note in addition that Justice Stevens’ position, which is based substantially on his perception of the common law of municipal liability at the time § 1983 was enacted, is by no means representative of all the contemporary authorities. Both the majority and dissenting opinions in Owen v. City of Independence, 445 U. S. 622 (1980), recognized that certain rather complicated municipal tort immunities existed at the time § 1983 was enacted, see id., at 644-650; id., at 676-679 (Powell, J., dissenting); we are therefore somewhat surprised to learn that the “common law” at the time applied the doctrine of respondeat superior “to municipal corporations, and to the wrongful acts of police officers.” Post, at 836-837. Even those cases known to allow municipal liability at the time hardly support the broad vicarious liability suggested by the dissent; the famous case of Thayer v. Boston, 36 Mass. 511, 516-517 (1837), for example, spoke in guarded language that seems in harmony with the limitations on municipal liability expressed in Monell. That court stated:
“As a general rule, the corporation is not responsible for the unauthorized and unlawful acts of its officers, though done colore officii; it must further appear, that they were expressly authorized to do the acts, by the city government, or that they were done bona fide in pursuance of a general authority to act for the city, on the subject to which they relate; or that, in either case, the act was adopted and ratified by the corporation.” 36 Mass., at 316-317.
One well-known dictionary, for example, defines “policy” as “a definite course or method of action selected from among alternatives and in light of given conditions to guide and determine present and future decisions.” Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary 910 (1983).
We express no opinion on whether a policy that itself is not unconstitutional, such as the general “inadequate training” alleged here, can ever meet the “policy” requirement of Monell. In addition, even assuming that such a “policy” would suffice, it is open to question whether a policymaker’s “gross negligence” in establishing police training practices could establish a “policy” that constitutes a “moving force” behind subsequent unconstitutional conduct, or whether a more conscious decision on the part of the policymaker would be required;
In this regard, we cannot condone the loose language in the charge leaving it to the jury to determine whether the alleged inadequate training would likely lead to “police misconduct.” The fact that a municipal “policy” might lead to “police misconduct” is hardly sufficient to satisfy Monell’s requirement that the particular policy be the “moving force” behind a constitutional violation. There must at least be an affirmative link between the training inadequacies alleged, and the particular constitutional violation at issue.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
In this case we decide whether North Carolina’s “intangibles tax” on a fraction of the value of corporate stock owned by North Carolina residents inversely proportional to the corporation’s exposure to the State’s income tax violates the Commerce Clause. We hold that it does.
I
During the period in question here, North Carolina levied an “intangibles tax” on the fair market value of corporate stock owned by North Carolina residents or having a “business, commercial, or taxable situs” in the State. N. C. Gen. Stat. § 105-203 (1992). Although the tax was assessed at a stated rate of one quarter of one percent, residents were entitled to calculate their tax liability by taking a taxable percentage deduction equal to the fraction of the issuing corporation’s income subject to tax in North Carolina. Ibid. This figure was set by applying a corporate income tax apportionment formula averaging the portion of the issuing corporation’s sales, payroll, and property located in the State. See § 105-130.4(i).
Thus, a corporation doing all of its business within the State would pay corporate income tax on 100% of its income, and the taxable percentage deduction allowed to resident owners of that corporation’s stock under the intangibles tax would likewise be 100%. Stock in a corporation doing no business in North Carolina, on the other hand, would be taxable on 100% of its value. For the intermediate cases, holders of stock were able to look up the taxable percentage for a large number of corporations as determined and published annually by the North Carolina Secretary of Revenue (Secretary). In 1990, for example, the Secretary determined the appropriate taxable percentage of IBM stock to be 95%, meaning that IBM did 5% of its business in North Carolina, with its stock held by North Carolina residents being taxable on 95% of its value. N. C. Dept. of Revenue, Stock and Bond Values as of December 31, 1990, p. 39.
Petitioner Fulton Corporation is a North Carolina company owning stock in other corporations that do business out of state. In the 1990 tax year, at issue in this case, Fulton owned shares in six corporations, five of which did no business or earned no income in North Carolina and therefore were not subject to the State’s corporate income tax. Fulton’s stock in these corporations was accordingly subject to the intangibles tax on 100% of its value. Fulton also owned stock in Food Lion, Inc., which did 46% of its business in North Carolina, with the result that its stock was subject to the intangibles tax on 54% of its value. App. 11.
Fulton’s intangibles tax liability for the 1990 tax year amounted to $10,884. It paid the tax and brought this action in state court under Rev. Stat. § 1979, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, seeking a declaratory judgment that the scheme based on the taxable percentage deduction violated the Commerce Clause by discriminating against interstate commerce. Fulton also sought a refund under the terms of the appropriate state statute, N. C. Gen. Stat. §105-267 (1992), and attorney’s fees under Rev. Stat. §722, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1988. On the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment, the state trial court ruled in favor of the Secretary.
On appeal, North Carolina’s Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the taxable percentage deduction violated the Commerce Clause. Fulton Corp. v. Justus, 110 N. C. App. 493, 430 S. E. 2d 494 (1993). The Court of Appeals saw a facial discrimination against shareholders in out-of-state corporations in forcing them to pay tax on a higher percentage of share value than shareholders of corporations operating solely in North Carolina. Id., at 499, 430 S. E. 2d, at 498. The court rejected the Secretary’s contention that the intangibles tax amounted to a valid “compensating tax” designed to place a burden on interstate commerce equal to what intrastate commerce already carried under the corporate income tax. Id., at 499-501,430 S. E. 2d, at 498-499. Finally, the Court of Appeals distinguished this Court’s decision in Darnell v. Indiana, 226 U. S. 390 (1912), which held that Indiana could tax the stock of foreign corporations to the extent that those corporations were not subject to the State’s tax on in-state property. Because the tax regime in Darnell was constructed to avoid the double taxation of corporate property values, a result not accomplished by North Carolina’s intangibles tax, the Court of Appeals did not view Darnell as being on point. 110 N. C. App., at 501-504, 430 S. E. 2d, at 499-501. The court refused Fulton any retrospective relief, however, and held the proper remedy to be elimination of the percentage deduction provision from the intangibles tax scheme. Id., at 504-505, 430 S. E. 2d, at 501-502.
Both parties appealed to the Supreme Court of North Carolina, which reversed. Fulton Corp. v. Justus, 338 N. C. 472, 450 S. E. 2d 728 (1994). Without addressing whether the intangibles tax was facially discriminatory, the court read Darnell to compel a conclusion that the scheme here imposed a valid compensating tax, 338 N. C., at 477-480, 450 S. E. 2d, at 731-734, and it rejected Fulton’s contention that Darnell had been overruled implicitly by this Court’s more recent decisions on interstate taxation. 338 N. C., at 480-482,450 S. E. 2d, at 734-735. The court reasoned, moreover, that corporate income is generally related to the value of corporate stock, and that in practice, the burden on interstate commerce imposed by the intangibles tax was less than that placed on intrastate commerce by the corporate income tax. Id., at 479-480, 450 S. E. 2d, at 733-734.
We granted certiorari, 514 U. S. 1062 (1995), and now reverse.
II
The constitutional provision of power “[t]o regulate Commerce... among the several States,” U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, has long been seen as a limitation on state regulatory powers, as well as an affirmative grant of congressional authority. See, e. g., Oklahoma Tax Comm’n v. Jefferson Lines, Inc., 514 U. S. 175, 179-180 (1995); Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat. 1 (1824) (Marshall, C. J.) (dictum). In its negative aspect, the Commerce Clause “prohibits economic protectionism — that is, ‘regulatory measures designed to benefit instate economic interests by burdening out-of-state competitors.’” Associated Industries of Mo. v. Lohman, 511 U. S. 641, 647 (1994) (quoting New Energy Co. of Ind. v. Limbach, 486 U. S. 269, 273-274 (1988)). This reading effectuates the Framers’ purpose to “preven[t] a State from retreating into economic isolation or jeopardizing the welfare of the Nation as a whole, as it would do if it were free to place burdens on the flow of commerce across its borders that commerce wholly within those borders would not bear.” Jefferson Lines, supra, at 180.
In evaluating state regulatory measures under the dormant Commerce Clause, we have held that “the first step... is to determine whether it ‘regulates evenhandedly with only “incidental” effects on interstate commerce, or discriminates against interstate commerce.’ ” Oregon Waste Systems, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Quality of Ore., 511 U. S. 93, 99 (1994) (quoting Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U. S. 322, 336 (1979)). With respect to state taxation, one element of the protocol summarized in Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U. S. 274 (1977), treats a law as discriminatory if it “‘tax[es] a transaction or incident more heavily when it crosses state lines than when it occurs entirely within the State.’” Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt, 504 U. S. 334, 342 (1992) (quoting Armco Inc. v. Hardesty, 467 U. S. 638, 642 (1984)); see also Boston Stock Exchange v. State Tax Comm’n, 429 U. S. 318, 332, n. 12 (1977) (noting that a State “may not discriminate between transactions on the basis of some interstate element”). State laws discriminating against interstate commerce on their face are “virtually per se invalid.” Oregon Waste, supra, at 99; see also Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U. S. 617, 624 (1978).
We have also recognized, however, that a facially discriminatory tax may still survive Commerce Clause scrutiny if it is a truly “‘compensatory tax’ designed simply to make interstate commerce bear a burden already borne by intrastate commerce.” Associated Industries, supra, at 647. Thus, in Henneford v. Silas Mason Co., 300 U. S. 577 (1937), we upheld the State of Washington’s tax on the privilege of using any article of tangible personal property within the State. The statute exempted the use of any article that had already been subjected to a sales tax equal to the use tax or greater, so that the use tax effectively applied only to goods purchased out of state. Although the use tax was itself facially discriminatory, we held that the combined effect of the sales and use taxes was to subject intrastate and interstate commerce to equivalent burdens. “ ‘There is no demand in... [the] Constitution that the State shall put its requirements in any one statute,’ ” we said; rather, “ ‘[i]t may distribute them as it sees fit, if the result, taken in its totality, is within the State’s constitutional power.’” Id., at 584 (quoting Gregg Dyeing Co. v. Query, 286 U. S. 472, 480 (1932)). As Justice Cardozo explained for the Court, the complementary arrangement assures that “[w]hen the account is made up, the stranger from afar is subject to no greater burdens as a consequence of ownership than the dweller within the gates. The one pays upon one activity or incident, and the other upon another, but the sum is the same when the reckoning is closed.” 300 U. S., at 584.
Since Silas Mason, our cases have distilled three conditions necessary for a valid compensatory tax. First, “a State must, as a threshold matter, ‘identify]... the [intrastate tax] burden for which the State is attempting to compensate.’” Oregon Waste, supra, at 103 (quoting Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725, 758 (1981)). Second, “the tax on interstate commerce must be shown roughly to approximate — but not exceed — the amount of the tax on intrastate commerce.” Oregon Waste, 511 U. S., at 103. “Finally, the events on which the interstate and intrastate taxes are imposed must be'substantially equivalent’; that is, they must be sufficiently similar in substance to serve as mutually exclusive 'proxies]’ for each other.” Ibid, (quoting Armco Inc. v. Hardesty, supra, at 643).
Ill
There is no doubt that the intangibles tax facially discriminates against interstate commerce. A regime that taxes stock only to the degree that its issuing corporation participates in interstate commerce favors domestic corporations over their foreign competitors in raising capital among North Carolina residents and tends, at least, to discourage domestic corporations from plying their trades in interstate commerce. The Secretary practically concedes as much, and relies instead on the compensatory tax defense. The only issue, then, is whether the taxable percentage deduction can be sustained as compensatory.
A
As we have said, a State that invokes the compensatory tax defense must identify the intrastate tax for which it seeks to compensate, see supra, at 332, and it should go without saying that this intrastate tax must serve some purpose for which the State may otherwise impose a burden on interstate commerce. In Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725 (1981), for example, we rejected Louisiana’s argument that, because it imposed a severance tax on natural resources extracted from its own soil, it could impose a compensating “first use” tax on resources produced out of state but used within Louisiana. Because “Louisiana has no sovereign interest in being compensated for the severance of resources from the federally owned [Outer Continental Shelf] land,” we held that “[t]he two events are not comparable in the same fashion as a use tax complements a sales tax.” Id., at 759.
In this case, the Secretary suggests that the intangibles tax, with its taxable percentage deduction, compensates for the burden of the general corporate income tax paid by corporations doing business in North Carolina. But because North Carolina has no general sovereign interest in taxing income earned out of state, Maryland v. Louisiana teaches that the Secretary must identify some in-state activity or benefit in order to justify the compensatory levy. Indeed, we have repeatedly held that “no state tax may be sustained unless the tax... has a substantial nexus with the State... [and] is fairly related to the services provided by the State.” Id., at 754; see also Jefferson Lines, 514 U. S., at 183-184; Complete Auto Transit, Inc. v. Brady, 430 U. S., at 279. The Secretary does not disagree, but rather insists that North Carolina may impose a compensatory tax upon foreign corporations because they may avail themselves of access to North Carolina’s capital markets.
The Secretary’s theory is that one of the services provided by the State, and supported through its general corporate income tax, is the maintenance of a capital market for corporations wishing to sell stock to North Carolina residents. Since those corporations escape North Carolina’s income tax to the extent those corporations do business in other States, the Secretary says, the State may require those companies to pay for the privilege of access to the State’s capital markets by a tax on the value of the shares sold. So, the Secretary concludes, the intangibles tax “rests squarely on ‘the settled principle that interstate commerce may be made to pay its way.’” Brief for Respondent 18 (quoting Oregon Waste, 511 U. S., at 102).
The argument is unconvincing, and we rejected a counterpart of it in Oregon Waste, where we held that Oregon could not charge an increased fee for disposal of waste generated out of state on the theory that in-state waste generators supported the cost of waste disposal facilities through general income taxes. Although we relied primarily upon the conclusion that earning income and disposing of waste are not “substantially equivalent taxable events,” id., at 105, we also spoke of the danger of treating general revenue measures as relevant intrastate burdens for purposes of the compensatory tax doctrine. “[Permitting discriminatory taxes on interstate commerce to compensate for charges purportedly included in general forms of intrastate taxation would allow a state to tax interstate commerce more heavily than in-state commerce anytime the entities involved in interstate commerce happened to use facilities supported by general state tax funds.” Id., at 105, n. 8 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We declined then, as we do now, “to open such an expansive loophole in our carefully confined compensatory tax jurisprudence.” Ibid.
Even shutting our eyes to that loophole, we are unpersuaded that North Carolina’s corporate income tax is designed to support the maintenance of an intrastate capital market. North Carolina, like most States, regulates access to its capital markets by means of blue sky laws, see generally N. C. Gen. Stat. ch. 78A (1994), and their accompanying regulations, which prescribe who may sell securities in North Carolina, the procedures that must be followed to do so, and the fees imposed for the privilege. See, e.g., N. C. Gen. Stat. § 78A-28 (1994) (registration procedures and fees); 18 N. C. Admin. Code §6.1304 (1990) (same). Absent probative evidence to the contrary, which the Secretary has not supplied, we can reasonably assume that North Carolina has provided for the upkeep of its capital market through these provisions, not through the general corporate income tax.
If the corporate income tax does not support the maintenance of North Carolina’s capital market, then the State has not justified imposition of a compensating levy on the ownership of shares in corporations not subject to the income tax. While we need not hold that a State may never justify a compensatory tax by an intrastate burden included in a general form of taxation, the linkage in this case between the intrastate burden and the benefit shared by out-of-staters is far too tenuous to overcome the risk posed by recognizing a general levy as a complementary twin.
B
The second prong of our analysis requires that “the tax on interstate commerce... be shown roughly to approximate— but not exceed — the amount of the tax on intrastate commerce.” Oregon Waste, supra, at 103. The Secretary argues that the relative magnitudes of the corporate income tax and the intangibles tax can be evaluated best by reference to the price/earnings (P/E) ratios of taxpayer firms. This ratio represents the relationship of the value of a corporation’s stock, the target of the intangibles tax, to the corporation’s earnings, which are subjected to the income tax. See 3 New Palgrave Dictionary of Money & Finance 176 (1992). North Carolina taxes corporate income and ownership of stock at rates of 7.75% and.25%, respectively. Given these rates, the State Supreme Court found that “a North Carolina corporation need only have a P/E ratio less than 31 (7.75A25) in order to have the tax against its income exceed the intangibles tax against the stockholders of a comparable corporation doing business only in [other States] and having all its shareholders in North Carolina. Since P/E ratios are only rarely greater than 31, most out-of-state corporations will in fact be paying less taxes to North Carolina... than a similar North Carolina corporation.” 338 N. C., at 480, 450 S. E. 2d, at 733 (footnotes omitted).
The math is fine, but even leaving aside the issue of who is really paying the taxes, the example compares apples to oranges. When a corporation doing business in a State pays its general corporate income tax, it pays for a wide range of things: construction and maintenance of a transportation network, institutions that educate the work force, local police and fire protection, and so on. The Secretary’s justification for the intangibles tax, however, rests on only one of the many services funded by the corporate income tax, the maintenance of a capital market for the shares of both foreign and domestic corporations. To the extent that corporations do their business outside North Carolina, after all, they get little else from the State. Even, then, if we suppressed our suspicion that North Carolina actually funds its capital market through its blue sky fees, not its general corporate taxation, the relevant comparison for our analysis has to be between the size of the intangibles tax and that of the corporate income taxes component that purportedly funds the capital market.
That comparison, of course, is for the present practical purpose impossible. The corporate income tax is a general form of taxation, not assessed according to the taxpayer’s use of particular services, and before its revenues are earmarked for particular purposes they have been commingled with funds from other sources. As a result, the Secretary cannot tell us what proportion of the corporate income tax goes to support the capital market, or whether that proportion represents a burden greater than the one imposed on interstate commerce by the intangibles tax. True, it is not inconceivable, however unlikely, that a capital markets component of the corporate income tax exceeds the intangibles tax in magnitude, but the Secretary cannot carry her burden of demonstrating this on the record in front of us.
This difficulty simply confirms our general unwillingness to “permi[t] discriminatory taxes on interstate commerce to compensate for charges purportedly included in general forms of intrastate taxation.” Oregon Waste, 511 U. S., at 105, n. 8. Where general forms of taxation are involved, we ordinarily cannot even begin to make the sorts of quantitative assessments that the compensatory tax doctrine requires. See infra, at 341-343.
C
The tax, finally, fails even the third prong of compensatory tax analysis, which requires the compensating taxes to fall on substantially equivalent events. Although we found such equivalence in the sales/use tax combination at issue in Silas Mason, our more recent cases have shown extreme reluctance to recognize new compensatory categories. In Oregon Waste, we even pointed out that “use taxes on products purchased out of state are the only taxes we have upheld in recent memory under the compensatory tax doctrine.” 511 U. S., at 105. On the other hand, we have rejected equivalence arguments for pairing taxes upon the earning of income and the disposing of waste, ibid., the severance of natural resources from the soil and the use of resources imported from other States, Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S., at 759, and the manufacturing and wholesaling of tangible goods, Tyler Pipe Industries, Inc. v. Washington State Dept. of Revenue, 483 U. S. 232, 244 (1987); Armco Inc. v. Hardesty, 467 U. S., at 642. In each case, we held that the paired activities were not “sufficiently similar in substance to serve as mutually exclusive proxies] for each other.” Oregon Waste, supra, at 103 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).
In the face of this trend, the Secretary argues that North Carolina has assured substantial equivalence by employing the same apportionment formula to tie the percentage of share value subject to the intangibles tax directly to the percentage of income earned within the State. See N. C. Gen. Stat. § 105-130.4(i) (1992). The Secretary further contends that the intangibles tax and the corporate income tax fall on substantially equivalent “events” because they fall on economically equivalent “values”: the value of a corporation’s stock and the value of a corporation’s income, respectively. Even assuming the truth of both these assertions, however, we find that the intangibles tax is not functionally equivalent to the corporate income tax.
By equivalence of value, the Secretary means that the value reached by the intangibles tax reflects that targeted by the income tax to a substantial degree because of the influence of corporate earnings on the price of stock. While that may be true enough, it does not explain away the fact that the taxes are apparently different (quite apart from stated rates) in a number of obvious respects, including the parties ostensibly taxed. Something more than mere influence of the one stated tax base on the value of the other would therefore be necessary before we could conclude that equivalent events (or “values”) are taxed. The nature of that something more flows from the objective of the equivalent-event requirement, which is to enable in-state and out-of-state businesses to compete on a footing of equality. In Silas Mason, for example, we observed that “[t]he practical effect” of Washington’s sales/use tax regime “must be that retail sellers in Washington will be helped to compete upon terms of equality with retail dealers in other states who are exempt from a sales tax or any corresponding burden.” 300 U. S., at 581; see also Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Reily, 373 U. S. 64, 70 (1963) (“[E]qual treatment for instate and out-of-state taxpayers similarly situated is the condition precedent for a valid use tax on goods imported from out-of-state”). This equality of treatment does not appear when the allegedly compensating taxes fall respectively on taxpayers who are differently described, as, for example, resident shareholders and corporations doing business out of state. A State defending such a scheme as one of complementary taxation, therefore, has the burden of showing that the actual incidences of the two tax burdens are different enough from their nominal incidences so that the real taxpayers are within the same class, and that therefore a finding of combined neutrality on interstate competition would at least be possible.
In principle, the door may be open for such an argument. It is well established that “the ultimate distribution of the burden of taxes [may] be quite different from the distribution of statutory liability,” McLure, Incidence Analysis and the Supreme Court: An Examination of Four Cases from the 1980 Term, 1 Sup. Ct. Econ. Rev. 69, 72 (1982), with such divergence occurring when the nominal taxpayer can pass it through to other parties, like consumers. The Secretary’s equivalence argument might work in the present case, then, if we could find that the economic impact of North Carolina’s corporate income tax is passed through to shareholders of corporations doing business in state in a way that offsets the disincentive imposed by the intangibles tax to buying stock in corporations doing business out of state.
But there is a problem with this line of argument, and it lies in the frequently extreme complexity of economic incidence analysis. The actual incidence of a tax may depend on elasticities of supply and demand, the ability of producers and consumers to substitute one product for another, the structure of the relevant market, the timeframe over which the tax is imposed and evaluated, and so on. See, e. g., Commonwealth Edison Co. v. Montana, 453 U. S. 609, 619, n. 8 (1981) (determining “whether the tax burden is shifted out of State, rather than borne by in-state producers and consumers, would require complex factual inquiries about such issues as elasticity of demand for the product and alternative sources of supply”). We declined to shoulder any such analysis in Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co. v. Minnesota Comm’r of Revenue, 460 U. S. 575, 589-590, and nn. 12-14 (1983), noting that “courts as institutions are poorly-equipped to evaluate with precision the relative burdens of various methods of taxation. The complexities of factual economic proof always present a certain potential for error, and courts have little familiarity with the process of evaluating the relative economic burden of taxes” (footnote omitted). We were likewise unwilling to “plunge... into the morass of weighing comparative tax burdens by comparing taxes on dissimilar events” in Oregon Waste. 511 U. S., at 105 (internal quotation marks omitted). Indeed, the general difficulty of comparing the economic incidence of state taxes paid by different taxpayers upon different transactions goes a long way toward explaining why we have so seldom recognized a valid compensatory tax outside the context of sales and use taxes. See Hellerstein, Complementary Taxes as a Defense to Unconstitutional State Tax Discrimination, 39 Tax Lawyer 405, 434, n. 197, 458 (1986) (noting that sales and use taxes require no economic incidence analysis because they are strict functional equivalents for one another).
In this case, not only has the State failed to proffer any analysis addressing the complexity of its burden, but we have particular reason to doubt the Secretary’s suggestion that domestic corporate income taxes are so reflected in the stock values of corporations doing business in state as to offset the effects of the intangibles tax. Because corporations operating in North Carolina do not exhaust the market for investment opportunities, investors are free to look elsewhere if North Carolina’s corporate income tax has the effect of depressing the value of shares in corporations doing business in the State. Hence, the impact of the income tax will be reflected in the purchase price of these shares, investors will presumably earn a market return on a lower outlay, and the actual burden of the tax will be borne by other parties, such as the consumers of the corporations’ products. See McClure, supra, at 82; see also McClure, The Elusive Incidence of the Corporate Income Tax: The State Case, 9 Pub. Finance Q. 395, 401 (1981). But because North Carolina investors make up a relatively small proportion of the participants in national capital markets, it is unlikely that the stock price of corporations doing business outside the State will reflect the impact of the intangibles tax. The economic incidence of this tax is thus likely to fall squarely on the shareholder. All other things being equal, then, a North Carolina investor will probably favor investment in corporations doing business within the State, and the intangibles tax will have worked an impermissible result. See Halliburton, 373 U. S., at 72 (States may not impose discriminatory taxes on interstate commerce in the hopes of encouraging firms to do business within the State); Dean Milk Co. v. Madison, 340 U. S. 349, 356 (1951) (observing that the creation of “preferential trade areas” is “destructive of the very purpose of the Commerce Clause”).
All other things, of course, are rarely equal, and investors may wish to invest in corporations doing business in North Carolina for any number of reasons, perhaps affecting the degree to which the corporate income tax is or is not passed through to shareholders. Our point, however, is simply that there are reasons to doubt the Secretary’s contention that the corporate income tax amounts to a clear equivalent for the burden on shareholding imposed by the intangibles tax, and these doubts are dispositive. After all, “the concept of the compensatory tax... is merely a specific way of justifying a facially discriminatory tax as achieving a legitimate local purpose that cannot be achieved through nondiscriminatory means.” Oregon Waste, supra, at 102. As with any other defense of a facially discriminatory tax, the State has the burden to show that the requirements of the compensatory tax doctrine are clearly met. Cf. Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt, 504 U. S., at 342-843 (noting that “‘facial discrimination invokes the strictest scrutiny of any purported legitimate local purpose’”) (quoting Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U. S. 322, 337 (1979)). While we doubt that such a showing can ever be made outside the limited confines of sales and use taxes, it is enough to say here that no such showing has been made.
IV
Our finding that North Carolina has failed to show that its intangibles tax satisfies any of the three requirements for a valid compensatory tax leaves the tax unconstitutional as facially discriminatory under our modern tests. The Secretary argues, however, that our decision in Darnell v. Indiana, 226 U. S. 390 (1912), compels us to sustain the North Carolina statute. The statutory scheme at issue in Darnell taxed all shares in foreign corporations owned by Indiana residents as well as all shares in domestic corporations to the extent that the issuing corporations’ property was not subject to Indiana’s general property tax. Writing for the Court, Justice Holmes found that “[t]he only difference of treatment... that concerns the defendants is that the State taxes the property of domestic corporations and the stock of foreign ones in similar cases.” Id., at 398. This arrangement, he concluded, “is consistent with substantial equality notwithstanding the technical differences.” Ibid?
Justice Holmes has been praised for the lucidity of his reasoning, as having been “wrong clearly” even where he erred, see Hart, Positivism and the Separation of Law and Morals, 71 Harv. L. Rev. 593 (1958), but the opinion in Darnell does not exemplify his customary merit. He gives no explanation for the conclusion quoted, commenting only that the discrimination issue “was decided in Kidd v. Alabama, 188 U. S. 730, 732 [(1903)].” 226 U. S., at 398. Kidd, however, was decided under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and emphasized “the large latitude allowed to the States for classification upon any reasonable basis.” 188 U. S., at 733 (citations omitted). The exclusive reliance upon Kidd in Darnell thus indicates that the latter case should be viewed primarily as one of equal protection, despite the fact that Indiana’s shareholder tax was challenged under both the Equal Protection and Commerce Clauses.
To the extent that Darnell evaluated a discriminatory state tax under the Equal Protection Clause, time simply has passed it by. While we continue to measure the equal protection of economic legislation by a “rational basis” test, see, e. g., FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U. S. 307, 313 (1993), we now understand the dormant Commerce Clause to require “justifications for discriminatory restrictions on commerce [to] pass the ‘strictest scrutiny.’” Oregon Waste, 511 U. S., at 101 (quoting Hughes v. Oklahoma, supra, at 337); see also Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. Hunt, supra, at 342-343; Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U. S. 617, 624 (1978). Hence, while cases like Kidd and Darnell may still be authorities under the Equal Protection Clause, they are no longer good law under the Commerce Clause. Cf. Associated Industries of Mo. v. Lohman, 511 U. S., at 652 (holding that, although a prior case applied a more lenient equal protection analysis to a Commerce Clause challenge, it had been “bypassed by later decisions”). North Carolina’s intangibles tax cannot pass muster under modern compensatory tax cases, and Darnell cannot save it.
V
North Carolina’s intangibles tax facially discriminates against interstate commerce, it fails justification as a valid compensatory tax, and, accordingly, it cannot stand. At the same time, of course, it is true that “a State found to have imposed an impermissibly discriminatory tax retains flexibility in responding to this determination.” McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Fla. Dept. of Business Regulation, 496 U. S. 18, 39-40 (1990). In McKesson, for example, we said that a State might refund the additional taxes imposed upon the victims of its discrimination or, to the extent consistent with other constitutional provisions (notably due process), retroactively impose equal burdens on the tax’s former beneficiaries. A State may also combine these two approaches. Ibid. These options are available because the Constitution requires only that “the resultant tax actually assessed during the contested tax period reflec[t] a scheme that does not discriminate against interstate commerce.” Id., at 41.
In this case, that choice may well be dictated by the sever-ability clause enacted as part of the intangibles tax statute. N. C. Gen. Stat. § 105-215 (1992). That issue, however, as well as the question whether Fulton has properly complied with the procedural requirements of North Carolina’s tax refund statute, § 105-267, ought to come before the state courts in the first instance. Cf. Swanson v. State, 335 N. C. 674, 680-681, 441 S. E. 2d 537, 541 (noting that “[f]ailure to comply with the requirements in section 105-267 bars a taxpayer’s action against the State for a refund of taxes”), cert.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
On May 4, 1982, after eating their evening meal in their Muskogee County, Oklahoma, home, Hugh and Charma Riddle watched television in their living room. At some point, Mrs. Riddle left the living room and was proceeding towards the bathroom when she encountered respondent Cartwright standing in the hall holding a shotgun. She struggled for the gun and was shot twice in the legs. The man, whom she recognized as a disgruntled ex-employee, then proceeded to the living room where he shot and killed Hugh Riddle. Mrs. Riddle dragged herself down the hall to a bedroom where she tried to use a telephone. Respondent, however, entered the bedroom, slit Mrs. Riddle’s throat, stabbed her twice with a hunting knife the Riddles had given him for Christmas, and then left the house. Mrs. Riddle survived and called the police. Respondent was arrested two days later and charged with first-degree murder.
Respondent was tried and found guilty as charged. The State, relying on three statutory aggravating circumstances, sought the death penalty. The jury found two of them to have been established: first, the defendant “knowingly created a great risk of death to more than one person”; second, the murder was “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.” Okla. Stat., Tit. 21, §§ 701.12(2) and (4) (1981). Finding that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating evidence, the jury imposed the death penalty. The Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed on direct appeal, Cartwright v. State, 695 P. 2d 548, cert. denied, 473 U. S. 911 (1985), and later affirmed a denial of state collateral relief. Cartwright v. State, 708 P. 2d 592 (1985), cert. denied, 474 U. S. 1073 (1986). Respondent then sought federal habeas corpus on several grounds. The District Court rejected each of them, including the claim that the death sentence was invalid because it rested wholly or in part on an unconstitutional aggravating .circumstance, namely, the unconstitutionally vague and overbroad aggravating circumstance that the murder was “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel.” A panel of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed, 802 F. 2d 1203 (1986), but rehearing en banc was granted limited to the claim concerning the challenged aggravating circumstance.
The en banc court recognized that the jury had found two aggravating circumstances, one of them being unchallenged. But it noted that in cases where a death sentence rested in part on an invalid aggravating circumstance, the Oklahoma courts did not reweigh the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in an effort to save the death penalty; rather, the death sentence was vacated and a life-imprisonment sentence automatically imposed. Oklahoma had “no provision fdr curing on appeal a sentencer’s consideration of an invalid aggravating circumstance.” 822 F. 2d 1477, 1482 (1987). It was therefore necessary to consider the vagueness challenge to one of the aggravating circumstances. The court proceeded to do so and unanimously sustained the challenge. It stated that the words “heinous,” “atrocious,” and “cruel” did not on their face offer sufficient guidance to the jury to escape the strictures of our judgment in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238 (1972). Nor, in the court’s view, had the Oklahoma courts adopted a limiting construction that cured the infirmity and that was relied upon to affirm the death sentence in this case. It concluded that the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals’ construction of the aggravating circumstance was “unconstitutionally vague” under the Eighth Amendment. 822 F. 2d, at 1483, 1492. The death sentence, accordingly, was held to be invalid and its execution enjoined, but “without prejudice to further proceedings by the state for redetermination of the sentence on the conviction.” Id., at 1492.
Petitioner sought review here of the Tenth Circuit’s holding that the aggravating circumstance was unconstitutionally vague. Because of the conflict between the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit and the Court of Criminal Appeals of Oklahoma and because of the importance of this constitutional issue to the orderly and proper administration of state death-penalty statutes, we granted certiorari, limited to that issue. 484 U. S. 1003 (1988). We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
The Court of Appeals, with some care, reviewed the evolution in the interpretation of the “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating circumstance by the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals up to and including its decision in this case. Its reading of the cases was that while the Oklahoma court had considered the attitude of the killer, the manner of the killing, and the suffering of the victim to be relevant and sufficient to support the aggravating circumstance, that court had “refused to hold that any one of those factors must be present for a murder to satisfy this aggravating circumstance.” 822 F. 2d, at 1491. Rather, the Oklahoma court simply had reviewed all of the circumstances of the murder and decided whether the facts made opt the aggravating circumstance. Ibid. We normally defer to courts of appeals in their interpretation of state law, and we see no reason not to accept the Court of Appeals’ statements about state law in this case, especially since the State does not challenge this reading of the Oklahoma cases.
The State, however, takes issue with the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that this approach, which was also employed in this case, to interpreting and applying the challenged aggravating circumstance is unconstitutional. It insists that in some cases there are factual circumstances that so plainly characterize the killing as “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” that affirmance of the death penalty is proper. As we understand the argument, it is that a statutory provision governing a criminal case is unconstitutionally vague only if there are no circumstances that could be said with reasonable certainty to fall within reach of the language at issue. Or to put it another way, that if there are circumstances that any reasonable person would recognize as covered by the statute, it is not unconstitutionally vague even if the language would fail to give adequate notice that it covered other circumstances as well.
The difficulty with the State’s argument is that it presents a Due Process Clause approach to vagueness and fails to recognize the rationale of our cases construing and applying the Eighth Amendment. Objections to vagueness under the Due Process Clause rest on the lack of notice, and hence may be overcome in any specific case where reasonable persons would know that their conduct is at risk. Vagueness challenges to statutes not threatening First Amendment interests are examined in light of the facts of the case at hand; the statute is judged on an as-applied basis. United States v. Powell, 423 U. S. 87, 92-93 (1975); United States v. Mazurie, 419 U. S. 544, 550 (1975); Palmer v. City of Euclid, 402 U. S. 544 (1971) (per curiam); United States v. National Dairy Corp., 372 U. S. 29, 32-33, 36 (1963). Claims of vagueness directed at aggravating circumstances defined in capital punishment statutes are analyzed under the Eighth Amendment and characteristically assert that the challenged provision fails adequately to inform juries what they must find to impose the death penalty and as a result leaves them and appellate courts with the kind of open-ended discretion which was held invalid in Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238 (1972).
Furman held that Georgia’s then-standardless capital punishment statute was being applied in an arbitrary and capricious manner; there was no principled means provided to distinguish those that received the penalty from those that did not. E. g., id., at 310 (Stewart, J., concurring); id., at 311 (White, J., concurring). Since Furman, our cases have insisted that the channeling and limiting of the sentencer’s discretion in imposing the death penalty is a fundamental constitutional requirement for sufficiently minimizing the risk of wholly arbitrary and capricious action. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 189, 206-207 (1976) (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.); id., at 220-222 (White, J., concurring in judgment); Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U. S. 447, 462 (1984); Lowenfield v. Phelps, 484 U. S. 231, 244 (1988).
Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U. S. 420 (1980), which is very relevant here, applied this central tenet of Eighth Amendment law. The aggravating circumstance at issue there permitted a person to be sentenced to death if the offense “was outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved torture, depravity of mind, or an aggravated battery to the victim.” Id., at 422. The jury had been instructed in the words of the statute, but its verdict recited only that the murder was “outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman.” The Supreme Court of Georgia, in affirming the death sentence, held only that the language used by the jury was “not objectionable” and that the evidence supported the finding of the presence of the aggravating circumstance, thus failing to rule whether, on the facts, the offense involved torture or an aggravated battery to the victim. Id., at 426-427. Although the Georgia Supreme Court in other cases had spoken in terms of the presence or absence of these factors, it did not do so in the decision under review, and this Court held that such an application of the aggravating circumstance was unconstitutional, saying:
“In the case before us, the Georgia Supreme Court has affirmed a sentence of death based upon no more than a finding that the offense was ‘outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible and inhuman.’ There is nothing in these few words, standing alone, that implies any inherent restraint on the arbitrary and capricious infliction of the death sentence. A person of ordinary sensibility could fairly characterize almost every murder as ‘outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible and inhuman.’ Such a view may, in fact, have been one to which the members of the jury in this case subscribed. If so, their preconceptions were not dispelled by the trial judge’s sentencing instructions. These gave the jury no guidance concerning the meaning of any of [the aggravating circumstance’s] terms. In fact, the jury’s interpretation of [that circumstance] can only be the subject of sheer speculation.” Id., at 428-429 (footnote omitted).
The affirmance of the death sentence by the Georgia Supreme Court was held to be insufficient to cure the jury’s unchanneled discretion because that court failed to apply its previously recognized limiting construction of the aggravating circumstance. Id., at 429, 432. This Court concluded that, as a result of the vague construction applied, there was “no principled way to distinguish this case, in which the death penalty was imposed, from the many cases in which it was not.” Id., at 433. Cf. Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U. S. 242, 254-256 (1976). It plainly rejected the submission that a particular set of facts surrounding a murder, however shocking they might be, were enough in themselves, and without some narrowing principle to apply to those facts, to warrant the imposition of the death penalty.
We think the Court of Appeals was quite right in holding that Godfrey controls this case. First, the language of the Oklahoma aggravating circumstance at issue — “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” — gave no more guidance than the “outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman” language that the jury returned in its verdict in Godfrey. The State’s contention that the addition of the word “especially” somehow guides the jury’s discretion, even if the term “heinous” does not, is untenable. To say that something is “especially heinous” merely suggests that the individual jurors should determine that the murder is more than just “heinous,” whatever that means, and an ordinary person could honestly believe that every unjustified, intentional taking of human life is “especially heinous.” Godfrey, supra, at 428-429. Likewise, in Godfrey the addition of “outrageously or wantonly” to the term “vile” did not limit the overbreadth of the aggravating factor.
Second, the conclusion of the Oklahoma court that the events recited by it “adequately supported the jury’s finding” was indistinguishable from the action of the Georgia court in Godfrey, which failed to cure the unfettered discretion of the jury and to satisfy the commands of the Eighth Amendment. The Oklahoma court relied on the facts that Cartwright had a motive of getting even with the victims, that he lay in wait for them, that the murder victim heard the blast that wounded his wife, that he again brutally attacked the surviving wife, that he attempted to conceal his deeds, and that he attempted to steal the victims’ belongings. 695 P. 2d, at 554. Its conclusion that on these facts the jury’s verdict that the murder was especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel was supportable did not cure the constitutional infirmity of the aggravating circumstance.
The State complains, however, that the Court of Appeals ruled that to be valid the “especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating circumstance must be construed to require torture or serious physical abuse and that this was error. We do not, however, agree that the Court of Appeals imposed this requirement. It noted cases in which such a requirement sufficed to validate an otherwise vague aggravating circumstance, but it expressly refrained from directing the State to adopt any specific curative construction of the aggravating circumstance at issue here. 822 F. 2d, at 1491-1492. We also do not hold that some kind of torture or serious physical abuse is the only limiting construction of the heinous, atrocious, or cruel aggravating circumstance that would be constitutionally acceptable.
The State also insists that the death penalty should stand because the jury found two aggravating circumstances, one of which was unchallenged and is sufficient to sustain the sentence. When this case was decided, however, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals would not attempt to save the death penalty when one of several aggravating circumstances found by the jury was found invalid or unsupported by the evidence. As the Tenth Circuit said, there was “no provision for curing on appeal a sentencer’s consideration of an invalid aggravating circumstance.” Id., at 1482. If this was the case at that time, and the State does not dispute it, the Court of Appeals cannot be faulted for not itself undertaking what the state courts themselves refused to do.
It is true that since the decision of the Court of Appeals, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has restricted the “heinous, atrocious, or cruel” aggravating circumstance to those murders in which torture or serious physical abuse is present. Stouffer v. State, 742 P. 2d 562 (1987). At the same time, that court decided that it would not necessarily set aside a death penalty where on appeal one of several aggravating circumstances has been found invalid or unsupported by the evidence. Id., at 564. See also Castro v. State, 745 P. 2d 394, 408-409 (1987), cert. denied, 485 U. S. 971 (1988).
What significance these decisions of the Court of Criminal Appeals have for the present case is a matter for the state courts to decide in the first instance. Like that of the Court of Appeals, our judgment is without prejudice to further proceedings in the state courts for redetermination of the appropriate sentence.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri imposed an increase in the property taxes levied by the Kansas City, Missouri, School District (KCMSD) to ensure funding for the desegregation of KCMSD’s public schools. We granted certiorari to consider the State of Missouri’s argument that the District Court lacked the power to raise local property taxes. For the reasons given below, we hold that the District Court abused its discretion in imposing the tax increase. We also hold, however, that the modifications of the District Court’s order made by the Court of Appeals do satisfy equitable and constitutional principles governing the District Court’s power.
I
In 1977, KCMSD and a group of KCMSD students filed a complaint alleging that the State of Missouri and surrounding school districts had operated a segregated public school system in the Kansas City metropolitan area. The District Court realigned KCMSD as a party defendant, School Dist. of Kansas City v. Missouri, 460 F. Supp. 421 (WD Mo. 1978), and KCMSD filed a cross-claim against the State, seeking indemnification for any liability that might be imposed on KCMSD for intradistrict segregation. After a lengthy trial, the District Court found that KCMSD and the State had operated a segregated school system within the KCMSD. Jenkins v. Missouri, 593 F. Supp. 1485 (1984).
The District Court thereafter issued an order detailing the remedies necessary to eliminate the vestiges of segregation and the financing necessary to implement those remedies. Jenkins v. Missouri, 639 F. Supp. 19 (1985). The District Court originally estimated the total cost of the desegregation remedy to be almost $88 million over three years, of which it expected the State to pay $67,592,072 and KCMSD to pay $20,140,472. Id., at 43-44. The court concluded, however, that several provisions of Missouri law would prevent KCMSD from being able to pay its share of the obligation. Id., at 44. The Missouri Constitution limits local property taxes to $1.25 per $100 of assessed valuation unless a majority of the voters in the district approve a higher levy, up to $3.25 per $100; the levy may be raised above $3.25 per $100 only if two-thirds of the voters agree. Mo. Const., Art. X, §§ 11(b),(c). The “Hancock Amendment” requires property tax rates to be rolled back when property is assessed at a higher valuation to ensure that taxes will not be increased solely as a result of reassessments. Mo. Const., Art. X, § 22(a); Mo. Rev. Stat. §137.073.2 (1986). The Hancock Amendment thus prevents KCMSD from obtaining any revenue increase as a result of increases in the assessed valuation of real property. “Proposition C” allocates one cent of every dollar raised by the state sales tax to a schools trust fund and requires school districts to reduce property taxes by an amount equal to 50% of the previous year’s sales tax receipts in the district. Mo. Rev. Stat. §164.013.1 (Supp. 1988). However, the trust fund is allocated according to a formula that does not compensate KCMSD for the amount lost in property tax revenues, and the effect of Proposition C is to divert nearly half of the sales taxes collected in KCMSD to other parts of the State.
The District Court believed that it had the power to order a tax increase to ensure adequate funding of the desegregation plan, but it hesitated to take this step. It chose instead to enjoin the effect of the Proposition C rollback to allow KCMSD to raise an additional $4 million for the coming fiscal year. The court ordered KCMSD to submit to the voters a proposal for an increase in taxes sufficient to pay for its share of the desegregation remedy in following years. Jenkins v. Missouri, 639 F. Supp., at 45.
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court’s findings of liability and remedial order in most respects. Jenkins v. Missouri, 807 F. 2d 657 (1986) (in banc). The Court of Appeals agreed with the State, however, that the District Court had failed to explain adequately why it had imposed most of the cost of the desegregation plan on the State. Id., at 684, 685. The Eighth Circuit ordered the District Court to divide the cost equally between the State and KCMSD. Id., at 685. We denied certiorari. Kansas City, Missouri, School Dist. v. Missouri, 484 U. S. 816 (1987).
Proceedings before the District Court continued during the appeal. In its original remedial order, the District Court had directed KCMSD to prepare a study addressing the usefulness of “magnet schools” to promote desegregation. Jenkins v. Missouri, supra, at 34-35. A year later, the District Court approved KCMSD’s proposal to operate six magnet schools during the 1986-1987 school year. The court again faced the problem of funding, for KCMSD’s efforts to persuade the voters to approve a tax increase had failed, as had its efforts to seek funds from the Kansas City Council and the state legislature. Again hesitating to impose a tax increase itself, the court continued its injunction against the Proposition C rollback to enable KCMSD to raise an additional $6.5 million. App. 138-142.
In November 1986, the District Court endorsed a marked expansion of the magnet school program. It adopted in substance a KCMSD proposal that every high school, every middle school, and half of the elementary schools in KCMSD become magnet schools by the 1991-1992 school year. It also approved the $142,736,025 budget proposed by KCMSD for implementation of the magnet school plan, as well as the expenditure of $52,858,301 for additional capital improvements. App. to Pet. for Cert. 120a-124a.
The District Court next considered, as the Court of Appeals had directed, how to shift the cost of desegregation to KCMSD. The District Court concluded that it would be “clearly inequitable” to require the population of KCMSD to pay half of the desegregation cost, and that “even with Court help it would be very difficult for the KCMSD to fund more than 25% of the costs of the entire remedial plan.” Id., at 112a. The court reasoned that the State should pay for most of the desegregation cost under the principle that “ ‘the person who starts the fire has more responsibility for the damages caused than the person who fails to put it out/” id. át Illa, and that apportionment of damages between the State and KCMSD according to fault was supported by the doctrine of comparative fault in tort, which had been adopted by the Missouri Supreme Court in Gustafson v. Benda, 661 S. W. 2d 11 (1983). The District Court then held that the State and KCMSD were 75% and 25% at fault, respectively, and ordered them to share the cost of the desegregation remedy in that proportion. To ensure complete funding of the remedy, the court also held the two tortfeasors jointly and severally hable for the cost of the plan. App. to Pet. for Cert. 113a.
Three months later, the District Court adopted a plan requiring $187,450,334 in further capital improvements. 672 F. Supp. 400, 408 (WD Mo. 1987). By then it was clear that KCMSD would lack the resources to pay for its 25% share of the desegregation cost. KCMSD requested that the District Court order the State to pay for any amount that KCMSD could not meet. The District Court declined to impose a greater share of the cost on the State, but it accepted that KCMSD had “exhausted all available means of raising additional revenue.” Id., at 411. Finding itself with “no choice but to exercise its broad equitable powers and enter a judgment that will enable the KCMSD to raise its share of the cost of the plan,” ibid., and believing that the “United States Supreme Court has stated that a tax may be increased if ‘necessary to raise funds adequate to... operate and maintain without racial discrimination a public school system/” id., at 412 (quoting Griffin v. Prince Edward County School Bd., 377 U. S. 218, 233 (1964)), the court ordered the KCMSD property tax levy raised from $2.05 to $4.00 per $100 of assessed valuation through the 1991-1992 fiscal year. 672 F. Supp., at 412-413. KCMSD was also directed to issue $150 million in capital improvement bonds. Id., at 413. A subsequent order directed that the revenues generated by the property tax increase be used to retire the capital improvement bonds. App. to Pet. for Cert. 63a.
The State appealed, challenging the scope of the desegregation remedy, the allocation of the cost between the State and KCMSD, and the tax increase. A group of local taxpayers (Clark Group) and Jackson County, Missouri, also appealed from an order of the District Court denying their applications to intervene as of right. A panel of the Eighth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. 855 F. 2d 1295 (1988). With respect to the would-be intervenors, the Court of Appeals upheld the denial of intervention. Id., at 1316-1317. The scope of the desegregation order was also upheld against all the State’s objections, id., at 1301-1307, as was the allocation of costs, id., at 1307-1308.
Turning to the property tax increase, the Court of Appeals rejected the State’s argument that a federal court lacks the judicial power to order a tax increase. The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that Griffin v. Prince Edward County School Bd., supra, at 233, had established the District Court’s authority to order county officials to levy taxes. Accepting also the District Court’s conclusion that state law prevented KCMSD from raising funds sufficient to implement the desegregation remedy, the Court of Appeals held that such state-law limitations must fall to the command of the Constitution. 855 F. 2d, at 1313.
Although the Court of Appeals thus “affirm[ed] the actions that the [District] [C]ourt has taken to this point,” id., at 1314, it agreed with the State that principles of federal/state comity required the District Court to use “minimally obtrusive methods to remedy constitutional violations.” Ibid. The Court of Appeals thus required that in the future, the District Court should not set the property tax rate itself but should authorize KCMSD to submit a levy to the state tax collection authorities and should enjoin the operation of state laws hindering KCMSD from adequately funding the remedy. The Court of Appeals reasoned that permitting the school board to set the levy itself would minimize disruption of state laws and processes and would ensure maximum consideration of the views of state and local officials. Ibid.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals was entered on August 19, 1988. On September 16, 1988, the State filed with the Court of Appeals a document styled “State Appellants’ Petition for Rehearing En Banc.” App. 489-502. Jackson County also filed a “Petition... for Rehearing by Court En Banc,” id., at 458-469, and Clark Group filed a “Petition for Rehearing En Banc with Suggestions in Support.” Id., at 470-488. On October 14, 1988, the Court of Appeals denied the petitions with an order stating as follows: “There are now three petitions for rehearing en banc pending before the Court. It is hereby ordered that all petitions for rehearing en banc are denied.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 53a. The mandate of the Court of Appeals issued on October 14.
On December 31, 1988, 78 days after the issuance of the order denying rehearing and 134 days after the entry of the Court of Appeals’ judgment, Jackson County presented to this Court an application for extension of time in which to file a petition for certiorari. The Clerk of this Court returned the application to Jackson County as untimely. App. 503. According to the Clerk, the 90-day period in which Jackson County could petition for certiorari began to run on August 19, 1988, and expired on November 17, 1988. The Clerk informed Jackson County that although the timely filing of a “petition for rehearing” with the Court of Appeals tolls the running of the 90-day period, the filing of a “petition for rehearing en banc” does not toll the time.
On January 10,1989, the Clerk of the Eighth Circuit issued an order amending the order of October 14, 1988. The amended order stated:
“This Court’s mandate which was issued on October 14, 1988, is hereby recalled.
“There are three (3) petitions for rehearing with suggestions for rehearing en banc pending before the Court. It is hereby ordered that the petitions for rehearing and the petitions for rehearing with suggestions for rehearing en banc are denied.
“This order is entered nunc pro tunc effective October 14, 1988. The Court’s mandate shall now issue forthwith.” Id., at 513 (emphasis added).
The State, Jackson County, and Clark Group filed petitions for certiorari within 90 days of the October 14, 1988, order. The State’s petition argued that the remedies imposed by the District Court were excessive in scope and that the property tax increase violated Article III, the Tenth Amendment, and principles of federal/state comity. We denied the petitions of Jackson County and Clark Group. 490 U. S. 1034 (1989). We granted the State’s petition, limited to the question of the property tax increase, but we requested the parties to address whether the petition was timely filed. 490 U. S. 1034 (1989).
II
We deal first with the question of our own jurisdiction. Title 28 U. S. C. § 2101(c) requires that a petition for certiorari in a civil case be filed within 90 days of the entry of the judgment below. This 90-day limit is mandatory and jurisdictional. We have no authority to extend the period for filing except as Congress permits. Unless the State’s petition was filed within 90 days of the entry of the Court of Appeals’ judgment, we must dismiss the petition.
Since Department of Banking of Nebraska v. Pink, 317 U. S. 264 (1942), it has been the consistent practice of the Court to treat petitions for rehearing timely presented to the Courts of Appeals as tolling the start of the period in which a petition for certiorari must be sought until rehearing is denied or a new judgment is entered on the rehearing. As was explained in Pink, “[a] timely petition for rehearing... operates to suspend the finality of the... court’s judgment, pending the court’s further determination whether the judgment should be modified so as to alter its adjudication of the rights of the parties.” Id., at 266. To put the matter another way, while the petition for rehearing is pending, there is no “judgment” to be reviewed. Cf. Zimmern v. United States, 298 U. S. 167, 169 (1936); Leishman v. Associated Wholesale Electric Co., 318 U. S. 203, 205 (1943).
But as respondents point out, it has also been our consistent practice to treat suggestions for rehearing in banc presented to the United States Courts of Appeals that do not also include petitions for rehearing by the panel as not tolling the period for seeking certiorari. Our Rule 13.4 now expressly incorporates this practice. See n. 13, supra. This practice rests on the important distinction between “petitions for rehearing,” which are authorized by Rule 40(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, and “suggestions for rehearing in banc,” which are permitted by Rule 35(b). In this case, the State styled its filing as a “Petition for Rehearing En Banc.” There is technically no provision for the filing of a “Petition for Rehearing En Banc” in the Rules of Appellate Procedure. A party may petition for rehearing before the panel under Rule 40, file a suggestion for a rehearing in banc under Rule 35, or do both, separately or together. The State’s filing on its face did not exactly comport with any of these options. If the filing was no more than a suggestion for rehearing in banc, as respondents insist, the petition for certiorari was untimely. But if, as the State argues, its papers qualified for treatment as a petition for rehearing within the meaning of Rule 40 as well as a suggestion for rehearing in banc under Rule 35, the 90-day period for seeking certiorari began on October 14, 1988, and the State’s petition for certiorari was timely filed.
Though the matter is not without difficulty, we conclude that the State has the better of the argument. It appears to us that the Court of Appeals interpreted and actually treated the State’s papers as including a petition for rehearing before the panel. If the Eighth Circuit had regarded the State’s papers as only a suggestion for rehearing in banc, without a petition for panel rehearing as well, Rules 35(c) and 41(a) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure would have required the court to issue its mandate within 21 days of the entry of the panel’s judgment. The Court of Appeals did not issue the mandate within 21 days of the panel’s judgment, but issued it only upon its October 14 order denying the State’s petition. Nor did the Court of Appeals issue an order extending the time for the issuance of the mandate, as it may do under Rule 41(a).
Respondents insist that the Eighth Circuit routinely withholds the mandate during the pendency of a suggestion for rehearing in banc even without the order contemplated by Rule 41(a) and point us to United States v. Samuels, 808 F. 2d 1298, 1299 (1987), where the Chief Judge of that court wrote separately respecting the denial of rehearing in banc to emphasize that the Eighth Circuit has done so. The Court of Appeals may not on every occasion have observed the technicalities of Rules 35(c) and 41(a), but we cannot conclude from the respondents’ submission that the Eighth Circuit has engaged in a systematic practice of ignoring those formalities. We presume that the Eighth Circuit withheld the mandate because, under Rule 41(a), it must do so when a petition for panel rehearing is pending.
It is true that the Eighth Circuit’s original October 14 order stated that there were three “petitions for rehearing en banc pending before the Court” and that all “petitions for rehearing en banc” were denied. Only after this Court’s Clerk informed Jackson County that its application for extension of time was untimely did the Court of Appeals amend its October 14 order nunc pro tunc to state that there were “petitions for rehearing with suggestions for rehearing en banc pending before the Court” and that those “petitions for rehearing... with suggestions for rehearing en banc” were denied. Respondents argue that the original order is more probative of the Eighth Circuit’s contemporaneous treatment of the State’s petition, and they contend that order clearly does not treat the petition as requesting panel rehearing. They insist that the Eighth Circuit cannot, post hoc, amend its order to make it appear that it took an action which it never took.
The Court of Appeals of course cannot make the record what it is not. The time for applying for certiorari will not be tolled when it appears that the lower court granted rehearing or amended its order solely for the purpose of extending that time. Cf. Wayne United Gas Co. v. Owens-Illinois Glass Co., 300 U. S. 131, 137 (1937); Conboy v. First National Bank of Jersey City, 203 U. S. 141, 145 (1906); Credit Co. v. Arkansas Central R. Co., 128 U. S. 258, 261 (1888). But, as we see it, that is not what happened in this case: the Eighth Circuit originally entered an order denying the “petitions for rehearing en banc” because the papers filed with the court were styled as “petitions for rehearing en banc.” When it was subsequently brought to the Eighth Circuit’s attention that it had neglected to refer to those papers in its order as petitions for rehearing with suggestions for rehearing in banc, the court amended its order nunc pro tunc to ensure that the order reflected the reality of the action taken on October 14. The Eighth Circuit surely knows more than we do about the meaning of its orders, and we accept its action for what it purports to be.
The Eighth Circuit, unlike other Circuits, does not have a published practice of treating all suggestions for rehearing in banc, no matter how styled, as containing both petitions for panel rehearing and suggestions for rehearing in banc. Cf. Gonzalez v. Southern Pacific Transportation Co., 773 F. 2d 637, 639 (CA5 1985); Eleventh Circuit Rule 35-6. Respondents argue that accepting the Eighth Circuit’s interpretation of its October 14 order in this case risks confusion in future cases and invites the lower courts to pick and choose between those parties whose “petitions for rehearing in banc” they view favorably and wish to give additional time for seeking review in this Court, and those whose petitions they wish to give no such aid.
We share respondents’ concern about the stability and clarity of jurisdictional rules. It is undoubtedly desirable to have published rules of procedure giving parties fair warning of the treatment afforded petitions for rehearing and suggestions for rehearing in banc. Regular adherence to published rules of procedure best promotes the principles of fairness, stability, and uniformity that those rules are designed to advance. But in the end we accept the Eighth Circuit’s interpretation of its October 14 order and will not assume that its action in this case is not in accord with its regular practice.
Ill
We turn to the tax increase imposed by the District Court. The State urges us to hold that the tax increase violated Article III, the Tenth Amendment, and principles of federal/state comity. We find it unnecessary to reach the difficult constitutional issues, for we agree with the State that the tax increase contravened the principles of comity that must govern the exercise of the District Court’s equitable discretion in this area.
It is accepted by all the parties, as it was by the courts below, that the imposition of a tax increase by a federal court was an extraordinary event. In assuming for itself the fundamental and delicate power of taxation the District Court not only intruded on local authority but circumvented it altogether. Before taking such a drastic step the District Court was obliged to assure itself that no permissible alternative would have accomplished the required task. We have emphasized that although the “remedial powers of an equity court must be adequate to the task,... they are not unlimited,” Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S. 124, 161 (1971), and one of the most important considerations governing the exercise of equitable power is a proper respect for the integrity and function of local government institutions. Especially is this true where, as here, those institutions are ready, willing, and — but for the operation of state law curtailing their powers — able to remedy the deprivation of constitutional rights themselves.
The District Court believed that it had no alternative to imposing a tax increase. But there was an alternative, the very one outlined by the Court of Appeals: it could have authorized or required KCMSD to levy property taxes at a rate adequate to fund the desegregation remedy and could have enjoined the operation of state laws that would have prevented KCMSD from exercising this power. 855 F. 2d, at 1314; see infra, at 52. The difference between the two approaches is far more than a matter of form. Authorizing and directing local government institutions to devise and implement remedies not only protects the function of those institutions but, to the extent possible, also places the responsibility for solutions to the problems of segregation upon those who have themselves created the problems.
As Brown v. Board of Education, 349 U. S. 294, 299 (1955), observed, local authorities have the “primary responsibility for elucidating, assessing, and solving” the problems of desegregation. See also Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U. S. 267, 281 (1977). This is true as well of the problems of financing desegregation, for no matter has been more consistently placed upon the shoulders of local government than that of financing public schools. As was said in another context, “[t]he very complexity of the problems of financing and managing a... public school system suggests that ‘there will be more than one constitutionally permissible method of solving them/ and that... ‘the legislature’s efforts to tackle the problems’ should be entitled to respect.” San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1, 42 (1973) (quoting Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U. S. 535, 546-547 (1972)). By no means should a district court grant local government carte blanche, cf. Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Bd. of Education, 402 U. S. 1 (1971), but local officials should at least have the opportunity to devise their own solutions to these problems. Cf. Sixty-seventh Minnesota State Senate v. Beens, 406 U. S. 187, 196 (1972) (per curiam).
The District Court therefore abused its discretion in imposing the tax itself. The Court of Appeals should not have allowed the tax increase to stand and should have reversed the District Court in this respect. See Langnes v. Green, 282 U. S. 531, 541-542 (1931).
IV
We stand on different ground when we review the modifications to the District Court’s order made by the Court of Appeals. As explained supra, at 43, the Court of Appeals held that the District Court in the future should authorize KCMSD to submit a levy to the state tax collection authorities adequate to fund its budget and should enjoin the operation of state laws that would limit or reduce the levy below that amount. 855 F. 2d, at 1314.
The State argues that the funding ordered by the District Court violates principles of equity and comity because the remedial order itself was excessive. As the State puts it, “[t]he only reason that the court below needed to consider an unprecedented tax increase was the equally unprecedented cost of its remedial programs.” Brief for Petitioners 42. We think this argument aims at the scope of the remedy rather than the manner in which the remedy is to be funded and thus falls outside our limited grant of certiorari in this case. As we denied certiorari on the first question presented by the State’s petition, which did challenge the scope of the remedial order, we must resist the State’s efforts to argue that point now. We accept, without approving or disapproving, the Court of Appeals’ conclusion that the District Court’s remedy was proper. See Cone v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., 330 U. S. 212, 215 (1947).
The State has argued here that the District Court, having found the State and KCMSD jointly and severally liable, should have allowed any monetary obligations that KCMSD could not meet to fall on the State rather than interfere with state law to permit KCMSD to meet them. Under the circumstances of this case, we cannot say it was an abuse of discretion for the District Court to rule that KCMSD should be responsible for funding its share of the remedy. The State strenuously opposed efforts by respondents to make it responsible for the cost of implementing the order and had secured a reversal of the District Court’s earlier decision placing on it all of the cost of substantial portions of the order. See 807 F. 2d, at 684-685. The District Court declined to require the State to pay for KCMSD’s obligations because it believed that the Court of Appeals had ordered it to allocate the costs between the two governmental entities. See 672 F. Supp., at 411. Furthermore, if the District Court had chosen the route now suggested by the State, implementation of the remedial order might have been delayed if the State resisted efforts by KCMSD to obtain contribution.
It is true that in Milliken v. Bradley, 433 U. S., at 291, we stated that the enforcement of a money judgment against the State did not violate principles of federalism because “[t]he District Court... neither attempted to restructure local governmental entities nor... mandated] a particular method or structure of state or local financing.” But we did not there state that a district court could never set aside state laws preventing local governments from raising funds sufficient to satisfy their constitutional obligations just because those funds could also be obtained from the States. To the contrary, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, on which respondents’ complaint is based, is authority enough to require each tortfeasor to pay its share of the cost of the remedy if it can, and apportionment of the cost is part of the equitable power of the District Court. Cf. Milliken v. Bradley, supra, at 289-290.
We turn to the constitutional issues. The modifications ordered by the Court of Appeals cannot be assailed as invalid under the Tenth Amendment. “The Tenth Amendment’s reservation of nondelegated powers to the States is not implicated by a federal-court judgment enforcing the express prohibitions of unlawful state conduct enacted by the Fourteenth Amendment.” 433 U. S., at 291. “The Fourteenth Amendment... was avowedly directed against the power of the States,” Pennsylvania v. Union Gas Co., 491 U. S. 1, 42 (1989) (Scalia, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part), and so permits a federal court to disestablish local government institutions that interfere with its commands. Cf. New York City Bd. of Estimate v. Morris, 489 U. S. 688 (1989); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533, 585 (1964).
Finally, the State argues that an order to increase taxes cannot be sustained under the judicial power of Article III. Whatever the merits of this argument when applied to the District Court’s own order increasing taxes, a point we have not reached, see supra, at 53, a court order directing a local government body to levy its own taxes is plainly a judicial act within the power of a federal court. We held as much in Griffin v. Prince Edward County School Bd., 377 U. S., at 233, where we stated that a District Court, faced with a county’s attempt to avoid desegregation of the public schools by refusing to operate those schools, could “require the [County] Supervisors to exercise the power that is theirs to levy taxes to raise funds adequate to reopen, operate, and maintain without racial discrimination a public school system....” Griffin followed a long and venerable line of cases in which this Court held that federal courts could issue the writ of mandamus to compel local governmental bodies to levy taxes adequate to satisfy their debt obligations. See, e. g., Louisiana ex rel. Hubert v. Mayor and Council of New Orleans, 215 U. S. 170 (1909); Graham v. Folsom, 200 U. S. 248 (1906); Wolff v. New Orleans, 103 U. S. 358 (1881); United States v. New Orleans, 98 U. S. 381 (1879); Heine v. Levee Commissioners, 19 Wall. 655, 657 (1874); City of Galena v. Amy, 5 Wall. 705 (1867); Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy, 4 Wall. 535 (1867); Board of Commissioners of Knox County v. Aspinwall, 24 How. 376 (1861).
The State maintains, however, that even under these cases, the federal judicial power can go no further than to require local governments to levy taxes as authorized under state law. In other words, the State argues that federal courts cannot set aside state-imposed limitations on local taxing authority because to do so is to do more than to require the local government “to exercise the power that is theirs.” We disagree. This argument was rejected as early as Von Hoffman v. City of Quincy, supra. There the holder of bonds issued by the city sought a writ of mandamus against the city requiring it to levy taxes sufficient to pay interest coupons then due. The city defended based on a state statute that limited its power of taxation, and the Circuit Court refused to mandamus the city. This Court reversed, observing that the statute relied on by the city was passed after the bonds were issued and holding that because the city had ample authority to levy taxes to pay its bonds when they were issued, the statute impaired the contractual entitlements of the bondholders, contrary to Art. I, § 10, cl. 1, of the Constitution, under which a State may not pass any law impairing the obligation of contracts. The statutory limitation, therefore, could be disregarded and the city ordered to levy the necessary taxes to pay its bonds.
It is therefore clear that a local government with taxing authority may be ordered to levy taxes in excess of the limit set by state statute where there is reason based in the Constitution for not observing the statutory limitation. In Von Hoffman, the limitation was disregardéd because of the Contract Clause. Here, the KCMSD may be ordered to levy taxes despite the statutory limitations on its authority in order to compel the discharge of an obligation imposed on KCMSD by the Fourteenth Amendment. To hold otherwise would fail to take account of the obligations of local governments, under the Supremacy Clause, to fulfill the requirements that the Constitution imposes on them. However wide the discretion of local authorities in fashioning desegregation remedies may be, “if a state-imposed limitation on a school authority’s discretion operates to inhibit or obstruct the operation of a unitary school system or impede the disestablishing of a dual school system, it must fall; state policy must give way when it operates to hinder vindication of federal constitutional guarantees.” North Carolina Bd. of Education v. Swann, 402 U. S. 43, 45 (1971). Even though a particular remedy may not be required in every case to vindicate constitutional guarantees, where (as here) it has been found that a particular remedy is required, the State cannot hinder the process by preventing a local government from implementing that remedy.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed insofar as it required the District Court to modify its funding order and reversed insofar as it allowed the tax increase imposed by the District Court to stand. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
This litigation has come to us once before, on the collateral issue of attorney’s fees. Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U. S. 274 (1989).
The complaint originally alleged that the defendants had caused inter-district segregation 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:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondents, licensed physicians practicing in the State of Rhode Island and their patients, brought a class action, in part under the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1 et seq. (1976 ed.), against petitioners, the four insurance companies writing medical malpractice insurance in the State. The complaint alleged a private conspiracy of the four companies in which three refused to sell respondents insurance of any type as a means of compelling their submission to new ground rules of coverage set by the fourth. Petitioner insurers successfully moved in District Court to dismiss the antitrust claim on the ground that it was barred by the McCarran-Ferguson Act (Act), 59 Stat. 33, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §§ 1011-1015 (1976 ed.). The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that respondents’ complaint stated a claim within the “boycott” exception in § 3 (b) of the Act, which provides that the Sherman Act shall remain applicable “to any agreement to boycott, coerce, or intimidate, or act of boycott, coercion, or intimidation,” 15 U. S. C. § 1013 (b) (1976 ed.). 555 F. 2d 3 (CA1 1977). We are required to decide whether the “boycott” exception applies to disputes between policyholders and insurers.
I
As this case comes to us from the reversal of a successful motion to dismiss, we treat the factual allegations of respondents’ amended complaint as true. During the period in question, petitioners St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Ox (St. Paul), Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., Travelers Indemnity of Rhode Island (and two affiliated companies), and Hartford Casualty Co. (and an affiliated company) were the only sellers of medical malpractice insurance in Rhode Island. In April 1975, St. Paul, the largest of the insurers, announced that it would not renew medical malpractice coverage on an “occurrence” basis, but would write insurance only on a “claims made” basis. Following St. Paul’s announcement, and in furtherance of the alleged conspiracy, the other petitioners refused to accept applications for any type of insurance from physicians, hospitals, or other medical personnel whom St. Paul then insured. The object of the conspiracy was to restrict St. Paul’s policyholders to “claims made” coverage by compelling them to “purchase medical malpractice insurance from one insurer only, to wit defendant, St. Paul, and that [such] purchase must be made on terms dictated by the defendant, St. Paul.” App. 25. It is alleged that this scheme was effectuated by a collective refusal to deal, by unfair rate discrimination, by agreements not to compete, and by horizontal price fixing, and that petitioners engaged in “a purposeful course of coercion, intimidation, boycott and unfair competition with respect to the sale of medical malpractice insurance in the State of Rhode Island.” Id., at 24-27,
On November 19, 1975, the.District Court for the District of Rhode Island granted petitioners’ motion to dismiss. The District Court declined to give the “boycott” exception the reading suggested by its “broad wording,” declaring instead that “the purpose of the boycott, coercion, and intimidation exception was solely to protect insurance agents or other insurance companies from being 'black-listed’ by powerful combinations of insurance companies, not to affect the insurer-insured relationship.” Id., at 44.
On May 16, 1977, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit reversed in pertinent part. The majority reasoned that the “boycott” exception was broadly framed, and that there was no reason to decline to give the term “boycott” its “normal Sherman Act scope.” 555 F. 2d, at 8. “In antitrust law, a boycott is a 'concerted refusal to deal’ with a disfavored purchaser or seller.” Id., at 7. The court thought that this reading would not undermine state regulation of the industry. “Regulation by the state would be protected; concerted boycotts against groups of consumers not resting on state authority would have no immunity.” Id., at 9.
On August 12, 1977, petitioners sought a writ of certiorari in this Court. To resolve the conflicting interpretations of § 3 (b) adopted by several Courts of Appeals, we granted the writ on October 31, 1977. 434 U. S. 919. We now affirm.
II
At the threshold, we confront a question of mootness. Although not raised by the parties, this issue implicates our jurisdiction. See, e. g., Memphis Light, Gas & Water Div. v. Craft, 436 U. S. 1, 7-8 (1978); Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393, 398 (1975).
The Court of Appeals requested the parties to brief the question whether the antitrust claim was mooted by Rhode Island’s formation, after the initial complaint was filed, of a Joint Underwriting Association (JUA) to provide malpractice insurance to all licensed providers of health-care services and to require the participation of all personal-injury liability insurers in the State in a scheme to pool expenses and losses in providing such insurance. The court noted that while the State’s action prevented St. Paul from “gather [ing] the fruits of the alleged conspiracy,” it was “convinced that, for purposes of [its] jurisdiction, the state’s act did not extinguish plaintiffs’ every claim for relief.” 555 F. 2d, at 5-6, n. 2. We agree.
Although later developments may have “reduce [d] the practical importance of this case” for the parties, it cannot be said that “subsequent events ma[ke] it absolutely clear that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” United States v. Phosphate Export Assn., 393 U. S. 199, 203 (1968); see United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U. S. 629, 632-633 (1953). Since Rhode Island now permits the writing of medical malpractice insurance outside of the JUA, see n. 6, supra, we cannot assume that petitioners will not re-enter the market in some fashion. The conditions that gave rise to the controversy have not been shown to have abated. And the possibility of a resurgence of the alleged conspiracy is further evidenced by petitioners’ acknowledgment in the Court of Appeals “that the alleged antitrust violations could recur in the future.” 2 Record 83.
Ill
The McCarran-Ferguson Act was passed in reaction to this Court’s decision in United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Assn., 322 U. S. 533 (1944). Prior to that decision, it had been assumed, in light of Paul v. Virginia, 8 Wall. 168, 183 (1869), that the issuance of an insurance policy was not a transaction in interstate commerce and that the States enjoyed a virtually exclusive domain over the insurance industry. South-Eastern Underwriters held that a fire insurance company which conducted a substantial part of its transactions across state lines is engaged in interstate commerce, and that Congress did not intend to exempt the business of insurance from the operation of the Sherman Act. The decision provoked widespread concern that the States would no longer be able to engage in taxation and effective regulation of the insurance industry. Congress moved quickly, enacting the McCarran-Ferguson Act within a year of the decision in South-Eastern Underwriters.
As this Court observed shortly afterward, “[o]bviously Congress’ purpose was broadly to give support to the existing and future state systems for regulating and taxing the business of insurance.” Prudential Insurance Co. v. Benjamin, 328 U. S. 408, 429 (1946). Our decisions have given effect to this purpose in construing the operative terms of the § 2 (b) proviso, which is the critical provision limiting the general applicability of the federal antitrust laws “to the business of insurance to the extent that such business is not regulated by State Law.” See SEC v. National Securities, Inc., 393 U. S. 453, 460 (1969); FTC v. National Casualty Co., 357 U. S. 560 (1958); infra, at 550-551. Section 2 (b) is not in issue in this case. Rather, we are called upon to interpret, for the first time, the scope of § 3 (b), the principal exception to this scheme of pre-emptive state regulation of the “business of insurance.”
The Court of Appeals in this case determined that the word “boycott” in § 3 (b) should be given its ordinary Sherman Act meaning as “a concerted refusal to deal.” The “boycott” exception, so read, covered the alleged conspiracy of petitioners, conducted “outside any state-permitted structure or procedure, '[to] agree among themselves that customers dissatisfied with the coverage offered by one company shall not be sold any policies by any of the other companies.” 555 F. 2d, at 9.
Petitioners take strong exception to this reading, arguing that the “boycott” exception “should be limited to cases where concerted refusals to deal are used to exclude or penalize insurance companies or other traders which refuse to conform their competitive practices to terms dictated by the conspiracy.” Brief for Petitioners 13. This definition is said to accord with the plain meaning and judicial interpretations of the term “boycott,” with the evidence of specific legislative intent, and with the overall structure of the Act. Respondents counter that the language of § 3 (b) is sweeping, and that there is no warrant for the view that the exception protects insurance companies “or other traders” from anticompetitive practices, but withholds similar protection from policyholders victimized by private, predatory agreements. They urge that this case involves a “traditional boycott,” defined as a concerted refusal to deal on any terms, as opposed to a refusal to deal except on specified terms. Brief for Respondents 43.
We consider first petitioners’ definition of “boycott” in view of the language, legislative history, and structure of the Act.
IY
A
The starting point in any case involving construction of a statute is the language itself. See Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U. S. 723, 756 (1975) (Powell, J., concurring). With economy of expression, Congress provided in § 3 (b) for the continued applicability of the Sherman Act to “any agreement to boycott, coerce, or intimidate, or act of boycott, coercion, or intimidation.” Congress thus employed terminology that evokes a tradition of meaning, as elaborated in the body of decisions interpreting the Sherman Act. It may be assumed, in the absence of indications to the contrary, that Congress intended this language to be read in light of that tradition.
The generic concept of boycott refers to a method of pressuring a party with whom one has a dispute by withholding, or enlisting others to withhold, patronage or services from the target. The word gained currency in this country largely as a term of opprobrium to describe certain tactics employed by parties to labor disputes. See, e. g., State v. Glidden, 55 Conn. 46, 8 A. 890 (1887); Laidler, Boycott, in 2 Encyclopaedia of the Social Sciences 662-666 (1930). Thus it is not surprising that the term first entered the lexicon of antitrust law in decisions involving attempts by.labor unions to encourage third parties to cease or suspend doing business with employers unwilling to permit unionization. See, e. g., Loewe v. Lawlor, 208 U. S. 274 (1908); Gompers v. Bucks Stove & Range Co., 221 U. S. 418 (1911); Lawlor v. Loewe, 235 U. S. 522 (1915); Duplex Co. v. Deering, 254 U. S. 443 (1921); Bedford Stone Co. v. Stone Cutters’ Assn., 274 U. S. 37 (1927).
Petitioners define “boycott” as embracing only those combinations which target competitors of the boycotters as the ultimate objects of a concerted refusal to deal. They cite commentary that attempts to develop a test for distinguishing the types of restraints that warrant per se invalidation from other concerted refusals to deal that are not inherently destructive of competition. But the issue before us is whether the conduct in question involves a boycott, not whether it is per se unreasonable. In this regard, we have not been referred to any decision of this Court holding that petitioners’ test states the necessary elements of a boycott within the purview of the Sherman Act. Indeed, the decisions reflect a marked lack of uniformity in defining the term.
Petitioners refer to cases stating that “group boycotts” are “concerted refusals by traders to deal with other traders,” Klor’s v. Broadway-Hale Stores, 359 U. S. 207, 212 (1959), or are combinations of businessmen “to deprive others of access to merchandise which the latter wish to sell to the public,” United States v. General Motors Corp., 384 U. S. 127, 146 (1966). We note that neither standard in terms excludes respondents— for whom medical malpractice insurance is necessary to ply their “trade” of providing health-care services, see n. 4, supra— from the class of cognizable victims. But other verbal formulas also have been used. In FMC v. Svenska Amerika Linien, 390 U. S. 238, 250 (1968), for example, the Court noted that “[u]nder the Sherman Act, any agreement by a group of competitors to boycott a particular buyer or group of buyers is illegal per se.” The Court also has stated broadly that “group boycotts, or concerted refusals to deal, clearly run afoul of § 1 [of the Sherman Act].” Tirnes-Picayune v. United States, 345 U. S. 594, 625 (1953). Hence, “boycotts are not a unitary phenomenon.” P. Areeda, Antitrust Analysis 381 (2d ed. 1974).
As the labor-boycott cases illustrate, the boycotters and the ultimate target need not be in a competitive relationship with each other. This Court also has held unlawful, concerted refusals to deal in cases where the target is a customer of some or all of the conspirators who is being denied access to desired goods or services because of a refusal to accede to particular terms set by some or all of the sellers. See, e. g., Paramount Famous Corp. v. United States, 282 U. S. 30 (1930); United States v. First Nat. Pictures, Inc., 282 U. S. 44 (1930); Binderup v. Pathe Exchange, 263 U. S. 291 (1923). See also Anderson v. Shipowners Assn., 272 U. S. 359 (1926). As the Court put it in Kiefer-Stewart Co. v. Seagram & Sons, 340 U. S. 211, 214 (1951), “the Sherman Act makes it an offense for '[businessmen] to agree among themselves to stop selling to particular customers.”
Whatever other characterizations are possible, petitioners’ conduct fairly may be viewed as “an organized boycott,” Fashion Guild v. FTC, 312 U. S. 457, 465 (1941), of St. Paul’s policyholders. Solely for the purpose of forcing physicians and hospitals to accede to a substantial curtailment of the coverage previously available, St. Paul induced its competitors to refuse to deal on any terms with its customers. This agreement did not simply fix rates or terms of coverage; it effectively barred St. Paul’s policyholders from all access to alternative sources of coverage and even from negotiating for more favorable terms elsewhere in the market. The pact served as a tactical weapon invoked by St. Paul in support of a dispute with its policyholders. The enlistment of third parties in an agreement not to trade, as a means of compelling capitulation by the boycotted group, long has been viewed as conduct supporting a finding of unlawful boycott. Eastern States Lamber Assn. v. United States, 234 U. S. 600, 612-613 (1914), citing Loewe v. Lawlor, supra; see Klor’s v. Broadway-Hale Stores, supra, at 213; Anderson v. Shipowners Assn., supra, at 362-363, 364-365. As in Binderup v. Pathe Exchange, supra, at 312, where film distributors had conspired to cease dealing with an exhibitor because he had declined to purchase films from some of the distributors, “[t]he illegality consists, not in the separate action of each, but in the conspiracy and combination of all to prevent any of them from dealing with the [target].”
Thus if the statutory language is read in light of the customary understanding of “boycott” at the time of enactment, respondents’ complaint states a claim under § 3 (b). But, as Mr. Justice Cardozo observed, words or phrases in a statute come “freighted with the meaning imparted to them by the mischief to be remedied and by contemporaneous discussion. In such conditions history is a teacher that is not to be ignored.” Duparquet Co. v. Evans, 297 U. S. 216, 221 (1936) (citation omitted). We therefore must consider whether Congress intended to attach a special meaning to the word “boycott” in § 3 (b).
B
In the Court of Appeals, petitioners argued that only insurance companies and agents could be victims of practices within the reach of the “boycott” exception. That position enjoys some support in the legislative history because the principal targets of the practices termed “boycotts” and “other types of coercion and intimidation” in South-Eastern Underwriters were insurance companies that did not belong to the industry association charged with the conspiracy, as well as agents and customers who dealt with those nonmembers. See 322 U. S., at 535-536. Moreover, there are references in the debates to the need for preventing insurance companies and agents from “blacklisting” and imposing other sanctions against uncooperative competitors or agents. See 91 Cong. Rec. 1087 (1945) (remarks of Rep. Celler); id., at 1485-1486 (remarks of Sen. O’Mahoney). In this Court, however, petitioners expanded the list of potential targets of § 3 (b) conduct to include any victim — even one outside the insurance industry — who is in a competitive relationship with any of the members of the boycotting group. Tr. of Oral Arg. 22, 57-58.
The principal exception in the McCarran-Ferguson bill to the pre-emptive role of state regulation was for acts or agreements amounting to a “boycott, coercion, or intimidation” violative of the Sherman Act. Both Committee Reports stated: “[A]t no time are the prohibitions in the Sherman Act against any agreement or act of boycott, coercion, or intimidation suspended. These provisions of the Sherman Act remain in full force and effect.” S. Rep. No. 20, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1945); H. R. Rep. No. 143, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1945). The debates make clear that the “boycott” exception was viewed by the Act’s proponents as an important safeguard against the danger that insurance companies might take advantage of purely permissive state legislation to establish monopolies and enter into restrictive agreements falling outside the realm of state-supervised cooperative action.
The bill ultimately enacted emerged from Conference Committee as a compromise between conflicting Senate and House proposals. Although the conference substitute quickly gained approval in the House, it encountered opposition in the Senate. Senator Pepper spoke at length against privileging the States “[to enact] some mild form of legislation which they may call regulatory, thereby defeating the purpose of the Supreme Court decision and defeating the act itself.” 91 Cong. Rec. 1443 (1945). The responses of Senators Ferguson and O’Mahoney, floor managers of the conference bill, indicate that while Congress was willing to permit the States to substitute regulation for competition with respect to matters such as rates and terms of coverage, the “boycott” clause defined a range of conduct that would remain within the purview of the Sherman Act.
Petitioners cite passages of the debates in which Senator O’Mahoney refers to “blacklisting” and other exclusionary devices directed at independent insurance companies or agents. But those passages also provide support for respondents’ position that the eradication of such practices was not the only objective of Congress in enacting §3(b). In Senator O’Mahoney’s view, “[t]he vice in the insurance industry... was not that there were rating bureaus, but that there was in the industry a system of private government which had been built up by a small group of insurance companies, which companies undertook by their agreements and understandings to invade the field of Congress to regulate commerce.” 91 Cong. Rec. 1485 (1945). The conference substitute, he insisted, “outlaws completely all steps by which small groups have attempted to establish themselves in control in the great interstate and international business of insurance.” Ibid. Perhaps the most revealing discussion is found in his explanation of why the language of § 3 (b) was limited to “boycotts, coercion, or intimidation/’ and did not reach all combinations among insurance companies and their agents. He stated:
“[T]he committee was cognizant of the fact that many salutary combinations might be proposed and which ought to be approved, to which there was no objection. From the very beginning, Mr. President, of this controversy over insurance I have always taken the position that I saw no objection to combinations or agreements among the companies in the public interest provided those combinations and agreements were in the open and approved by law. Public supervision of agreements is essential.
“[M]y judgment is that every effective combination or agreement to carry out a program against the public interest of which I have had any knowledge in this whole industry study would be prohibited by [§S (&)].” 91 Cong. Ree. 1486 (1945) (emphasis supplied).
The rules and regulations of private associations in the industry, while providing Senator O’Mahoney with a vivid example of “the sort of agreement which ought to be condemned,” ibid., exemplified a larger evil — “regulation by private combinations and groups,” id., at 1483 — that required the continued application of the Sherman Act.
The language of § 3 (b) is broad and unqualified; it covers “any” act or agreement amounting to a “boycott, coercion, or intimidation.” If Congress had intended to limit its scope to boycotts of competing insurance companies or agents, and to preclude all Sherman Act protection for policyholders, it is not unreasonable to assume that it would have made this explicit. While the legislative history does not point unambiguously to the answer, it provides no substantial support for limiting language that Congress itself chose not to limit.
C
Petitioners also contend that the structure of the Act supports their reading of § 3 (b). They note that this Court has interpreted the term “business of insurance” in § 2 (b) broadly to encompass “[t]he relationship between insurer and insured, the type of policy which could be issued, its reliability, interpretation, and enforcement,” SEC v. National Securities, Inc., 393 U. S., at 460, and has held that the mere enactment of “prohibitory legislation” and provision for “a scheme of administrative supervision” constitute adequate regulation to satisfy the proviso to § 2 (b), FTC v. National Casualty Co., 357 U. S., at 564-565. Thus, petitioners conclude, § 3 (b) cannot be interpreted in a fashion that would undermine the congressional judgment expressed in § 2 (b) that the protection of policyholders is the primary responsibility of the States and that the state regulation which precludes application of federal law is not limited to regulation specifically authorizing the conduct challenged.
Petitioners rely on a syllogism that is faulty in its premise, for it ignores the fact that § 3 (b) is an exception to § 2 (b), and that Congress intended in the “boycott” clause to carve out of the overall framework of plenary state regulation an area that would remain subject to Sherman Act scrutiny. The structure of the Act embraces this exception. Unless § 3 (b) is read to limit somewhat the sweep of § 2 (b), it serves no purpose whatever. Petitioners do not press their argument that far, but they suggest no persuasive reason for engrafting a particular limitation on § 3 (b) that is justified neither by its language nor by the legislative history.
V
We hold that the term “boycott” is not limited to concerted activity against insurance companies or agents or, more generally, against competitors of members of the boycotting group. It remains to consider whether the type of private conduct alleged to have taken place in this ease, directed against policyholders, constitutes a “boycott” within the meaning of § 3 (b).
A
The conduct in question accords with the common understanding of a boycott. The four insurance companies that control the market in medical malpractice insurance are alleged to have agreed that three of the four would not deal on any terms with the policyholders of the fourth. As a means of ensuring policyholder submission to new, restrictive ground rules of coverage, St. Paul obtained the agreement of the other petitioners, strangers to the immediate dispute, to refuse to sell any insurance to its policyholders. “A valuable service germane to [respondents’] business and important to their effective competition with others was withheld from them by collective action.” Silver v. New York Stock Exchange, 373 U. S. 341, 348-349, n. 5 (1963).
The agreement binding petitioners erected a barrier between St. Paul’s customers and any alternative source of the desired coverage, effectively foreclosing all possibility of competition anywhere in the relevant market. This concerted refusal to deal went well beyond a private agreement to fix rates and terms of.coverage, as it denied policyholders the benefits of competition in vital matters such as claims policy and quality of service. Cf. Continental T. V., Inc. v. GTE Sylvania Inc., 433 U. S. 36, 55 (1977). St. Paul’s policyholders became the captives of their insurer. In a sense the agreement imposed an even greater restraint on competitive forces than a horizontal pact not to compete with respect to price, coverage, claims policy, and service, since the refusal to deal in any fashion reduced the likelihood that a competitor might have broken ranks as to one or more of the fixed terms. The conduct alleged here is certainly not, in Senator O’Mahoney’s terms, within the category of “agreements which can normally be made in the insurance business,” 91 Cong. Rec, 1444 (1945), or “agreements and combinations in the public interests [sic] which can safely be permitted,” id., at 1486.
B
We emphasize that the conduct with which petitioners are charged appears to have occurred outside of any regulatory or cooperative arrangement established by the laws of Rhode Island. There was no state authorization of the conduct in question. This was the explicit premise of the Court of Appeals’ decision, see 555 F. 2d, at 9, and petitioners do not aver that state law or regulatory policy can be said to have required or authorized the concerted refusal to deal with St. Paul’s customers.
Here the complaint alleges an attempt at “regulation by private combinations and groups,” 91 Cong. Rec. 1483 (1945) (remarks of Sen. O’Mahoney). This is not a case where a State has decided that regulatory policy requires that certain categories of risks be allocated in a particular fashion among insurers, or where a State authorizes insurers to decline to insure particular risks because the continued provision of that insurance would undermine certain regulatory goals, such as the maintenance of insurer solvency. In this case, a group of insurers decided to resolve by private action the problem of escalating damages claims and verdicts by coercing the policyholders of St. Paul to accept a severe limitation of coverage essential to the provision of medical services. See n. 4, supra. We conclude that this conduct, as alleged in the complaint, constitutes a “boycott” under § 3 (b).
Our ruling does not alter § 2 (b)’s protection of state regulatory and tax laws, its recognition of the primacy of state regulation, or the limited applicability of the federal antitrust laws generally “to the extent that” the “business of insurance” is not regulated by state law. Moreover, conduct by individual actors falling short of concerted activity is simply not a “boycott” within §3(b). Cf. Times-Picayune v. United States, 345 U. S., at 625. Finally, while we give force to the congressional intent to preserve Sherman Act review for certain types of private collaborative activity by insurance companies, we do not hold that all concerted activity violative of the Sherman Act comes within § 3 (b). Nor does our decision address insurance practices that are compelled or specifically authorized by state regulatory policy.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals therefore is
Affirmed.
The McCarran-Ferguson Act provides in relevant part:
“Sec. 2. (a) The business of insurance, and every person engaged therein, shall be subject to the laws of the several States which relate to the regulation or taxation of such business.
“(b) No Act of Congress shaE be construed to invalidate, impair, or supersede any law enacted by any State for the purpose of regulating the business of insurance, or which imposes a fee or tax upon such business, unless such Act specifically relates to the business of insurance: Provided, That after June 30, 1948, the Act of July 2, 1890, as amended, known as the Sherman Act, and the Act of October 15, 1914, as amended, known as the Clayton Act, and the Act of September 26, 1914, known as the Federal Trade Commission Act, as amended, shall be applicable to the business of insurance to the extent that such business is not regulated by State Law.
“Sec. 3 (b) Nothing contained in this chapter shall render the said Sherman Act inapplicable to any agreement to boycott, coerce, or intimidate, or act of boycott, coercion, or intimidation.” 59 Stat. 34, as amended, 61 Stat. 448, 15 U. S. C. §§ 1012, 1013 (b) (1976 ed.).
Both the amended complaint and a second amended complaint, filed after the District Court’s dismissal of the antitrust claim, also alleged several state-law claims. Review of the disposition of those claims has not been sought in this Court.
To the extent the complaint aEeges a violation of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 730, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 12 et seq. (1976 ed.), that claim is barred by respondents’ concession that the requirements of § 2 (b) of the McCarran-Ferguson Act are satisfied in this case. See n. 9, infra.
An “occurrence” policy protects the policyholder from liability for any act done while the policy is in effect, whereas a “claims made” policy protects the holder only against claims made during the life of the policy. The Court of Appeals noted that “a doctor who practiced for only one year, say 1972, would need only one 1972 ‘occurrence’ policy to be fully covered, but he would need several years of ‘claims made’ policies to protect himself from claims arising out of his acts in 1972.” 555 F. 2d 3, 5 n. 1 (CA1 1977).
4 Respondents further assert that “it is virtually impossible for a physician, hospital or other medical personnel to engage in the practice of medicine or provide medical services or treatment without medical malpractice insurance,” App. 22, and that as a result of petitioners’ conspiracy, they “may be forced to withhold medical services and disengage from the practice of medicine, except on an emergency basis,” id., at 26.
Following the rendition of the legislative history in Transnational Ins. Co. v. Rosenlund, 261 F. Supp. 12 (Ore. 1966), two1 Circuits squarely have held that § 3 (b) reaches only “blacklists” of insurance companies or agents by other insurance companies or agents. See Meicler v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 506 F. 2d 732, 734 (CA5 1975); but cf. Battle v. Liberty National Life Ins. Co., 493 F. 2d 39, 51 (CA5 1974), cert. denied, 419 U. S. 1110 (1975); Addrissi v. Equitable Life Assurance Soc., 503 F. 2d 725, 729 (CA9 1974), cert. denied, 420 U. S. 929 (1975).
Two other Circuits have adopted a broader reading of § 3 (b). See Ballard v. Blue Shield of Southern W. Va., Inc., 543 F. 2d 1075, 1078 (CA4 1976), cert. denied, 430 U. S. 922 (1977) (alleged conspiracy between insurers and physicians to deny health insurance coverage for chiropractic services); Proctor v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 182 U. S. App. D. C. 264, 276-277, 561 F. 2d 262, 274-275 (1977), cert. pending, No. 77-580 (alleged conspiracy between insurers and automobile repair shops to boycott noncooperative repair shops). See also Monarch Life Ins. Co. v. Loyal Protective Life Ins. Co., 326 F. 2d 841, 846 (CA2 1963) (dictum), cert. denied, 376 U. S. 952 (1964).
To establish a stable market for medical malpractice insurance, the JUA was created on a temporary basis by Emergency Regulation XXI, R. I. Dept. of Business Regulation, Insurance Div., June 16, 1975, App. 114A127, and received legislative sanction in R. I. Gen. Laws § 42-14.1-1 (1977). The emergency regulation was revised in April 1976 to permit the writing of medical malpractice insurance outside the JUA for all providers of health-care services other than physicians. App. 150-151. A subsequent change in state law authorizes the Director to promulgate regulations permitting the selling of such insurance outside of the JUA to physicians as well. 1976 R. I. Pub. Laws, ch. 79, § 1.
Although this case is technically not moot, the parties are not barred from showing, “on remand, that the likelihood of further violations is
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
These consolidated cases present the question of the applicability of the tax benefit rule to two corporate tax situations: the repayment to the shareholders of taxes for which they were liable but that were originally paid by the corporation; and the distribution of expensed assets in a corporate liquidation. We conclude that, unless a nonrecognition provision of the Internal Revenue Code prevents it, the tax benefit rule ordinarily applies to require the inclusion of income when events occur that are fundamentally inconsistent with an earlier deduction. Our examination of the provisions granting the deductions and governing the liquidation in these cases leads us to hold that the rule requires the recognition of income in the case of the liquidation but not in the case of the tax refund.
I
In No. 81-485, Hillsboro National Bank v. Commissioner, the petitioner, Hillsboro National Bank, is an incorporated bank doing business in Illinois. Until 1970, Illinois imposed a property tax on shares held in incorporated banks. Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 120, §557 (1971). Banks, required to retain earnings sufficient to cover the taxes, § 558, customarily paid the taxes for the shareholders. Under § 164(e) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U. S. C. § 164(e), the bank was allowed a deduction for the amount of the tax, but the shareholders were not. In 1970, Illinois amended its Constitution to prohibit ad valorem taxation of personal property owned by individuals, and the amendment was challenged as a violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Federal Constitution. The Illinois courts held the amendment unconstitutional in Lake Shore Auto Parts Co. v. Korzen, 49 Ill. 2d 137, 273 N. E. 2d 592 (1971). We granted certiorari, 405 U. S. 1039 (1972), and, pending disposition of the case here, Illinois enacted a statute providing for the collection of the disputed taxes and the placement of the receipts in escrow. Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 120, ¶ 676.01 (1979). Hillsboro paid the taxes for its shareholders in 1972, taking the deduction permitted by § 164(e), and the authorities placed the receipts in escrow. This Court upheld the state constitutional amendment in Lehnhausen v. Lake Shore Auto Parts Co., 410 U. S. 356 (1973). Accordingly, in 1973 the County Treasurer refunded the amounts in escrow that were attributable to shares held by individuals, along with accrued interest. The Illinois courts held that the refunds belonged to the shareholders rather than to the banks. See Bank & Trust Co. of Arlington Heights v. Cullerton, 25 Ill. App. 3d 721, 726, 324 N. E. 2d 29, 32 (1975) (alternative holding); Lincoln National Bank v. Cullerton, 18 Ill. App. 3d 953, 310 N. E. 2d 845 (1974). Without consulting Hillsboro, the Treasurer refunded the amounts directly to the individual shareholders. On its return for 1973, Hillsboro recognized no income from this sequence of events. The Commissioner assessed a deficiency against Hillsboro, requiring it to include as income the amount paid its shareholders from the escrow. Hillsboro sought a redetermi-nation in the Tax Court, which held that the refund of the taxes, but not the payment of accrued interest, was includible in Hillsboro’s income. On appeal, relying on its earlier decision in First Trust and Savings Bank of Taylorville v. United States, 614 F. 2d 1142 (1980), the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. 641 F. 2d 529, 531 (1981).
In No. 81-930, United States v. Bliss Dairy, Inc., the respondent, Bliss Dairy, Inc., was a closely held corporation engaged in the business of operating a dairy. As a cash basis taxpayer, in the taxable year ending June 30, 1973, it deducted upon purchase the full cost of the cattle feed purchased for use in its operations, as permitted by § 162 of the Internal Revenue Code, 26 U. S. C. § 162. A substantial portion of the feed was still on hand at the end of the taxable year. On July 2, 1973, two days into the next taxable year, Bliss adopted a plan of liquidation, and, during the month of July, it distributed its assets, including the remaining cattle feed, to the shareholders. Relying on §336, which shields the corporation from the recognition of gain on the distribution of property to its shareholders on liquidation, Bliss reported no income on the transaction. The shareholders continued to operate the dairy business in noncorporate form. They filed an election under § 333 to limit the gain recognized by them on the liquidation, and they therefore calculated their basis in the assets received in the distribution as pro-' vided in § 334(c). Under that provision, their basis in the assets was their basis in their stock in the liquidated corporation, decreased by the amount of money received, and increased by the amount of gain recognized on the transaction. They then allocated that total basis over the assets, as provided in the regulations, Treas. Reg. §1.334-2, 26 CFR § 1.334-2 (1982), presumably taking a basis greater than zero in the feed, although the amount of the shareholders’ basis is not in the record. They in turn deducted their basis in the feed as an expense of doing business under § 162. On audit, the Commissioner challenged the corporation’s treatment of the transaction, asserting that Bliss should have taken into income the value of the grain distributed to the shareholders. He therefore increased Bliss’ income by $60,000. Bliss paid the resulting assessment and sued for a refund in the District Court for the District of Arizona, where it was stipulated that the grain had a value of $56,565, see Pretrial Order, at 3. Relying on Commissioner v. South Lake Farms, Inc., 324 F. 2d 837 (CA9 1963), the District Court rendered a judgment in favor of Bliss. While recognizing authority to the contrary, Tennessee-Carolina Transportation, Inc. v. Commissioner, 582 F. 2d 378 (CA6 1978), cert. denied, 440 U. S. 909 (1979), the Court of Appeals saw South Lake Farms as controlling and affirmed. 645 F. 2d 19 (CA9 1981) (per curiam).
“If—
“(1) property was acquired by a shareholder in the liquidation of a corporation in cancellation or redemption of stock, and
“(2) with respect to such acquisition—
“(A) gain was realized, but
“(B) as the result of an election made by the shareholder under section 333, the extent to which gain was recognized was determined under section 333,
“then the basis shall be the same as the basis of such stock cancelled or redeemed in the liquidation, decreased in the amount of any money received by the shareholder, and increased in the amount of gain recognized to him.”
The Government in each case relies solely on the tax benefit rule — a judicially developed principle that allays some of the inflexibilities of the annual accounting system. An annual accounting system is a practical necessity if the federal income tax is to produce revenue ascertainable and payable at regular intervals. Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks Co., 282 U. S. 359, 365 (1931). Nevertheless, strict adherence to an annual accounting system would create transactional inequities. Often an apparently completed transaction will reopen unexpectedly in a subsequent tax year, rendering the initial reporting improper. For instance, if a taxpayer held a note that became apparently uncollectible early in the taxable year, but the debtor made an unexpected financial recovery before the close of the year and paid the debt, the transaction would have no tax consequences for the taxpayer, for the repayment of the principal would be recovery of capital. If, however, the debtor’s financial recovery and the resulting repayment took place after the close of the taxable year, the taxpayer would have a deduction for the apparently bad debt in the first year under § 166(a) of the Code, 26 U. S. C. § 166(a). Without the tax benefit rule, the repayment in the second year, representing a return of capital, would not be taxable. The second transaction, then, although economically identical to the first, could, because of the differences in accounting, yield drastically different tax consequences. The Government, by allowing a deduction that it could not have known to be improper at the time, would be foreclosed from recouping any of the tax saved because of the improper deduction. Recognizing and seeking to avoid the possible distortions of income, the courts have long required the taxpayer to recognize the repayment in the second year as income. See, e. g., Estate of Block v. Commissioner, 39 B. T. A. 338 (1939), aff’d sub nom. Union Trust Co. v. Commissioner, 111 F. 2d 60 (CA7), cert. denied, 311 U. S. 658 (1940); South Dakota Concrete Products Co. v. Commis sioner, 26 B. T. A. 1429 (1932); Plumb, The Tax Benefit Rule Today, 57 Harv. L. Rev., 129, 176, 178, and n. 172 (1943) (hereinafter Plumb).
The taxpayers and the Government in these eases propose different formulations of the tax benefit rule. The taxpayers contend that the rule requires the inclusion of amounts recovered in later years, and they do not view the events in these cases as “recoveries.” The Government, on the other hand, urges that the tax benefit rule requires the inclusion of amounts previously deducted if later events are inconsistent with the deductions; it insists that no “recovery” is necessary to the application of the rule. Further, it asserts that the events in these cases are inconsistent with the deductions taken by the taxpayers. We are not in complete agreement with either view.
An examination of the purpose and accepted applications of the tax benefit rule reveals that a “recovery” will not always be necessary to invoke the tax benefit rule. The purpose of the rule is not simply to tax “recoveries.” On the contrary, it is to approximate the results produced by a tax system based on transactional rather than annual accounting. See generally Bittker & Kanner 270; Byrne, The Tax Benefit Rule as Applied to Corporate Liquidations and Contributions to Capital: Recent Developments, 56 Notre Dame Law. 215, 221, 232, (1980); Tye, The Tax Benefit Doctrine Reexamined, 3 Tax L. Rev. 329 (1948) (hereinafter Tye). It has long been accepted that a taxpayer using accrual accounting who accrues and deducts an expense in a tax year before it becomes payable and who for some reason eventually does not have to pay the liability must then take into income the amount of the expense earlier deducted. See, e. g., Mayfair Minerals, Inc. v. Commissioner, 456 F. 2d 622 (CA5 1972) (per curiam); Bear Manufacturing Co. v. United States, 430 F. 2d 152 (CA7 1970), cert. denied, 400 U. S. 1021 (1971); Haynsworth v. Commissioner, 68 T. C. 703 (1977), affirmance order, 609 F. 2d 1007 (CA5 1979); G. M. Standifer Construction Corp. v. Commissioner, 30 B. T. A. 184, 186-187 (1934), petition for review dism’d, 78 F. 2d 285 (CA9 1935). The bookkeeping entry canceling the liability, though it increases the balance sheet net worth of the taxpayer, does not fit within any ordinary definition of “recovery.” Thus, the taxpayers’ formulation of the rule neither serves the purposes of the rule nor accurately reflects the cases that establish the rule. Further, the taxpayers’ proposal would introduce an undesirable formalism into the application of the tax benefit rule. Lower courts have been able to stretch the definition of “recovery” to include a great variety of events. For instance, in cases of corporate liquidations, courts have viewed the corporation’s receipt of its own stock as a “recovery,” reasoning that, even though the instant that the corporation receives the stock it becomes worthless, the stock has value as it is turned over to the corporation, and that ephemeral value represents a recovery for the corporation. See, e. g., Tennessee-Carolina Transportation, Inc. v. Commissioner, 582 F. 2d, at 382 (alternative holding). Or, payment to another party may be imputed to the taxpayer, giving rise to a recovery. See First Trust and Savings Bank of Taylorville v. United States, 614 F. 2d, at 1146 (alternative holding). Imposition of a requirement that there be a recovery would, in many cases, simply require the Government to cast its argument in different and unnatural terminology, without adding anything to the analysis.
The basic purpose of the tax benefit rule is to achieve rough transactional parity in tax, see n. 12, supra, and to protect the Government and the taxpayer from the adverse effects of reporting a transaction on the basis of assumptions that an event in a subsequent year proves to have been erroneous. Such an event, unforeseen at the time of an earlier deduction, may in many cases require the application of the tax benefit rule. We do not, however, agree that this consequence invariably follows. Not every unforeseen event will require the taxpayer to report income in the amount of his earlier deduction. On the contrary, the tax benefit rule will “cancel out” an earlier deduction only when a careful examination shows that the later event is indeed fundamentally inconsistent with the premise on which the deduction was initially based. That is, if that event had occurred within the same taxable year, it would have foreclosed the deduction. In some cases, a subsequent recovery by the taxpayer will be the only event that would be fundamentally inconsistent with the provision granting the deduction. In such a case, only actual recovery by the taxpayer would justify application of the tax benefit rule. For example, if a calendar-year taxpayer made a rental payment on December 15 for a 30-day lease deductible in the current year under § 162(a)(3), see Treas. Reg. § 1.461-l(a)(l), 26 CFR § 1.461-l(a)(l) (1982); e. g., Zaninovich v. Commissioner, 616 F. 2d 429 (CA9 1980), the tax benefit rule would not require the recognition of income if the leased premises were destroyed by fire on January 10. The resulting inability of the taxpayer to occupy the building would be an event not fundamentally inconsistent with his prior deduction as an ordinary and necessary business expense under § 162(a). The loss is attributable to the business and therefore is consistent with the deduction of the rental payment as an ordinary and necessary business expense. On the other hand, had the premises not burned and, in January, the taxpayer decided to use them to house his family rather than to continue the operation of his business, he would have converted the leasehold to personal use. This would be an event fundamentally inconsistent with the business use on which the deduction was based. In the case of the fire, only if the lessor — by virtue of some provision in the lease — had refunded the rental payment would the taxpayer be required under the tax benefit rule to recognize income on the subsequent destruction of the building. In other words, the subsequent recovery of the previously deducted rental payment would be the only event inconsistent with the provision allowing the deduction. It therefore is evident that the tax benefit rule must be applied on a case-by-case basis. A court must consider the facts and circumstances of each case in the light of the purpose and function of the provisions granting the deductions.
When the later event takes place in the context of a nonrecognition provision of the Code, there will be an inherent tension between the tax benefit rule and the nonrecognition provision. See Putoma Corp. v. Commissioner, 601 F. 2d 734, 742 (CA5 1979); id., at 751 (Rubin, J., dissenting); cf. Helvering v. American Dental Co., 318 U. S. 322 (1943) (tension between exclusion of gifts from income and treatment of cancellation of indebtedness as income). We cannot resolve that tension with a blanket rule that the tax benefit rule will always prevail. Instead, we must focus on the particular provisions of the Code at issue in any case.
The formulation that we endorse today follows clearly from the long development of the tax benefit rule. Justice Stevens’ assertion that there is no suggestion in the early cases or from the early commentators that the rule could ever be applied in any case that did not involve a physical recovery, post, at 406-408, is incorrect. The early cases frequently framed the rule in terms consistent with our view and irreconcilable with that of the dissent. See Barnett v. Com missioner, 39 B. T. A. 864, 867 (1939) (“Finally, the present case is analogous to a number of others, where... [w]hen some event occurs which is inconsistent with a deduction taken in a prior year, adjustment may have to be made by reporting a balancing item in income for the year in which the change occurs”) (emphasis added); Estate of Block v. Commissioner, 39 B. T. A., at 341 (“When recovery or some other event which is inconsistent with what has been done in the past occurs, adjustment must be made in reporting income for the year in which the change occurs”) (emphasis added); South Dakota Concrete Products Co. v. Commissioner, 26 B. T. A., at 1432 (“[W]hen an adjustment occurs which is inconsistent with what has been done in the past in the determination of tax liability, the adjustment should be reflected in reporting income for the year in which it occurs”) (emphasis added). The reliance of the dissent on the early commentators is equally misplaced, for the articles cited in the dissent, like the early cases, often stated the rule in terms of inconsistent events.
Finally, Justice Stevens’ dissent relies heavily on the codification in § 111 of the exclusionary aspect of the tax benefit rule, which requires the taxpayer to include in income only the amount of the deduction that gave rise to a tax benefit, see n. 12, supra. That provision does, as the dissent observes, speak of a “recovery.” By its terms, it only applies to bad debts, taxes, and delinquency amounts. Yet this Court has held, Dobson v. Commissioner, 320 U. S. 489, 505-506 (1943), and it has always been accepted since, that § 111 does not limit the application of the exclusionary aspect of the tax benefit rule. On the contrary, it lists a few applications and represents a general endorsement of the exclusionary aspect of the tax benefit rule to other situations within the inclusionary part of the rule. The failure to mention inconsistent events in § 111 no more suggests that they do not trigger the application of the tax benefit rule than the failure to mention the recovery of a capital loss suggests that it does not, see Dobson, supra.
Justice Stevens also suggests that we err in recognizing transactional equity as the reason for the tax benefit rule. It is difficult to understand why even the clearest recovery should be taxed if not for the concern with transactional equity, see supra, at 377. Nor does the concern with transactional equity entail a change in our approach to the annual accounting system. Although the tax system relies basically on annual accounting, see Burnet v. Sanford & Brooks Co., 282 U. S., at 365, the tax benefit rule eliminates some of the distortions that would otherwise arise from such a system. See, e. g., Bittker & Kanner 268-270; Tye 350; Plumb 178, and n. 172. The limited nature of the rule and its effect on the annual accounting principle bears repetition: only if the occurrence of the event in the earlier year would have resulted in the disallowance of the deduction can the Commissioner require a compensating recognition of income when the event occurs in the later year.
Our approach today is consistent with our decision in Nash v. United States, 398 U. S. 1 (1970). There, we rejected the Government’s argument that the tax benefit rule required a taxpayer who incorporated a partnership under § 351 to include in income the amount of the bad debt reserve of the partnership. The Government’s theory was that, although § 351 provides that there will be no gain or loss on the transfer of assets to a controlled corporation in such a situation, the partnership had taken bad debt deductions to create the reserve, see § 166(c), and when the partnership terminated, it no longer needed the bad debt reserve. We noted that the receivables were transferred to the corporation along with the bad debt reserve. Id,., at 5, and n. 5. Not only was there no “recovery,” id., at 4, but there was no inconsistent event of any kind. That the fair market value of the receivables was equal to the face amount less the bad debt reserve, ibid., reflected that the reserve, and the deductions that constituted it, were still an accurate estimate of the debts that would ultimately prove uncollectible, and the deduction was therefore completely consistent with the later transfer of the receivables to the incorporated business. See Citizens’ Acceptance Corp. v. United States, 320 F. Supp. 798 (Del. 1971), rev’d on other grounds, 462 F. 2d 751 (CA3 1972); Rev. Rul. 78-279, 1978-2 Cum. Bull. 135; Rev. Rul. 78-278, 1978-2 Cum. Bull. 134; see generally O’Hare, Statutory Nonrecognition of Income and the Overriding Principle of the Tax Benefit Rule in the Taxation of Corporations and Shareholders, 27 Tax L. Rev. 215, 219-221 (1972).
In the cases currently before us, then, we must undertake an examination of the particular provisions of the Code that govern these transactions to determine whether the deductions taken by the taxpayers were actually inconsistent with later events and whether specific nonrecognition provisions prevail over the principle of the tax benefit rule.
I — I » — I
In Hillsboro, the key provision is § 164(e). That section grants the corporation a deduction for taxes imposed on its shareholders but paid by the corporation. It also denies the shareholders any deduction for the tax. In this case, the Commissioner has argued that the refund of the taxes by the State to the shareholders is the equivalent of the payment of a dividend from Hillsboro to its shareholders. If Hillsboro does not recognize income in the amount of the earlier deduction, it will have deducted a dividend. Since the general structure of the corporate tax provisions does not permit deduction of dividends, the Commissioner concludes that the payment to the shareholders must be inconsistent with the original deduction and therefore requires the inclusion of the amount of the taxes as income under the tax benefit rule.
In evaluating this argument, it is instructive to consider what the tax consequences of the payment of a shareholder tax by the corporation would be without § 164(e) and compare them to the consequences under § 164(e). Without § 164(e), the corporation would not be entitled to a deduction, for the tax is not imposed on it. See Treas. Reg. §1.164-l(a), 26 CFR §1.164-l(a) (1982); Wisconsin Gas & Electric Co. v. United States, 322 U. S. 526, 527-530 (1944). If the corporation has earnings and profits, the shareholder would have to recognize income in the amount of the taxes, because a payment by a corporation for the benefit of its shareholders is a constructive dividend. See §§ 301(c), 316(a); e. g., Ireland v. United States, 621 F. 2d 731, 735 (CA5 1980); B. Bittker & J. Eustice, Federal Income Taxation of Corporations and Shareholders ¶7.05 (4th ed. 1979). The shareholder, however, would be entitled to a deduction since the constructive dividend is used to satisfy his tax liability. § 164(a)(2). Thus, for the shareholder, the transaction would be a wash: he would recognize the amount of the tax as income, but he would have an offsetting deduction for the tax. For the corporation, there would be no tax consequences, for the payment of a dividend gives rise to neither income nor a deduction. 26 U. S. C. §311(a) (1976 ed., Supp. V).
Under § 164(e), the economics of the transaction of course remain unchanged: the corporation is still satisfying a liability of the shareholder and is therefore paying a constructive dividend. The tax consequences are, however, significantly different, at least for the corporation. The transaction is still a wash for the shareholder; although § 164(e) denies him the deduction to which he would otherwise be entitled, he need not recognize income on the constructive dividend, Treas. Reg. § 1.164-7, 26 CFR § 1.164-7 (1982). But the corporation is entitled to a deduction that would not otherwise be available. In other words, the only effect of § 164(e) is to permit the corporation to deduct a dividend. Thus, we cannot agree with the Commissioner that, simply because the events here give rise to a deductible dividend, they cannot be consistent with the deduction. In at least some circumstances, a deductible dividend is within the contemplation of the Code. The question we must answer is whether § 164(e) permits a deductible dividend in these circumstances — when the money, though initially paid into the state treasury, ultimately reaches the shareholder — or whether the deductible dividend is available, as the Commissioner urges, only when the money remains in the state treasury, as properly assessed and collected tax revenue.
Rephrased, our question now is whether Congress, in granting this special favor to corporations that paid dividends by satisfying the liability of their shareholders, was concerned with the reason the money was paid out by the corporation or with the use to which it was ultimately put. Since § 164(e) represents a break with the usual rules governing corporate distributions, the structure of the Code does not provide any guidance on the reach of the provision. This Court has described the provision as “prompted by the plight of various banking corporations which paid and voluntarily absorbed the burden of certain local taxes imposed upon their shareholders, but were not permitted to deduct those payments from gross income.” Wisconsin Gas & Electric Co. v. United States, supra, at 531 (footnote omitted). The section, in substantially similar form, has been part of the Code since the Revenue Act of 1921, 42 Stat. 227. The provision was added by the Senate, but its Committee Report merely mentions the deduction without discussing it, see S. Rep. No. 275, 67th Cong., 1st Sess., 19 (1921). The only discussion of the provision appears to be that between Dr. T. S. Adams and Senator Smoot at the Senate hearings. Dr. Adams’ statement explains why the States imposed the property tax on the shareholders and collected it from the banks, but it does not cast much light on the reason for the deduction. Hearings on H. R. 8245 before the Committee on Finance, 67th Cong., 1st Sess., 250-251 (1921) (statement of Dr. T. S. Adams, tax advisor, Treasury Department). Senator Smoot’s response, however, is more revealing:
“I have been a director in a bank... for over 20 years. They have paid that tax ever since I have owned a share of stock in the bank.... I know nothing about it. I do not take 1 cent of credit for deductions, and the banks are entitled to it. They pay it out.” Id., at 251 (emphasis added).
The payment by the corporations of a liability that Congress knew was not a tax imposed on them gave rise to the entitlement to a deduction; Congress was unconcerned that the corporations took a deduction for amounts that did not satisfy their tax liability. It apparently perceived the shareholders and the corporations as independent of one another, each “know[ing] nothing about” the payments by the other. In those circumstances, it is difficult to conclude that Congress intended that the corporation have no deduction if the State turned the tax revenues over to these independent parties. We conclude that the purpose of § 164(e) was to provide relief for corporations making these payments, and the focus of Congress was on the act of payment rather than on the ultimate use of the funds by the State. As long as the payment itself was not negated by a refund to the corporation, the change in character of the funds in the hands of the State does not require the corporation to recognize income, and we reverse the judgment below.
I — I
The problem in Bliss is more complicated. Bliss took a deduction under § 162(a), so we must begin by examining that provision. Section 162(a) permits a deduction for the “ordinary and necessary expenses” of carrying on a trade or business. The deduction is predicated on the consumption of the asset in the trade or business. See Treas. Reg. § 1.162-3, 26 CFR §1.162-3 (1982) (“Taxpayers... should include in expenses the charges for materials and supplies only in the amount that they are actually consumed and used in operation in the taxable year...”) (emphasis added). If the taxpayer later sells the asset rather than consuming it in furtherance of his trade or business, it is quite clear that he would lose his deduction, for the basis of the asset would be zero, see, e. g., Spitalny v. United States, 430 F. 2d 195 (CA9 1970), so he would recognize the full amount of the proceeds on sale as gain. See §§ 1001(a), (c). In general, if the taxpayer converts the expensed asset to some other, non-business use, that action is inconsistent with his earlier deduction, and the tax benefit rule would require inclusion in income of the amount of the unwarranted deduction. That nonbusiness use is inconsistent with a deduction for an ordinary and necessary business expense is clear from an examination of the Code. While § 162(a) permits a deduction for ordinary and necessary business expenses, §262 explicitly denies a deduction for personal expenses. In the 1916 Act, the two provisions were a single section. See §5(a)(First), 39 Stat. 756. The provision has been uniformly interpreted as providing a deduction only for those expenses attributable to the business of the taxpayer. See, e. g., Kornhauser v. United States, 276 U. S. 145 (1928); Hearings on Proposed Revision of Revenue Laws before the Subcommittee of the House Committee on Ways and Means, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., 54 (1938) (“a taxpayer should be granted a reasonable deduction for the direct expenses he has incurred in connection with his income”) (emphasis added); see generally, 1 Bittker, supra n. 9, ¶20.2. Thus, if a corporation turns expensed assets to the analog of personal consumption, as Bliss did here — distribution to shareholders — it would seem that it should take into income the amount of the earlier deduction.
That conclusion, however, does not resolve this case, for the distribution by Bliss to its shareholders is governed by a provision of the Code that specifically shields the taxpayer from recognition of gain — § 336. We must therefore proceed to inquire whether this is the sort of gain that goes unrecognized under § 336. Our examination of the background of § 336 and its place within the framework of tax law convinces us that it does not prevent the application of the tax benefit rule.
Section 336 was enacted as part of the 1954 Code. It codified the doctrine of General Utilities Co. v. Helvering, 296 U. S. 200, 206 (1935), that a corporation does not recognize gain on the distribution of appreciated property to its shareholders. Before the enactment of the statutory provision, the rule was expressed in the regulations, which provided that the corporation would not recognize gain or loss, “however [the assets] may have appreciated or depreciated in value since their acquisition.” Treas. Regs. 118, § 39.22(a)-20 (1953) (emphasis added). The Senate Report recognized this regulation as the source of the new §336, S. Rep. No. 1622, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 258 (1954). The House Report explained its version of the provision: “Thus, the fact that the property distributed has appreciated or depreciated in value over its adjusted basis to the distributing corporation will in no way alter the application of subsection (a) [providing nonrecognition].” H. R. Rep. No. 1337, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., A90 (1954) (emphasis added). This background indicates that the real concern of the provision is to prevent recognition of market appreciation that has not been realized by an arm’s-length transfer to an unrelated party rather than to shield all types of income that might arise from the disposition of an asset.
Despite the breadth of the nonrecognition language in § 336, the rule of nonrecognition clearly is not without exception. For instance, § 336 does not bar the recapture under § 1245 and § 1250 of excessive depreciation taken on distributed assets. §§ 1245(a), 1250(a); Treas. Reg. §§ 1.1245-6(b), 1.1250-l(c)(2), 26 CFR §§ 1.1245-6(b), 1.1250-l(c)(2) (1982). Even in the absence of countervailing statutory provisions, courts have never read the command of nonrecognition in § 336 as absolute. The “assignment of income” doctrine has always applied to distributions in liquidation. See, e. g., Siegel v. United States, 464 F. 2d 891 (CA9 1972), cert. dism’d, 410 U. S. 918 (1973); Williamson v. United States, 155 Ct. Cl. 279, 292 F. 2d 524 (1961); see also Idaho First National Bank v. United States, 265 F. 2d 6 (CA9 1959) (decided before General Utilities codified in §336). That judicial doctrine prevents taxpayers from avoiding taxation by shifting income from the person or entity that earns it to someone who pays taxes at a lower rate. Since income recognized by the corporation is subject to the corporate tax and is again taxed at the individual level upon distribution to the shareholder, shifting of income from a corporation to a shareholder can be particularly attractive: it eliminates one level of taxation. Responding to that incentive, corporations have attempted to distribute to shareholders fully performed contracts or accounts receivable and then to invoke § 336 to avoid taxation on the income. In spite of the language of nonrecognition, the courts have applied the assignment-of-income doctrine and required the corporation to recognize the income. Section 336, then
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This appeal tests the validity of an order of the Interstate Commerce Commission issued under § 212 (c) of the Interstate Commerce Act as amended in 1957, 71 Stat. 411, 49 U. S. C. § 312 (c), converting the appellee’s contract carrier permit into a common carrier certificate but limiting its coverage “to movements from, to, or between outlets or other facilities of particular businesses of the class of shippers with whom it may now contract.” Ap-pellee contends that this limitation violates the mandate of the Congress in § 212 (c) that any certificate so issued “shall authorize the transportation, as a common carrier, of the same commodities between the same points or within the same territory as authorized in the permit.” The Commission answers that the restrictions are necessary to maintain “substantial parity” between the appel-lee’s old and new operations. The District Court held the Commission “without statutory authority to impose the restrictions in question” and set aside the order and remanded the case for further proceedings. 206 F. Supp. 455, 461. Probable jurisdiction was noted. 372 U. S. 952. We affirm the judgment.
I.
Prior to 1957 appellee operated under a contract carrier permit originally issued in 1943 under the “grandfather” clause contained in § 209 (a) of the Motor Carrier Act, 1935, 49 Stat. 543, 552. It permitted carriage of: (1) such commodities as are usually dealt in by wholesale or retail hardware and automobile-accessory business houses, and in connection therewith, equipment, materials and supplies used in the conduct of such business; (2) such commodities as are usually dealt in, or used, by meat, fruit, and vegetable packing houses; and (3) such commodities as are usually dealt in, or used, by wholesale and retail department stores. The permit contained a “Keystone restriction” which limited appellee to transporting such commodities only under contracts with persons operating the businesses specified. It permitted the carriage of a wide variety of commodities within specified territories, without limitation of consignee, but only for those shippers under contract with appellee and engaged in the specified businesses.
In 1957, at the behest of the Commission, the Congress amended the statutory definition of a contract carrier, § 203 (a)(15) of the Interstate Commerce Act, so as to thereafter read:
“The term ‘contract carrier by motor vehicle’ means any person which engages in transportation by motor vehicle of passengers or property in interstate or foreign commerce, for compensation (other than transportation referred to in paragraph (14) and the exception therein), under continuing contracts with one person or a limited number of persons either (a) for the furnishing of transportation services through the assignment of motor vehicles for a continuing period of time to the exclusive use of each person served or (b) for the furnishing of transportation services designed to meet the distinct need of each individual customer.”
In order to protect existing contract carrier permits, Congress enacted § 212 (c) which, as we have indicated, provided for the revocation of such a permit in appropriate proceedings before the Commission and the issuance of a common carrier certificate. In so doing, however, the Congress provided that the resulting common carrier certificate “shall authorize the transportation, as a common carrier, of the same commodities between the same points or within the same territory as authorized in the permit.”
In 1958 these proceedings were begun under this section and, after extended hearings, the Examiner found that the permit should be revoked and the common carrier certificate issued covering the same commodities and without restrictions. In addition he recommended the inclusion of authority for carriage of “materials, equipment, and supplies used by manufacturers of rubber and rubber products, from Chicago, and points in Illinois within 100 miles of Chicago, to Denver . . . The Commission adopted the latter recommendation and it was not contested in the District Court. As to the remaining authorizations, the Commission appended to the recommendations of the Examiner a restriction against combining or “tacking” appellee’s various operating rights in order to render a through service (likewise not contested), and also subjected each grant of authority to the following restriction:
“Restriction: The. authority granted immediately above is restricted to shipments moving from, to, or between wholesale and retail outlets, . . .”
The validity of this restriction is the sole challenge raised in this proceeding.
II.
The Commission contends that § 212 (c), read in the light of its background, is a “grandfather clause.” Its purpose, therefore, is merely to continue, without expanding, the authority of those contract carriers whose operations are lawful under United States v. Contract Steel Carriers, Inc., 350 U. S. 409 (1956), by revoking their contract carrier permits and issuing in lieu thereof common carrier certificates. The Commission concludes that, while the Congress specified only a continuance of the commodity and territorial limitations, Congress also intended that the effects of the “Keystone restriction” in the old permit be carried forward in the new one. Even if this is incorrect, the Commission says that it remains free to impose the restriction by reason of its general power under the Interstate Commerce Act to confine carrier operations within appropriate limits.
The difficulty with this argument is that the “Keystone restriction” under which appellee operated permitted it to carry commodities “dealt in, or used by” certain businesses without limitation, except that appellee was required to have a contract with the shipper so engaged. Although the Commission has eliminated this last requirement by certificating appellee as a common carrier, the restriction it has imposed here limits shipments “to shipments moving from, to, or between wholesale and retail outlets” and stores. Appellee insists that this restriction limits its carriage in that appellee cannot deliver from a supplier to a consumer, to or from a public warehouse or ship dock, between warehouses, to consolidation or transfer points or to a laborer or modification agent. The record does not show whether appellee exercised these claimed privileges under its contract carrier permit. We hold that if it did enjoy them or any others that we have not enumerated, then it is entitled to have the same freedom in its common carrier certificate.
The legislative history indicates that the Commission in its presentation to the Congress on § 212 (c) represented through its Chairman that the legislation would disturb no property rights of the contract carrier. Indeed, it asserted that such carriers would have “greater opportunity.” Moreover, the “Keystone restrictions” received the attention of the Congress. In the same Senate hearings, the difference between contract and common carriers was made clear, i. e., while the former were limited in the “character” of their carriage to the type of commodities named in their permits, they were not limited to particular shippers. Common carriers, on the other hand, were not limited in any way in their certificated territories. It appears to us that Congress intended to leave the converted contract carrier in as good a position as it previously enjoyed. Under the facts claimed, the Commission has not done so in this case.
We do not believe that appellee waived its rights by not proving that it had exercised the claimed privileges under its contract carrier permit. The permit has no restriction on its face in this regard, and such proof was understandably not presented in light of the recommendation of the Examiner that a common carrier permit include no restrictions whatever. At this late date it would be unfair to strip appellee of its claimed rights upon this basis.
Nor do we believe that the Commission can impose the restrictions on a rule of “substantial parity” under its general powers. Since § 212 (c) specifically commands that the Commission “shall” authorize the same carriage as was included in the contract carrier permit, we are unable to place § 212 (c) authority under the general power of other unrelated sections, such as § 208, where specific power is granted to assure “substantial parity.” The appellee carried on certain operations under its contract carrier permit. Congress intended that these operations be continued under the common carrier permit.
The judgment of the District Court is therefore affirmed. On remand the Commission will be free to contest appellee’s factual claims as to what service it performed under its contract carrier permit and to limit the common carrier certificate to such activity.
Affirmed.
“The Commission shall examine each outstanding permit and may within one hundred and eighty days after ... [August 22,1957] institute a proceeding either upon its own initiative, or upon application of a permit holder actually in operation or upon complaint of an interested party, and after notice and hearing revoke a permit and issue in lieu thereof a certificate of public convenience and necessity, if it finds, first, that any person holding a permit whose operations on . . . [August 22, 1957] do not conform with the definition of a contract carrier in section 203 (a) (15) as in force on and after . . . [August 22, 1957]; second, are those of a common carrier; and, third, are otherwise lawful. Such certificate so issued shall authorize the transportation, as a common carrier, of the same commodities between the same points or within the same territory as authorized in the permit.” 71 Stat. 411.
This provision is now substantially contained in 49 U. S. C. § 309 (a)(1) :
“Except as otherwise provided in this section and in section 310a of this title, no person shall engage in the business of a contract carrier by motor vehicle in interstate or foreign commerce on any public highway or within any reservation under the exclusive jurisdiction of the United States unless there is in force with respect to such carrier a permit issued by the Commission, authorizing such person to engage in such business: Provided, That, subject to section 310 of this title, if any such carrier or a predecessor in interest was in bona fide operation as a contract carrier by motor vehicle on July 1, 1935, over the route or routes or within the territory for which application is made and has so operated since that time . . . the Commission shall issue such permit, without further proceedings, if application for such permit was made to the Commission as provided in paragraph (b) of this section and within one hundred and twenty days after October 1, 1935
The phrase “Keystone restriction” comes from the title of the proceeding, Keystone Transportation Co. Contract Carrier Application, 19 M. C. C. 475. Such restrictions were approved by this Court in Noble v. United States, 319 U. S. 88 (1943).
71 Stat. 411, 49 U. S. C. § 303 (a) (15). The former § 203 (a) (15) stated the definition as follows: “The term ‘contract carrier by motor vehicle1 means any person which, under individual contracts or agreements, engages in the transportation (other than transportation referred to in paragraph (14) and the exception therein) by motor vehicle of passengers or property in interstate or foreign commerce for compensation.” 54 Stat. 920.
During the hearings before the Subcommittee of the Senate Interstate and Foreign Commerce Committee the following colloquy ■occurred between Mr. Barton, transportation counsel of the committee, and Mr. Clarke, then chairman of the Interstate Commerce Commission:
“Mr. Barton: . . .
“Mr. Clarke, do you think there is any constitutional difficulty in changing, as we say, as you propose, a contract carrier to a common-carrier status?
“Mr. Clarke: No; I can see none. It isn’t taking away from them anything that they have; it isn’t disturbing any property rights of the contract carrier. It is giving him greater opportunity. He can still serve his contract shippers, but through the conversion provisions of the bill he would also have the opportunity to serve the general public as well as the obligation.” (Emphasis added.) Hearings before the United States Senate Subcommittee on Surface Transportation of the Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 85th Cong., 1st Sess., Surface Transportation — Scope of Authority of I. C. C., p. 35.
Id., at 182.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
After hearing oral argument and fully examining the record which was only partially set forth in the petition for certiorari, we conclude that the totality of circumstances as the record makes them manifest did not warrant bringing the case here. Accordingly, the writ is dismissed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents questions concerning the prerequisites to a federal court’s exercise of in personam jurisdiction.
h-H
Petitioners Omni Capital International, Ltd., and Omni Capital Corporation (collectively Omni), New York corporations, marketed an investment program involving commodity-futures trades on the London Metals Exchange. Omni employed respondent Rudolf Wolff & Co., Ltd., a British corporation with its offices in London, as a broker to handle trades on that Exchange. Respondent James Gourlay, a citizen and resident of the United Kingdom, served as Wolff’s representative in soliciting this business from Omni.
The United States Internal Revenue Service disallowed income tax deductions, claimed by the participants in Omni’s investment program, and did so on the ground that the program’s commodities trades on the London Metals Exchange were not bona fide arm’s-length transactions. A number of corporate and individual investors who participated in Omni’s program then sued Omni in four separate actions in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana. The plaintiffs in each action charged that, by misrepresenting its tax benefits and future profits, Omni fraudulently induced them to participate in the investment program. Omni, in turn, impleaded Wolff and Gourlay, contending that its liability, if any, was caused by their improper trading activities.
The procedural history is complex. The original complaints, filed in 1980 and 1981, charged violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, ch. 404, 48 Stat. 881, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 78a et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. IV); SEC Rule 10b-5, 17 CFR §240.10b-5 (1987); and the Securities Act of 1933, 48 Stat. 74, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 77a et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. IV), and included pendent state-law claims. The four cases were consolidated in the District Court. While they were pending, this Court decided Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran, 456 U. S. 353 (1982). In Curran, we recognized an implied private cause of action under the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA), 42 Stat. 998, as amended, 7 U. S. C. § 1 et seq. (1982 ed. and Supp. IV). The plaintiffs accordingly amended their complaints to allege violations of §§4b and 9(b) of the CEA, as amended, 7 U. S. C. §§6b and 13(b).
Wolff and Gourlay moved to dismiss the claims against them for lack of personal jurisdiction, and, as an additional ground, argued that the securities law claims failed to state causes of action. In its initial opinion dated May 13, 1983, the District Court dismissed the securities law claims as having been pre-empted by the CEA but concluded that it could exercise personal jurisdiction over Wolff and Gourlay. App. 6. The court reasoned that, in actions under the CEA, “Congress intended for U. S. courts to exercise personal jurisdiction over foreign defendants not present in the United States to the limits of the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment.” Id., at 9. Therefore, the court determined, if “the quality and nature of a foreign defendant’s activities . . . in the United States” support a “finding of fair play and substantial justice,” personal jurisdiction would be proper. Id., at 9-10. After examining the extent of Wolff’s and Gourlay’s contacts with the United States, the District Court concluded it had personal jurisdiction.
After this initial decision of the District Court, the Fifth Circuit decided DeMelo v. Toche Marine, Inc., 711 F. 2d 1260 (1983). In DeMelo, the Court of Appeals concluded that “when a federal question case is based upon a federal statute that is silent as to service of process, and a state long-arm statute is therefore utilized to serve an out-of-state defendant, [Federal Rule of Civil Procedure] 4(e) requires that the state’s standard of amenability to jurisdiction apply.” Id., at 1266. Following that decision by its controlling court, the District Court granted Wolff’s and Gourlay’s motions for reconsideration, noting that the CEA is silent about service of process for private causes of action. App. 19. Upon its reconsideration, the District Court concluded that, in accord with DeMelo, “unless jurisdiction can be asserted under the Louisiana long-arm statute, there is no personal jurisdiction over Wolff or Gourlay.” App. 22. Because, in its view, the requirements of the Louisiana long-arm statute were not met, the District Court concluded that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Wolff and Gourlay, and it directed the entry of a final judgment dismissing all claims against them. Id., at 23.
The Fifth Circuit decided the ensuing appeals en banc in the first instance and, by a 9-to~6 vote, affirmed. Point Landing, Inc. v. Omni Capital Int'l, Ltd., 795 F. 2d 415 (1986). The majority started from “the unmalleable principle of law . . . that federal courts . . . must ground their personal jurisdiction on a federal statute or rule.” Id., at 423. In the majority’s view, neither the CEA nor the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorized service of process upon Wolff or Gourlay, and therefore personal jurisdiction over them was lacking. The dissent conceded that neither the CEA nor Civil Rule 4 provided for service of process on Wolff and Gourlay but would have remedied this “bizarre hiatus in the Rules,” 795 F. 2d, at 428, with an ad hoc authorization of service of process on them based on their contacts with the United States as a whole.
Because of a possible conflict with views of the Sixth Circuit expressed in Handley v. Indiana & Michigan Electric Co., 732 F. 2d 1265, 1272 (1984), we granted certiorari to decide whether, in this federal-question litigation arising under the CEA, the District Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Wolff and Gourlay.
1 — 1 I — I
Omni’s primary and fundamental contention is that in a suit under the CEA, the only limits on a district court’s power to exercise personal jurisdiction derive from the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The objection of the Court of Appeals, and of Wolff and Gourlay before this Court, is that, even if an exercise of personal jurisdiction would comport with that Due Process Clause, the District Court cannot exercise personal jurisdiction over Wolff and Gourlay because they are not amenable to service of summons in the absence of a statute or rule authorizing such service.
Omni attempts to meet this objection in a variety of ways. First, Omni argues that the District Court may exercise personal jurisdiction because Wolff and Gourlay have constitutionally sufficient contacts with the forum and, as well, have notice of the suits. Second, Omni contends that even if a rule authorizing service is a prerequisite to effective service and thus to the exercise of personal jurisdiction, Congress implicitly authorized nationwide service for private causes of action under the CEA. Third, Omni presses upon us the view of the Fifth Circuit dissenters that, even if authorization for service of process is required and cannot be found in a statute or rule, such authorization should be created by fashioning a remedy to fill a gap in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We examine these contentions in turn.
Ill
A
Omni argues that the jurisdictional limits that Art. Ill of the Constitution places on the federal courts relate to subject-matter jurisdiction only. In this view, although Art. Ill, § 1, leaves it to Congress to “ordain and establish” inferior federal courts, the only limits on those courts, once established, in their exercise of personal jurisdiction, relate to due process. Thus, Omni contends, the District Court may exercise personal jurisdiction over Wolff and Gourlay if the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not forbid it.
Omni’s argument that Art. Ill does not itself limit a court’s personal jurisdiction is correct. “The requirement that a court have personal jurisdiction flows not from Art. Ill, but from the Due Process Clause. ... It represents a restriction on judicial power not as a matter of sovereignty, but as a matter of individual liberty.” Insurance Corp. of Ireland v. Compagnie des Bauxites de Guinee, 456 U. S. 694, 702 (1982). Omni’s argument fails, however, because there are other prerequisites to a federal court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction.
Before a federal court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, the procedural requirement of service of summons must be satisfied. “[SJervice of summons is the procedure by which a court having venue and jurisdiction of the subject matter of the suit asserts jurisdiction over the person of the party served.” Mississippi Publishing Corp. v. Murphree, 326 U. S. 438, 444-445 (1946). Thus, before a court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant, there must be more than notice to the defendant and a constitutionally sufficient relationship between the defendant and the forum. There also must be a basis for the defendant’s amenability to service of summons. Absent consent, this means there must be authorization for service of summons on the defendant.
B
The next question, then, is whether there is authorization to serve summons in this litigation. Today, service of process in a federal action is covered generally by Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 4(f) describes where process “may be served.” It authorizes service in the State in which the action is brought, or anywhere else authorized by a federal statute or by the Rules.
The “most obvious reference” of this last provision is to Rule 4(e). See D. Currie, Federal Courts 373 (3d ed. 1982). The first sentence of the Rule speaks to the ability to serve summons on an out-of-state defendant when a federal statute authorizes such service. The second sentence, as an additional method, authorizes service of summons “under the circumstances” prescribed in a state statute or rule. Thus, under Rule 4(e), a federal court normally looks either to a federal statute or to the long-arm statute of the State in which it sits to determine whether a defendant is amenable to service, a prerequisite to its exercise of personal jurisdiction.
Omni argues that Wolff and Gourlay are amenable to service under Rule 4(e) because the CEA implicitly “provides for service . . . upon a party not an inhabitant of or found within the state.” Omni points out that, prior to this Court’s recognition in Curran of an implied private cause of action, all other civil actions under the CEA explicitly authorized nationwide service of process. See § 6c (in a Commodity Futures Trading Commission (CFTC) action, service authorized “wherever the defendant may be found”), § 6d(4) (in an action by a state attorney general, service authorized “wherever the defendant may be found"), and § 14(d) (in enforcement action by a beneficiary of a CFTC order, service authorized “anywhere in the United States”) of the CEA, as amended, 7 U. S. C. §§ 13a-l, 13a-2(4), and 18(d). Omni contends that this broad avenue for service is mandated by the importance of futures trading to the Nation as a whole. Since this Court concluded that a private right of action was intended as a “tool for enforcement,” Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc. v. Curran, 456 U. S., at 393, it must be given the same “dignity” as other enforcement provisions. Accordingly, Omni contends, nationwide service of process is also authorized for the implied private cause of action under the CEA.
Neither the majority nor the dissent in the Court of Appeals found that the CEA contained an implied provision for nationwide service of process in a private cause of action. We, too, decline to draw that inference. After the Curran decision, while the present litigation was still pending in the District Court, Congress enacted the Futures Trading Act of 1982, 96 Stat. 2294. That Act amended the CEA by adding § 22, 96 Stat. 2322, 7 U. S. C. § 25, which authorizes explicitly a private right of action for a violation of the CEA. Section 22, however, is silent as to service of process. This contrasts sharply with the other enforcement provisions of the CEA, on which Omni asks us to rely. We find it significant that Congress expressly provided for nationwide service of process in those sections but did not do so in the new §22. See Russello v. United States, 464 U. S. 16, 23 (1983). It would appear that Congress knows how to authorize nationwide service of process when it wants to provide for it. That Congress failed to do so here argues forcefully that such authorization was not its intention. Cf. INS v. Hector, 479 U. S. 85, 88-91 (1986).
The legislative history also supports the conclusion that Congress did not intend to provide nationwide service of process for private actions under the CEA. The House Report on the Futures Trading Act of 1982 noted: “The availability of— . . . private rights of action — supplements, but does not substitute, for the regulatory and enforcement program of the CFTC .... The Committee fully expects [it will] not become necessary to rely on private litigants as a policeman of the Commodity Exchange Act.” H. R. Rep. No. 97-565, pt. 1, p. 57 (1982). Thus, it is unremarkable that Congress enacted broader service provisions for CFTC actions than for private actions.
That the new § 22 of the CEA does not provide nationwide service of process does not end our inquiry, however, because Omni’s cause of action accrued prior to the effective date of that section. See § 22(d), 7 U. S. C. § 25(d). Strictly speaking, Omni’s argument may be that nationwide service is authorized under the implied cause of action recognized in Curran. This argument, however, is equally without force. See Gravois v. Fairchild, [1977-1980 Transfer Binder] CCH Comm. Fut. L. Rep. ¶20,706, p. 22,875 (ED La. 1978) (no nationwide service of process for implied private cause of action under CEA). The decision in Curran gave no consideration to service of process. Inasmuch as Congress carefully provided for service section by section in the CEA, we would not automatically graft nationwide service onto the implied private right of action. Indeed, the CEA’s authorization for nationwide service section by section contrasts sharply with the service provisions of the securities laws. Each of those Acts uses a single section to provide for service “wherever the defendant may be found” for any action under the entire chapter. See § 22 of the Securities Act of 1933, 48 Stat. 86, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 77v, and § 27 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 902, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §78aa. In any event, now that Congress has enacted a private cause of action without nationwide service, we have a better perspective on Congress’ view of the role of a private action within the statute as a whole. We see no reason to take a different position. Accordingly, we conclude that a nationwide service provision for a private action was not implicit in the CEA.
Since the CEA does not authorize service of summons on Wolff and Gourlay, we look to the second sentence of Rule 4(e), which points to the long-arm statute of the State in which the District Court sits — here, Louisiana. The District Court held that the requirements of the Louisiana long-arm statute, see n. 4, swpra, were not met in this litigation. It noted that even the provision allowing a court to rely on the effects that the defendant causes within the State was “clearly not applicable” because it “applies only to a defendant who ‘regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered, in this state.’” App. 22-23 (quoting La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13:3201(d) (West 1968)). Because the terms of the Louisiana statute were not met, the District Court considered a due process analysis unnecessary. Before us, Omni has not contended that Wolff and Gourlay may be reached under the Louisiana long-arm statute. Indeed, Omni has conceded that they may not. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 4. Thus, neither part of Rule 4(e) authorizes the service of summons on Wolff and Gourlay.
C
The dissenters in the Court of Appeals argued that even if authorization to serve process is necessary and cannot be found in Rule 4(e), the federal courts should act to fill the “interstices in the law inadvertently left by legislative enactment” by creating their own rule authorizing service of process in this litigation. See 795 F. 2d, at 431-432. We decline to embark on that adventure.
As an initial matter, it is unclear at this time whether it is open to us to fashion a rule authorizing service of process. At common law, a court lacked authority to issue process outside its district, and Congress made this same restriction the general rule when it enacted the Judiciary Act of Sept. 24, 1789, §11, 1 Stat. 79. See Robertson v. Railroad Labor Board, 268 U. S. 619, 622-623 (1925). Thus, specific legislative authorization of extraterritorial service of summons was required for a court to exercise personal jurisdiction over a person outside the district. Even were we to conclude that the bases for the rule in Robertson are no longer valid, we would not necessarily have the power to create service-of-process rules. We would have to decide that the provisions of Rules 4(e) and 4(f), in authorizing service in certain circumstances, were not intended to prohibit service in all other circumstances. We would also have to find adequate authority for common-law rulemaking. We need not decide these questions, however, since we would not fashion a rule for service in this litigation even if we had the power to do so.
We would consider it unwise for a court to make its own rule authorizing service of summons. It seems likely that Congress has been acting on the assumption that federal courts cannot add to the scope of service of summons Congress has authorized. This Court in the past repeatedly has stated that a legislative grant of authority is necessary. See, e. g., Georgia v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 324 U. S. 439, 467-468 (1945). Indeed, as the dissent in the Court of Appeals conceded, “the weight of authority, both in the cases and in the commentary,” 795 F. 2d, at 433, considers statutory authorization necessary to a federal court’s service of summons. See, e. g., Max Daetwyler Corp. v. Meyer, 762 F. 2d 290, 297 (CA3), cert. denied, 474 U. S. 980 (1985); Wells Fargo & Co. v. Wells Fargo Express Co., 556 F. 2d 406, 414-416 (CA9 1977); 2 J. Moore, J. Lucas, H. Fink, & C. Thompson, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 4.02[3], p. 4-67 (1987); 4 C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 1075, p. 302 (1969).
The strength of this longstanding assumption, and the network of statutory enactments and judicial decisions tied to it, argue strongly against devising common-law service of process provisions at this late date for at least two reasons. First, since Congress concededly has the power to limit service of process, circumspection is called for in going beyond what Congress has authorized. Second, as statutes and rules have always provided the measures for service, courts are inappropriate forums for deciding whether to extend them. Legislative rulemaking better ensures proper consideration of a service rule’s ramifications within the pre-existing structure and is more likely to lead to consistent application.
Nothing about this case impels us to a different conclusion. If we do not create a rule here, the only harm to federal interests is the inability of a private litigant to bring a CEA action in the United States against an alien defendant who is not within the reach of the state long-arm statute. Since the CEA authorizes broader service of process in other enforcement actions, aliens cannot consider themselves immune from the Act’s provisions. Also, a British court may be willing to enforce the CEA itself, if Omni brings suit against Wolff and Gourlay there.
We are not blind to the consequences of the inability to serve process on Wolff and Gourlay. A narrowly tailored service of process provision, authorizing service on an alien in a federal-question case when the alien is not amenable to service under the applicable state long-arm statute, might well serve the ends of the CEA and other federal statutes. It is not for the federal courts, however, to create such a rule as a matter of common law. That responsibility, in our view, better rests with those who propose the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and with Congress.
I — I <
In summary, the District Court may not exercise jurisdiction over Wolff and Gourlay without authorization to serve process. That authorization is not found in either the CEA or the Louisiana long-arm statute to which we look under Rule 4(e). We reject the suggestion that we should create a common-law rule authorizing service of process, since we would consider that action unwise, even were it within our power.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
The other petitioners are Richard Friedberg and Michael Stern, officers of Omni, and Northglen Capital Corporation which was named as a defendant with Omni in three of the four consolidated cases now before this Court. Petitioners have filed a single brief.
The plaintiffs were two Louisiana corporations, Point Landing, Inc., and Point Landing Fuel Corporation, and six individuals, William S. and Ruby M. Smith, Frank J. and Brenda A. George, and Dennis M. and Joan Rosenberg. Although all these plaintiffs technically are respondents here, see this Court’s Rule 19.6, all of them except the Georges have filed a skeletal brief adopting Omni’s brief “as if copied in extenso.” Brief for Respondents in Support of Petitioners 1.
In the Point Landing suit, Wolff was named as a defendant. In that suit, Omni cross-claimed against Wolff and filed a third-party complaint against Gourlay. In the Smith and George suits, Omni filed a third-party complaint against both Wolff and Gourlay. In the Rosenberg suit, no move was made against either Wolff or Gourlay.
Louisiana’s long-arm statute, then in effect, provided in relevant part:
“A court may exercise personal jurisdiction over a nonresident, who acts directly or by an agent, as to a cause of action arising from the nonresident’s
“(a) transacting any business in this state;
“(b) contracting to supply services or things in this state;
“(c) causing injury or damage by an offense or quasi offense committed through an act or omission in this state;
“(d) causing injury or damage in this state by an offense or quasi offense committed through an act or omission outside of this state if he regularly does or solicits business, or engages in any other persistent course of conduct, or derives substantial revenue from goods used or consumed or services rendered, in this state . . . .” La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13:3201 (West 1968).
Louisiana has amended this statute, see 1980 La. Acts, No. 764, §2, and 1984 La. Acts, No. 398, § 1, codified at La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13:3201 (West Supp. 1987), but no party has argued that the amendments affect the outcome of this litigation. We therefore do not consider them.
Under Omni’s theory, a federal court could exercise personal jurisdiction, consistent with the Fifth Amendment, based on an aggregation of the defendant's contacts with the Nation as a whole, rather than on its contacts with the State in which the federal court sits. As was the case in Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. Superior Court of Cal., 480 U. S. 102 (1987), “[w]e have no occasion” to consider the constitutional issues raised by this theory. Id., at 113, n.
There is no objection to the method of service in this litigation; the objection is only to amenability to service. See Point Landing, Inc. v. Omni Capital Int’l, Ltd., 795 F. 2d 415, 424 (CA5 1986).
Rule 4(f) provides:
“All process other than a subpoena may be served anywhere within the territorial limits of the state in which the district court is held, and, when authorized by a statute of the United States or by these rules, beyond the territorial limits of that state.”
Rule 4(e) provides:
“Whenever a statute of the United States or an order of court thereunder provides for service of a summons, or of a notice, or of an order in lieu of summons upon a party not an inhabitant of or found within the state in which the district court is held, service may be made under the circumstances and in the manner prescribed by the statute or order, or, if there is no provision therein prescribing the manner of service, in a manner stated in this rule. Whenever a statute or rule of court of the state in which the district court is held provides ... for service of a summons, or of a notice, or of an order in lieu of summons upon a party not an inhabitant of or found within the state . . . service may... be made under the circumstances and in the manner prescribed in the statute or rule.”
This assumes, of course, that the defendant is not “an inhabitant of or found within the state,” Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 4(e), and has not consented to service.
The successor to the provision of the first Judiciary Act relating to a district court’s ability to serve process was revised in 1948, 62 Stat. 869, at which time the express territorial limitation on serving process was dropped. See 28 U. S. C. §§ 1391,1401,1693,1695. See also note following 28 U. S. C. § 112 (1940 ed.) (tracing history of provision prior to 1948 revision). To the extent that the cases cited in Robertson rely on principles of territoriality, their force may have been undercut by the decision in International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310 (1945), where the Court held that “presence [of the defendant] within the territorial jurisdiction of a court” was no longer necessary “to subject a defendant to a judgment in personam.” Id., at 316. We express no view as to continuing validity of Robertson’s rationales.
See Petrol Shipping Corp. v. Kingdom of Greece Ministry of Commerce, Purchase Directorate, 360 F. 2d 103, 107-109 (CA2) (discussing court’s authority to fashion an ad hoe rule to govern method of service), cert. denied, 385 U. S. 931 (1966).
Presumably acting on this widespread understanding that federal courts may serve process nationwide only when a federal statute authorizes such service, Congress has carefully provided for that kind of service of process when it so desired. See 2 J. Moore, J. Lucas, H. Fink & C. Thompson, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶4.42[2. —1], pp. 4-386 to 4-391 (1987) (listing over 15 statutes).
The legislative history of the Futures Trading Act of 1986, 100 Stat. 3556, provides an example why courts should not construct service of process rules ad hoe, even if they have the power to do so. Section 103 of that Act, 100 Stat. 3557, 7 U. S. C. §15 (1982 ed., Supp. IV), amended the CEA to allow the CFTC to serve subpoenas outside the United States in the manner prescribed by the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Conference Committee, however, expressed concern about the possibility of disrupting the Nation’s foreign policy objectives and stated a preference that the new power be exercised with circumspection. See H. Conf. Rep. No. 99-995, pp. 21-22 (1986). We also note that with this amendment of the CEA, Congress declined still another opportunity to authorize nationwide service of process for a private action under the CEA.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
D
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We are asked in this suit to consider the validity of the New York Abandoned Property Law as applied to policies of insurance issued for delivery in New York on the lives of residents of New York by companies incorporated in states other than New York.
Article VII of the Abandoned Property Law, headed “Unclaimed Life Insurance Funds,” was enacted in 1943. In 1944 the law was amended so as to cover insurance companies incorporated out of the state. Section 700 states that “any moneys held or owing” by life insurance companies in the following three classes of policies issued on the lives of residents of New York shall be deemed abandoned property: (1) matured endowment policies which have been unclaimed for seven years; (2) policies payable on death where the insured, if living, would have attained the limiting age under the mortality table on which the reserves are based (an age varying from 96 to 100), as to which no transaction has occurred for seven years; and (3) policies payable on death in which the insured has died and no claim by the person entitled thereto has been made for seven years. Other sections of Art. VII provide that insurance corporations doing business in New York shall make an annual report of abandoned property falling within the definitions of § 700, the lists shall be advertised, and if the abandoned property advertised remains unclaimed, the amounts due and owing shall be paid to the state comptroller so as to be in the care and custody of the state. Art. VII, § 703, Art. XIV, § 1402; State Finance Law § 95. Upon payment to the state, the companies are discharged of any obligation, and any person subsequently setting up a claim must file a claim with the comptroller. A penalty of $100 a day is provided for failure to file the required report. Art. XIV, § 1412.
The present suit was brought by nine insurance companies, incorporated in states other than New York, in the Supreme Court of New York for a declaration of the invalidity of the Abandoned Property Law of New York, as applied to the plaintiffs, and to enjoin the state comptroller and all other persons acting under state authority from taking any steps under the statute. The Supreme Court ruled that the Abandoned Property Law was void in so far as it applied to policies of life insurance issued for delivery outside of New York by foreign life insurance companies. As no appeal from this ruling was taken by the state, it is not before us. The Supreme Court reserved to the appellant insurance companies the right to assert the invalidity of the Abandoned Property Law or any application thereof in so far as such law or state action thereunder sought to deprive them of any defense against any claim under any life insurance policy. With the above exceptions, the Supreme Court upheld the life insurance sections of the Abandoned Property Law against appellants’ attack. The Appellate Division affirmed and the Court of Appeals reversed the judgment of the Supreme Court in so far as it reserved to the companies further right to assert defense against claims under the policies. The Court of Appeals by its interpretation of the New York statute left open to the insurance companies all defenses except the statute of limitations, noncompliance with policy provisions calling for proof of death or of other designated contingency and failure to surrender a policy on making a claim. 297 N. Y. 1, 74 N. E. 2d 24. With this modification, it affirmed the trial court’s judgment. Appeal to this Court was perfected under § 237 (a) of the Judicial Code and probable jurisdiction noted on October 20, 1947.
In addition to objections under New York law, appellants raised in their complaint and have consistently maintained that the statute impairs the obligation of contract within the meaning of Art. I, § 10, of the Constitution and deprives them of their property without due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. Their argument under the Contract Clause is that the statute transforms into a liquidated obligation an obligation which was previously only conditional. Their argument under the Due Process Clause is that New York has no power to sequester funds of these life insurance companies to meet the companies’ obligations on insurance policies issued on New York residents for delivery in New York.
I. In support of their first contention appellants note that the policy terms provide that the insurer shall be under no obligation until proof of death or other contingency is submitted and the policy surrendered. They contend that in dispensing with these conditions the statute transforms an obligation which is merely conditional into one that is liquidated. They further claim that unless proof of death or other contingency is submitted, they will have difficulty in establishing other complete or partial defenses, such as the fact that the insured understated his age in his application for insurance, that the insured died as a result of suicide, military service, or aviation, and that the insured was not living and in good health when the policy was delivered. We assume that appellants may find it more difficult to establish other defenses, but we do not regard the statute as unconstitutional because of these enforced variations from the policy provisions.
Unless the state is allowed to take possession of sums in the hands of the companies classified by § 700 as abandoned, the insurance companies would retain moneys contracted to be paid on condition and which normally they would have been required to pay. We think that the classification of abandoned property established by the statute describes property that may fairly be said to be abandoned property and subject to the care and custody of the state and ultimately to escheat. The fact that claimants against the companies would under the policies be required to comply with certain policy conditions does not affect our conclusion. The state may more properly be custodian and beneficiary of abandoned property than any person.
We think that the state has the same power to seize abandoned life insurance moneys as abandoned bank deposits, Anderson National Bank v. Luckett, 321 U. S. 233; Security Bank v. California, 263 U. S. 282, and abandoned deposits in a court registry, United States v. Klein, 303 U. S. 276. There are, of course, differences between the steps a depositor must take to withdraw a bank deposit and those that a beneficiary of a policy must take to collect his insurance. Each, however, must make appropriate representations according to the requirements of his contract with bank or insurance company. When the state undertakes the protection of abandoned claims, it would be beyond a reasonable requirement to compel the state to comply with conditions that may be quite proper as between the contracting parties. The state is acting as a conservator, not as a party to a contract. Abandoned Property Law, Art. XIV, § 1404; State Finance Law, §95; Anderson National Bank v. Luckett, supra, at 241.
We see no constitutional reason why a state may not proceed administratively, as here, to take over the care of abandoned property rather than adopt a plan through judicial process as in Security Bank v. California, supra. There is ample provision for notice to beneficiaries and for administrative and judicial hearing of their claims and payment of same. There is no possible injury to any beneficiary. The right of appropriation by the state of abandoned property has existed for centuries in the common law. See Anderson National Bank v. Luckett, supra, at 240 and 251. We find no reason for invalidating the statutory plan under the Contract Clause.
II. Nor do we agree with appellants’ argument that New York lacks constitutional power to take over unclaimed moneys due to its residents on policies issued for delivery in the state by life insurance corporations chartered outside the state. The appellants claim that only the state of incorporation could take these abandoned moneys. They say that only one state may take custody of a debt. The statutory reference to “any moneys held or owing” does not refer to any specific assets of an insurance company, but simply to the obligation of the life insurance company to pay. The problem of what another state than New York may do is not before us. That question is not passed upon. To prevail appellee need only show, as he does as to policies on residents issued for delivery in New York, that there may be abandoned moneys, over which New York has power, in the hands of appellants. The question is whether the State of New York has sufficient contacts with the transactions here in question to justify the exertion of the power to seize abandoned moneys due to its residents. Appellants urge that the following considerations should be determinative in choosing the state of incorporation as the state for conservation of abandoned indebtedness, if such moneys are to be taken from the possession of the corporations. It is pointed out that the present residence of missing policyholders is unknown; that with our shifting population residence is a changeable factor; that as the insured chose a foreign corporation as his insurer, his choice should be respected; that moneys should escheat to the sovereignty that guards them at the time of abandonment. As a practical matter, it is urged that restricting escheat or conservancy to the state of incorporation avoids conflicts of jurisdiction between states as to the location of abandoned property and simplifies the corporations’ reports by limiting them to one state with one law. Attention is called to presently enacted statutes in Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. None of these statutes apply to corporations chartered outside of the respective states. Furthermore, it is argued that the analogous bank deposit cases have upheld escheat or conservancy by the state of the bank’s incorporation. Finally reliance is placed on the undisputed fact that the policies are payable at the out-of-state main offices of the corporations, the evidences of their intangible assets are there located and there claims must be made and other transactions carried on.
These are reasons which have no doubt been weighed in legislative consideration. We are here dealing with a matter of constitutional power. Power to demand the care and custody of the moneys due these beneficiaries is claimed by New York, under Art. VII of the Abandoned Property Law as construed by its courts, only where the policies were issued for delivery in New York upon the lives of persons then resident in New York. We sustain the constitutional validity of the provisions as thus interpreted with these exceptions. We do not pass upon the validity in instances where insured persons, after delivery, cease to be residents of New York or where the beneficiary is not a resident of New York at maturity of the policy. As interests of other possible parties not represented here may be affected by our conclusions and as no specific instances of those types appear in the record, we reserve any conclusion as to New York’s power in such situations. The appellants sought a declaration pursuant to New York procedure of the invalidity of Art. VII of the New York Abandoned Property Law, directed at unclaimed life insurance funds. The Court of Appeals refused to accept appellants’ arguments for invalidation of the law on federal constitutional or any other grounds. This decision compelled the appellants to comply with Art. VII, except as their defenses were saved by the opinion of the Court of Appeals, unless this Court reviewed the federal constitutional issues and decided them in appellants’ favor. Consequently a case or controversy arising from a statute interpreted by the state court is here with precise federal constitutional questions as to policies issued for delivery in New York upon the lives of persons then resident therein where the insured continues to be a resident and the beneficiary is a resident at the maturity of the policy. A judgment on that class of policies should be reviewed by this Court. Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Wallace, 288 U. S. 249, 259; Nashville, C. & St. L. R. Co. v. Walters, 294 U. S. 405. See Alabama State Federation of Labor v. McAdory, 325 U. S. 450, 459-63. We pass only upon New York’s power to take over the care of abandoned moneys under those circumstances.
There have been, over the years, a close supervision and regulation by states of the business of insuring the lives of their citizens. There has been complete recognition of this relationship. See Prudential Insurance Co. v. Benjamin, 328 U. S. 408. New York has practiced such regulation. Foreign corporations must obtain state authority to do business, segregate securities, submit to examination and state process. The business activities connected with the purchase of insurance by New York residents normally take place in New York. It is the beneficiary of the policy, not the insurer, who has abandoned the moneys. Undoubtedly the relationship is very close. Certainly the relationship between New York and foreign insurance companies as to policies here under discussion is as close as that between the company and its state of incorporation. The Court of Appeals on this point said:
“For the core of the debtor obligations of the plaintiff companies was created through acts done in this State under the protection of its laws, and the ties thereby established between the companies and the State were without more sufficient to validate the jurisdiction here asserted by the Legislature.”
We agree with this statement and hold that New York had power to take over these abandoned moneys in the hands of appellants.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals of New York is affirmed except as to issues specifically reserved.
The first statute which included insurance policies as abandoned property was enacted in 1939, ch. 923 of the Laws of 1939. That statute applied only to companies incorporated in New York, but covered all policies issued by such companies. Chapter 602 of the Laws of 1940 amended the statute so as to apply only to policies issued on the lives of residents of New York. Chapter 697 of the Laws of 1943 reenacted the principal features of the earlier statutes as Art. VII, and cc. 497 and 498 (§ 2) of the Laws of 1944 made the statute applicable to foreign insurance companies. Chapter 452 of the Laws of 1946 amended Art. VII so as to provide that a life insurance company which had paid the proceeds of a policy to the state could subsequently pay a second time to a claimant and acquire the rights of the claimant against the comptroller.
Ҥ 700. Unclaimed life insurance corporation moneys.
“1. The following unclaimed property held or owing by life insurance corporations shall be deemed abandoned property:
“(a) Any moneys held or owing by any life insurance corporation which shall have remained unclaimed for seven years by the person or persons appearing to be entitled thereto under matured life insurance policies on the endowment plan issued on the lives of residents of this state.
“(b) Any moneys held or owing by any life insurance corporation which are payable under other kinds of life insurance policies issued on the lives of residents of this state where the insured, if living, would, prior to the thirty-first day of December next preceding the report required by section seven hundred one, have attained the limiting age under the mortality table on which the reserves are based, exclusive of
“(i) any policy which has within seven years been assigned, readjusted, kept in force by payment of premium, reinstated or subjected to loan, or
“(ii) any policy with respect to which such corporation has on file written evidence received within seven years that the person or persons apparently entitled to claim thereunder have knowledge thereof.
“(c) Any moneys held or owing by any life insurance corporation due to beneficiaries under policies issued on the lives of residents of this state who have died, which moneys shall have remained unclaimed by the person or persons entitled thereto for seven years.
“2. Any such abandoned property held or owing by a life insurance corporation to which the right to receive the same is established to the satisfaction of such corporation shall cease to be deemed abandoned.”
187 Misc. 1004, 65 N. Y. S. 2d 143; 271 App. Div. 1002, 69 N. Y. S. 2d 323; 297 N. Y. 1, 74 N. E. 2d 24.
Abandoned Property Law, Art. XIV, § 1404:
“1. The care and custody, subject only to the duty of conversion prescribed in section fourteen hundred two of this chapter, of all abandoned property heretofore paid to the state, except
“(i) abandoned property in individual amounts of less than one dollar so paid pursuant to chapter one hundred seven of the laws of nineteen hundred forty-two; and of all abandoned property paid to the state comptroller pursuant to this chapter, is hereby assumed for the benefit of those entitled to receive the same, and the state shall hold itself responsible for the payment of all claims established thereto pursuant to law, less any lawful deductions, which cannot be paid from the abandoned property fund.”
See also §§702, 1402, 1406 (1) (a) and (b), and Anderson National Bank v. Luckett, supra, at 242.
Compare State Tax Commission v. Aldrich, 316 U. S. 174; Northwest Airlines v. Minnesota, 322 U. S. 292, 293, 294.
Purdon’s Pa. Stat., Title 27, §§ 434-437.
N. J. Rev. Stat. §§ 17:34-49 — 34-58 (Cum. Supp., Laws of 1945— 1947).
Ch. 455, Mass. Acts and Resolves (1946).
See Anderson National Bank v. Luckett, supra; Security Bank v. California, supra; In re Rapoport’s Estate, 317 Mich. 291, 26 N. W. 2d 777.
An old provision makes New York law applicable to policies issued for delivery in New York. Insurance Law § 143 (2).
New York Insurance Law, §§ 42, 59, 103, 143, 208 (5), 216 (6).
See Greenough v. Tax Assessors, 331 U. S. 486; Curry v. McCanless, 307 U. S. 357. Compare International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U. S. 310, 320: “It is evident that these operations establish sufficient contacts or ties with the state of the forum to make it reasonable and just, according to our traditional conception of fair play and substantial justice, to permit the state to enforce the obligations which appellant has incurred there.”
See New England Mutual Life Insurance Co. v. Woodworth, 111 U. S. 138; Ex parte Schollenberger, 96 U. S. 369, 377; Morgan v. Mutual Benefit Life Insurance Co., 189 N. Y. 447, 82 N. E. 438.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Goldberg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case involves the validity and construction of Rule 35 (a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as applied to the examination of a defendant in a negligence action. Rule 35 (a) provides:
“Physical and Mental Examination of Persons, (a) Order for examination. In an action in which the mental or physical condition of a party is in controversy, the court in which the action is pending may order him to submit to a physical or mental examination by a physician. The order may be made only on motion for good cause shown and upon notice to the party to be examined and to all other parties and shall specify the time, place, manner, conditions, and scope of the examination and the person or persons by whom it is to be made.”
I.
An action based on diversity of citizenship was brought in the District Court seeking damages arising from personal injuries suffered by passengers of a bus which collided with the rear of a tractor-trailer. The named defendants were The Greyhound Corporation, owner of the bus; petitioner, Robert L. Schlagenhauf, the bus driver; Contract Carriers, Inc., owner of the tractor; Joseph L. McCorkhill, driver of the tractor; and National Lead Company, owner of the trailer. Answers were filed by each of the defendants denying negligence.
Greyhound then cross-claimed against Contract Carriers and National Lead for damage to Greyhound’s bus, alleging that the collision was due solely to their negligence in that the tractor-trailer was driven at an unreasonably low speed, had not remained in its lane, and was not equipped with proper rear fights. Contract Carriers filed an answer to this cross-claim denying its negligence and asserting “[t]hat the negligence of the driver of the . . . bus [petitioner Schlagenhauf] proximately caused and contributed to . . . Greyhound’s damages.”
Pursuant to a pretrial order, Contract Carriers filed a letter — which the trial court treated as, and we consider to be, part of the answer — alleging that Schlagenhauf was “not mentally or physically capable” of driving a bus at the time of the accident.
Contract Carriers and National Lead then petitioned the District Court for an order directing petitioner Schlagenhauf to submit to both mental and physical examinations by one specialist in each of the following fields:
(1) Internal medicine;
(2) Ophthalmology;
(3) Neurology; and
(4) Psychiatry.
For the purpose of offering a choice to the District Court of one specialist in each field, the petition recommended two specialists in internal medicine, ophthalmology, and psychiatry, respectively, and three specialists in neurology — a total of nine physicians. The petition alleged that the mental and physical condition of Schlagenhauf was “in controversy” as it had been raised by Contract Carriers’ answer to Greyhound’s cross-claim. This was supported by a brief of legal authorities and an affidavit of Contract Carriers’ attorney stating that Schlagenhauf ■had seen red lights 10 to 15 seconds before the. accident, that another witness had seen the rear lights of the trailer from a distance of three-quarters to one-half mile, and that Schlagenhauf had been involved in a prior accident.
The certified record indicates that petitioner’s attorneys filed in the District Court a brief in opposition to this petition asserting, among other things, that “the physical and mental condition of the defendant Robert L. Schla-genhauf is not fin controversy’ herein in the sense that these words are used in Rule 35 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;, [and] that good cause has not been shown for the multiple examinations prayed for by the cross-defendant . ...”
While disposition of this petition was pending, National Lead filed its answer to Greyhound’s cross-claim and itself “cross-claimed” against Greyhound and Schlagen-hauf for damage to its trailer. The answer asserted generally that Schlagenhauf’s negligence proximately caused the accident. The cross-claim additionally alleged that Greyhound and Schlagenhauf were negligent
“[b]y permitting said bus to be operated over and upon said public highway by the said defendant, Robert L. Schlagenhauf, when both the said Greyhound Corporation and said Robert L. Schlagenhauf knew that the eyes and vision of the said Robert L. Schlagenhauf was [sic] impaired and deficient.”
The District Court, on the basis of the petition filed by Contract Carriers, and without any hearing, ordered Schlagenhauf to submit to nine examinations — one by each of the recommended specialists — despite the fact thát the petition clearly requested a total of only four examinations.
Petitioner applied for a writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals against the respondent, the District Court Judge, seeking to have set aside the order requiring his mental and physical examinations. The Court of Appeals denied mandamus, -one judge dissenting, 321 F. 2d 43.
We granted certiorari to review undecided questions concerning the validity and construction of Rule 35. 375 U. S. 983.
II.
A threshold problem arises due to the fact that this case was in the Court of Appeals on a petition for a writ of mandamus. Although it is not disputed that we have jurisdiction to review the judgment of the Court of Appeals, 28 U. S. C. § 1254 (1) (1958 ed.), respondent urges that the judgment below dismissing the writ be affirmed on the ground that mandamus was not an appropriate remedy.
“The traditional use of the writ in aid of appellate jurisdiction both at common law and in the federal courts has been to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction . . . ,” Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn., 319 U. S. 21, 26.
It is, of course, well settled, that the writ is not to be used as a substitute for appeal, Ex parte Fahey, 332 U. S. 258, 259-260, even though hardship may result from delay and perhaps unnecessary trial, Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, 346 U. S. 379, 382-383; United States Alkali Export Assn. v. United States, 325 U. S. 196, 202-203; Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn., supra, at 31. The writ is appropriately issued, however, when there is “usurpation of judicial power” or a clear abuse of discretion, Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, supra, at 383.
Here petitioner’s basic allegation was lack of power in a district court to order a mental and physical examination of a defendant. That this issue was substantial is underscored by the fact that the challenged order requiring examination of á defendant appears to be the first of its kind in any reported decision in the federal courts under Rule 35, and we have found only one such modern case in the state courts. The Court of Appeals recognized that it had the power to review on a petition for mandamus the basic, undecided question of whether a district court could order the mental or physical examination of a defendant. We agree that, under these unusual circumstances and in light of the authorities, the Court of Appeals had such power.
The petitioner, however, also alleged that, even if Rule 35 gives a district court power to order mental and physical examinations of a defendant in an appropriate case, the District Court here exceeded that power in ordering examinations when petitioner’s mental and physical condition was not “in controversy” and no “good cause” was shown, both as expressly required by Rule 35. As we read its opinion, the Court of Appeals reached the “in controversy” issue and determined it adversely to petitioner. 321 F. 2d, at 51. It did not, however, reach the issue of “good cause,” apparently considering that it was not appropriate to do so on a petition for mandamus. Ibid.
We recognize that in the ordinary situation where the sole issue presented is the district court’s determination that “good cause”- has been shown for an examination, mandamus is not an appropriate remedy, absent, of course, a clear abuse of discretion. See Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, supra, at 383. Here, however, the petition was properly before the court on a substantial allegation of usurpation of power in ordering any examination of a defendant, an issue of first impression that called for the construction and application of Rule 35 in a new context. The meaning of Rule 35’s requirements of “in controversy” and “good cause” also raised issues of first impression. In our view, the Court of Appeals should have also, under these" special circumstances, determined the “good cause” issue, so as to avoid piecemeal litigation and to settle new and important problems.
Thus we believe that the Court of Appeals had power to determine all of the issues presented by the petition for mandamus. Normally, wise judicial administration would counsel .remand of the cause to the Court of Appeals to reconsider this issue of “good cause.” However, in this instance the issue concerns the construction and application of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. It is thus appropriate for us to determine on the merits the issues presented and to formulate the necessary guidelines in this area. See Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U. S. 612. As this Court stated in Los Angeles Brush Corp. v. James, 272 U. S. 701, 706:
“[W]e think it clear that where the subject concerns the enforcement of the . . . Rules which by law it is the duty of this Court to formulate and put in force . . . it may .... deal directly with the District - Court
See McCullough v. Cosgrave, 309 U. S. 634.
This is not to say, however, that, following the setting of guidelines in this opinion, any future allegation that the District Court was in error in applying these guidelines to a particular case makes mandamus an appropriate remedy. The writ of mandamus is not to be used when “the most that could be claimed is that the district courts have erred in ruling on matters within their jurisdiction.” Parr v. United States, 351 U. S. 513, 520; see Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, supra, at 382.
m.
Rule 35 on its face applies to all “parties,” which under any normal reading would include a defendant. Petitioner contends, however, that the application of the Rule to a defendant would be an unconstitutional invasion of his privacy, or, at the least, be a modification of substantive rights existing prior to the adoption of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and thus beyond the congressional mandate of the Rules Enabling Act.
These same contentions were raised in Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U. S. 1, by a plaintiff in a negligence action who asserted a physical injury as a basis for recovery. The Court, by a closely divided vote, sustained the Rule as there applied. Both the majority and dissenting opinions, however, agreed that Rule 35 could not be assailed on constitutional grounds. Id., at 11-12, 17. The division in the Court was on the issue ■ of whether the Rule was procedural or a modification of substantive rights. The majority held that the Rule was a regulation of procedure and thus within the scope of the Enabling Act — the dissenters deemed it substantive. Petitioner does not challenge the holding in Sibbach as applied to plaintiffs. He contends, however, that it should not be extended to defendants. We can see no basis under the Sibbach holding for such a distinction. Discovery “is not a one-way proposition.” Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U. S. 495, 507. Issues cannot be resolved by a doctrine of favoring one class of litigants over another.
We recognize that, insofar as reported cases show, this type of discovery in federal courts has been applied solely to plaintiffs, and that some early state cases seem to have proceeded on a theory that a plaintiff who seeks redress for injuries in a court of law thereby “waives” his right to claim the inviolability of his person.
However, it is clear that Sibbach was not decided on any “waiver” theory. As Mr. Justice Roberts, for the majority, stated, one of the rights of a person “is the right not to be injured in one’s person by another’s negligence, to redress infraction of which the present action was brought.” 312 U. S., at 13. For the dissenters, Mr. Justice Frankfurter pointed out that “[o]f course the Rule is compulsive in that the doors of the federal courts otherwise open may be shut to litigants who. do not submit to such a physical examination.” Id., at 18.
These statements demonstrate. the invalidity of any waiver theory. The chain of events leading to an ultimate determination on the merits begins with the injury of the plaintiff, an involuntary act on his part. Seeking court redress is just one step in this chain. If the plaintiff is prevented or deterred from this redress, the loss is thereby forced on him to the same extent as if the defendant were prevented or deterred from defending against the action.
Moreover, the rationalization of Sibbach on a waiver theory would mean that a plaintiff has waived a right by exercising his right of access to the federal courts. Such a result might create constitutional problems. Also, if a waiver theory is espoused, problems would arise as to a plaintiff who originally brought his action in a state court (where there was no equivalent of Rule 35) and then has the case removed by the defendant to federal-court.
We hold that Rule 35, as applied to either plaintiffs or defendants to an action, is free of constitutional difficulty and is within the scope of the Enabling Act. We therefore agree with the Court of Appeals that the District Court had power to apply Rule 35 to a party defendant in an appropriate case.
IV.
There remains the issue of the construction of Rule 35. We enter upon determination of this construction with the basic premise “that the deposition-discovery rules- are to be accorded a broad and liberal treatment,” Hickman v. Taylor, supra, at 507, to effectuate their purpose that “civil trials in the federal courts no longer need be carried on in' the dark.” Id., at 501.
Petitioner contends that even if Rule 35 is to be applied to defendants, which we have determined it must, nevertheless it should not be applied to him as he was not a party in relation to Contract Carriers and National Lead — the movants for the mental and physical examinations — at the time the .examinations were sought. The Court of Appeals agreed with petitioner’s general legal proposition, holding that the person sought to be examined must be an opposing party vis-a-vis the movant (or at least one of them). 321 F. 2d, at 49. While it is clear that the person to be examined must be a party to the case, we are of the view that the Court of Appeals gave an unduly restrictive interpretation to that term. Rule 35 only requires that the person to be examined be a party to the “action,” not that he be an opposing party vis-a-vis the movant'. There is no doubt that Schlagen-hauf was a “party” to this “action” by virtue of the original complaint. Therefore, Rule 35 permitted examination of him (a party defendant) upon petition of Contract Carriers and National Lead (codefendants), provided, of course, that the other requirements of the Rule were met. Insistence that the movant have filed a pleading against the person to be examined would have the undesirable result of an unnecessary proliferation of cross-claims and counterclaims and would not be in keeping with the aims of a liberal, nontechnical application of the Federal Rules. See Hickman v. Taylor, supra, at 500-501.
While the Court of Appeals held that petitioner was not a party vis-á-vis National Lead or Contract Carriers at the time the examinations were first sought, it went on to hold that he had become a party vis-á-vis National Lead by the time of a second order entered by the District Court and thus was a party within its rule. This second order, identical in all material respects with the first, was entered on the basis of supplementary petitions filed by National Lead and Contract Carriers. These petitions gave no new basis for the examinations, except for the allegation that petitioner’s mental and physical condition had been additionally put in controversy by the National Lead answer and cross-claim, which had been filed subsequent to the first petition for examinations. Although the filing of the petition for mandamus intervened between these two orders, we accept, for purposes of this opinion, the determination of the Court of Appeals that this second order was the one before it and agree that petitioner was clearly a party at this juncture under any test.
Petitioner next contends that his mental or physical condition was not “in controversy” and “good cause” was not shown for the examinations, both as required by the express terms of Rulé 35.
The discovery devices sanctioned by Part V of the Federal Rules include the taking of oral and written depositions (Rules 26-32), interrogatories to parties (Rule 33), production of documents (Rule 34), and physical and mental examinations of parties (Rule 35). The scope of discovery in each instance is limited by Rule 26 (b)’s provision that “the deponent may be examined regarding any matter, not privileged, which is relevant to the subject matter involved in the pending action” (emphasis added), and by the provisions of Rule 30 (b) permitting the district court, upon motion, to limit, terminate, or otherwise control the use of discovery devices so as to prevent either their use in bad faith or undue “annoyance, embarrassment, or oppression.”
It is notable, however, that in none of the other discovery provisions is there a restriction that the matter be “in controversy;” and only in Rule 34 is there Rule 35’s requirement that the movant affirmatively demonstrate “good cause.”
This additional requirement of “good cause” was reviewed by Chief Judge Sobeloff in Guilford National Bank v. Southern R. Co., 297 F. 2d 921, 924 (C. A. 4th Cir.), in the following words:
“Subject to . . . [the restrictions of Rules 26 (b) and 30 (b) and (d)], a party may take depositions and serve interrogatories without prior sanction of the court or even its knowledge of what the party is doing. Only if a deponent refuses to answer in the belief that the question is irrelevant, can the moving party request under Rule 37 a court order requiring an answer.
“Significantly, this freedom of action, afforded a party who resorts to depositions and interrogatories, is not granted to one proceeding under Rules 34 and 35. Instead, the court must decide as an initial matter, and in every case, whether the motion requesting production of documents or the making of a physical or mental examination adequately demonstrates good cause: The specific requirement of good cause would be meaningless if good cause could be sufficiently established by merely showing that the desired materials are relevant, for the relevancy standard has already been imposed by Rule 26 (b). Thus, by adding the words ‘. . . good cause . . . the Rules indicate that there must be greater-showing of need under'Rules 34 and 35 than under the other discovery rules.”
The courts of appeals in other cases have also recognized that Rule 34’s good-cause requirement is not a mere formality, but is a plainly expressed limitation on the use of that Rule. This is obviously true as to the “in controversy” and “good cause” requirements of Rule 35. They are not met by mere conclusory allegations of the pleadings — nor by mere relevance to the case — but require an affirmative showing by the movant that each condition as to which the examination is sought is really and genuinely in controversy and that good cause exists for ordering each particular examination. Obviously, what may be good cause for one type of examination may not be so for another. The ability of the movant to obtain the desired information by other means is also relevant.
Rule 35, therefore, requires discriminating application by the trial judge, who must decide, as an initial matter in every case, whether the party requesting a mental or physical examination or examinations has adequately demonstrated the existence of the Rule’s requirements of “in controversy” and “good cause,” which requirements, as the Court of Appeals in this case itself recognized, are necessarily related. 321 F. 2d, at 51. This does not, of course, mean that the movant must prove his case on the merits in order to meet the requirements for a mental or physical examination. Nor does it mean that an evi-dentiary hearing is required in all cases. This may be necessary in some cases, but in other cases the showing could be made by affidavits or other usual methods short of a hearing. It does mean, though, that the movant must produce sufficient information, by whatever means, so that the district judge can fulfill his function mandated by the Rule.
Of course, there are situations where the pleadings alone are sufficient to meet these requirements. A plaintiff in a negligence action who asserts mental or physical injury, cf. Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., supra, places that mental or physical injury clearly in controversy and provides the defendant with good cause for an examination to determine the existence and extent of such asserted injury. This is not only true as-to a plaintiff, but applies equally to a defendant who asserts his mental or physical condition as a defense to a claim, such as, for. example, where insanity is asserted as a defense to a divorce action. See Richardson v. Richardson, 124 Colo. 240, 236 P. 2d 121. See also Roberts v. Roberts, 198 Md. 299, 82 A. 2d 120; Discovery as to Mental Condition Before Trial, 18 J. Am. Jud. Soc. 47 (1934).
Here, however, Schlagenhauf did not assert his mental or physical condition either in support of or in defense of a claim. His condition was sought to be placed in issue by other parties. Thus, under the principles discussed above, Rule 35 required that these parties make an affirmative showing that petitioner’s mental or physical condition was in controversy and that there was good cause for the examinations requested. This, the record plainly shows, they failed to do.
The only allegations in the pleadings relating to this subject were the general conelusory statement in Contract Carriers’ answer to the cross-claim that “Schlagenhauf was not mentally or physically capable of operating” the bus at the time of the accident and the limited allegation in National Lead’s cross-claim that, at the time of the accident, “the eyes and vision of . . . Schlagenhauf was [sic] impaired and deficient.”
The attorney’s affidavit attached to the petition for the examinations provided:
“That . . . Schlagenhauf, in his deposition . . . admitted that he saw red. lights for 10 to 15 seconds prior to a collision with a semi-tractor trailer unit and yet drove his vehicle on without reducing speed and without altering the course thereof.
“The only eye-witness to this accident known to this affiant . . . testified that immediately prior to the impact between the bus and truck that he. had also been approaching the truck from the rear and that he had clearly seen the lights of the truck for a distance of three-quarters to one-half mile to the rear thereof.
“. . . Schlagenhauf has admitted in his deposition . . . that he was involved in a [prior] similar type rear end collision . . . .”
This record cannot support even the corrected order which required one examination in each of the four specialties of internal medicine, ophthalmology, neurology, and psychiatry. Nothing in the pleadings or affidavit would afford a basis for a belief that Schlagenhauf was suffering from a mental or neurological illness warranting wide-ranging psychiatric or neurological examinations. Nor is there anything stated justifying the broad internal medicine examination.
The only specific allegation made in support of the four examinations ordered was that the “eyes and vision” of Schlagenhauf were impaired. Considering this in conjunction with the affidavit, we would be hesitant to set .aside a visual examination if it had been the only one ordered. However, as the case must be remanded to the District .Court because of the other examinations ordered, it would be appropriate for the District Judge to reconsider also this order in light of the guidelines set forth in this opinion.
The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure should be liberally construed, but they should not be expanded by disregarding plainly expressed limitations. The “good cause” and “in controversy” requirements of Rule 35 make it very apparent that sweeping examinations of a party who has not affirmatively put into issue his own mental or physical condition are not to be automatically ordered merely because the person has been involved in an accident — or, as in this case, two accidents — and a general charge of negligence is lodged. Mental and physical examinations are only to be ordered upon a discriminating application by the district judge of the limitations prescribed by the Rule. To hold otherwise would mean that such examinations could be ordered routinely in automobile accident cases. The plain language of Rule 35 precludes such an untoward result.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated and the case remanded to the District Court to reconsider the examination order in light of the guidelines herein formulated and for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
Vacated and remanded.
In all the pleadings McCorkhill was joined with Contract Carriers. For simplicity, both will be referred to as Contract Carriers.
These contentions were renewed by written “Objections and Brief” at the time the corrected order described in note 3 was entered by the District Court.
After the Court of Appeals denied mandamus, the order was corrected by the District Court to reduce the number of examinations to the four requested. We agree with respondent that the issue of that error has become moot. However, the fact that the District Court ordered nine examinations is not irrelevant, together with all the other circumstances, in the consideration of whether the District Court gave to the petition for mental and physical examinations that discriminating application, which Rule 35 requires. See pp. 119-122, infra.
28 U. S. C. § 1651 (a) (1958 ed.): “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.”
But see Dinsel v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 144 F. Supp. 880 (D. C. W. D. Pa.), where this issue was considered but the District Court, after consideration of the facts, declined to order an examination.
Harabedian v. Superior Court, 195 Cal. App. 2d 26,15 Cal. Rptr. 420 (Dist. Ct. App.).
Kiley, J., dissented on this point, concluding that the record disclosed “no adequate basis” for the District Court’s exercise of its discretion. 321 F. 2d, at 52.
It is not necessary to determine whether or not a refusal by the Court of Appeals to issue the writ, after consideration of the good-cause issue, .would have been reversible error. The issuance of this extraordinary writ is itself generally a matter of discretion. See La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U. S. 249, 260; Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, supra; 6 Moore, Federal Practice, ¶ 54.10[4] (1953 ed.).
28 U. S. C. §2072. (1958 ed.), which provides that the Rules “shall not abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right . . . .”
For a discussion of these cases, see 8 Wigmore, Evidence, § 2220 (SlcNaughton Rev. ed. 1961). See also 3 Ohlinger’s Federal Practice 490 (1964 ed.).
We have already pointed out, pp. 106-108, supra, that at the time of the first petition, Sehlagenhauf was a named defendant in the original complaint but was not a named cross-defendant in any pleadings filed by Contract Carriers or National Lead.
Although petitioner was an agent of Greyhound, he was himself a party to the action. He is to be distinguished from one who is not a party but is, for example, merely the agent of a party. This is not only clear in the wording of the Rule, but is reinforced by the fact that this Court has never approved the Advisory Committee’s proposed amendment to Rule 35 which would include within the scope of the Rule “an agent or a person in the custody or under the legal control of a party.” Advisory Committee on Rules for Civil Procedure, Report of Proposed Amendments, 41-43 (1955). It is not now necessary to determine to what extent, if any, the term “party” includes one who is a “real party in interest” although not a named party to the action. Cf. Beach v. Beach, 72 App. D. C. 318, 114 F. 2d 479.
As stated in note 3, supra, thereafter a third order was entered which reduced the number of examinations to the four requested.
TTauger v. Chicago, R. I. & Pac. R. Co., 216 F. 2d 501 (C. A. 7th Cir.); Martin v. Capital Transit Co., 83 U. S. App. D. C. 239, 170 F. 2d 811; see Mitchell v. Bass, 252 F. 2d 513 (C. A. 8th Cir.) ; Williams v. Continental Oil Co., 215 F. 2d 4 (C. A. 10th Cir.); Alltmont v. United States, 177 F. 2d 971 (C. A. 3d Cir.).
See note 3, swpra.
Moreover, it seems clear that there was no compliance with Rule 35’s requirement that the trial judge delineate the “conditions, and scope” of the examinations. Here the examinations were ordered in very broad, general areas. The internal medicine examination might for example, at the instance of the movant or its recommended physician extend to such things as blood tests, electrocardiograms, gastro-intestinal and other X-ray examinations. It is hard to conceive how some of these could be relevant under any possible theory of the case.
Cf. Harabedian v. Superior Court, 195 Cal. App. 2d 26, 15 Cal. Rptr. 420 (Dist. Ct. App.). This case should be compared with Laubscher v. Blake, 7 Cal. App. 2d 376, 46 P. 2d 836 (Dist. Ct. App.).
From July 1, 1963, through June 30, 1964, almost 10,000 motor vehicle personal injury cases were filed in the federal district courts. Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Annual Report of the Director, C2 (1964). In the Nation at large during 1963, there were approximately 11,500,000 automobile accidents, involving approximately 20,000,000 drivers. National Safety Council, Accident Facts,'40 (1964 ed.).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 SCALIAdelivered the opinion of the Court.
Federal law establishes enhanced penalties for anyone who "forces any person to accompany him" in the course of committing or fleeing from a bank robbery. 18 U.S.C. § 2113(e). We consider whether this provision applies when a bank robber forces someone to move with him over a short distance.
I
Petitioner Larry Whitfield, fleeing police after a botched bank robbery, entered the home of 79-year-old Mary Parnell through an unlocked door. Once inside, he encountered a terrified Parnell and guided her from the hallway to a computer room (which Whitfield estimates was between four and nine feet away. Brief for Petitioner 5). There, Parnell suffered a fatal heart attack. Whitfield fled, and was found hiding nearby.
A grand jury indicted Whitfield for, among other things, violating § 2113(e)by forcing Parnell to accompany him in the course of avoiding apprehension for a bank robbery. That section provides:
"Whoever, in committing any offense defined in this section, or in avoiding or attempting to avoid apprehension for the commission of such offense ... forces any person to accompany him without the consent of such person,shall be imprisoned not less than ten years, or if death results shall be punished by death or life imprisonment." (Emphasis added.)
Whitfield pleaded not guilty to the offense but a jury convicted him.
On appeal, Whitfield challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, arguing that § 2113(e)requires "substantial" movement, and that his movement with Parnell did not qualify. Brief for Appellant in No. 10-5217 (CA4), pp. 50-52. The Fourth Circuit disagreed, holding that, "[a]lthough Whitfield required Mrs. Parnell to accompany him for only a short distance within her own home, and for a brief period, no more is required to prove that a forced accompaniment occurred." 695 F.3d 288, 311 (2012). After further proceedings in the District Court and Court of Appeals, 548 Fed.Appx. 70 (2013), we granted certiorari, 573 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 2840, 189 L.Ed.2d 805 (2014).
II
Congress enacted the forced-accompaniment provision in 1934 after "an outbreak of bank robberies committed by John Dillinger and others." Carter v. United States,530 U.S. 255, 280, 120 S.Ct. 2159, 147 L.Ed.2d 203 (2000)(GINSBURG, J., dissenting). Section 2113has been amended frequently, but the relevant phrase-"forces any person to accompany him without the consent of such person"-has remained unchanged, and so presumptively retains its original meaning. Vermont Agency of Natural Resources v. United States ex rel. Stevens,529 U.S. 765, 783, n. 12, 120 S.Ct. 1858, 146 L.Ed.2d 836 (2000).
In 1934, just as today, to "accompany" someone meant to "go with" him. See Oxford English Dictionary 60 (1st ed. 1933) (defining "accompany" as: "To go in company with, to go along with"). The word does not, as Whitfield contends, connote movement over a substantial distance. It was, and still is, perfectly natural to speak of accompanying someone over a relatively short distance, for example: from one area within a bank "to the vault";"to the altar" at a wedding;"up the stairway";or into, out of, or across a room.English literature is replete with examples. See, e.g., C. Dickens, David Copperfield 529 (Modern Library ed. 2000) (Uriah "accompanied me into Mr. Wickfield's room"); J. Austen, Pride and Prejudice 182 (Greenwich ed. 1982) (Elizabeth "accompanied her out of the room").
It is true enough that accompaniment does not embrace minimal movement-for example, the movement of a bank teller's feet when the robber grabs her arm. It must constitute movement that would normally be described as from one place to another, even if only from one spot within a room or outdoors to a different one. Here, Whitfield forced Parnell to accompany him for at least several feet, from one room to another. That surely sufficed.
In an attempt to support his position that "accompany" should be read to mean "accompany over a substantial distance," Whitfield observes that a forced-accompaniment conviction carries severe penalties: a mandatory minimum sentence of 10 years, and a maximum sentence of life imprisonment. In 1934, a forced-accompaniment conviction could even be punished with death. Act of May 18, 1934, ch. 304, § 3, 48 Stat. 783. The severity of these sentences, Whitfield says, militates against interpreting subsection (e) to capture forced accompaniment occurring over a small distance.
But it does not seem to us that the danger of a forced accompaniment varies with the distance traversed. Consider, for example, a hostage-taker's movement of one of his victims a short distance to a window, where she would be exposed to police fire; or his use of the victim as a human shield as he approaches the door. And even if we thought otherwise, we would have no authority to add a limitation the statute plainly does not contain. The Congress that wrote this provision may well have had most prominently in mind John Dillinger's driving off with hostages, but it enacted a provision which goes well beyond that. It is simply not in accord with English usage to give "accompany" a meaning that covers only large distances.
Whitfield also contends that "accompany" must be read narrowly in light of § 2113's graduated penalty scheme. That scheme prescribes: (1) a 20-year maximum sentence for bank robbers who use "force and violence" or "intimidation," § 2113(a), (2)a 25-year maximum sentence for those who "assaul[t]" or "pu[t] in jeopardy the life of" another "by the use of a dangerous weapon or device," § 2113(d), and (3)a minimum sentence of 10 years, and a maximum sentence of life, for forced accompaniment, § 2113(e). According to Whitfield, bank robbers almost always "exert some control over the movement of the bank's employees." Brief for Petitioner 22. Therefore, he says, unless "accompany" is limited to forced movement over substantial distances, nearly all § 2113violations will be punishable under subsection (e), making subsections (a) and (d) pointless.
We disagree. Even if Whitfield is right that bank robbers always "exert some control" over others, it does not follow that they always force others to accompanythem somewhere-that is, to go somewhere with them. As we have no reason to think that to be the case, and because subsections (a), (d), and (e) all cover distinct conduct, our interpretation of "accompany" does not make any part of § 2113superfluous.
* * *
We hold that a bank robber "forces [a] person to accompany him," for purposes of § 2113(e), when he forces that person to go somewhere with him, even if the movement occurs entirely within a single building or over a short distance. Defined in this manner, Whitfield forced Parnell to "accompany him." § 2113(e). The judgment of the Fourth Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Addison State Bank Robbed, DuPage County Register, Apr. 6, 1928.
Salmon-Peters Marriage Announcement, N.Y. Times, Dec. 7, 1930, p. N7.
Woman's Version of Norris Killing Being Challenged, Washington Post, Jan. 20, 1927, p. 3.
See, e.g., Davis v. Potter,51 Idaho 81, 84, 2 P.2d 318, 319 (1931)("[T]he patient, still under the influence of the anesthetic, was wheeled to her room, accompanied by Dr. Sturges"); Union & Planters' Bank & Trust Co. v. Rylee,130 Miss. 892, 906, 94 So. 796, 798 (1923)( "This witness further testified that when J.N. Rylee left the decedent's room she accompanied him into the hall"); Vernonia School Dist. 47J v. Acton,515 U.S. 646, 650, 115 S.Ct. 2386, 132 L.Ed.2d 564 (1995)("The student then enters an empty locker room accompanied by an adult monitor of the same sex").
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
(b) Under this definition of "physical force," Castleman's conviction qualifies as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." The application of the modified categorical approach-consulting Castleman's state indictment to determine whether his conviction entailed the elements necessary to constitute the generic federal offense-is straightforward. Castleman pleaded guilty to "intentionally or knowingly caus[ing] bodily injury to" the mother of his child, and the knowing or intentional causation of bodily injury necessarily involves the use of physical force. First, a "bodily injury" must result from "physical force." The common-law concept of "force" encompasses even its indirect application, making it impossible to cause bodily injury without applying force in the common-law sense. Second, the knowing or intentional application of force is a "use" of force.
Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 125 S.Ct. 377, 160 L.Ed.2d 271, distinguished. Pp. 1413 - 1415.
(c) Castleman claims that legislative history, the rule of lenity, and the canon of constitutional avoidance weigh against this Court's interpretation of § 922(g)(9), but his arguments are unpersuasive. Pp. 1415 - 1416.
695 F.3d 582, reversed and remanded.
SOTOMAYOR, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C.J., and KENNEDY, GINSBURG, BREYER, and KAGAN, JJ., joined. SCALIA, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. ALITO, J., filed an opinion concurring in the judgment, in which THOMAS, J., joined.
Melissa Arbus Sherry, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Charles A. Rothfeld, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Steven L. West, West & West Attorneys, Huntingdon, TN, Eugene R. Fidell, New Haven, CT, Charles A. Rothfeld, Counsel of Record, Andrew J. Pincus, Paul W. Hughes, Michael B. Kimberly, Mayer Brown LLP, Washington, DC, for Respondent.
Donald B. Verrilli, Jr., Solicitor General, Mythili Raman, Acting Assistant Attorney General, Michael R. Dreeben, Deputy Solicitor General, Melissa Arbus Sherry, Assistant to the Solicitor General, Counsel of Record, Joseph C. Wyderko, Washington, DC, for Petitioner.
Justice SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
Recognizing that "[f]irearms and domestic strife are a potentially deadly combination," United States v. Hayes, 555 U.S. 415, 427, 129 S.Ct. 1079, 172 L.Ed.2d 816 (2009), Congress forbade the possession of firearms by anyone convicted of "a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." 18 U.S.C. § 922(g)(9). The respondent, James Alvin Castleman, pleaded guilty to the misdemeanor offense of having "intentionally or knowingly cause[d] bodily injury to" the mother of his child. App. 27. The question before us is whether this conviction qualifies as "a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." We hold that it does.
I
A
This country witnesses more than a million acts of domestic violence, and hundreds of deaths from domestic violence, each year.1 See Georgia v. Randolph, 547 U.S. 103, 117-118, 126 S.Ct. 1515, 164 L.Ed.2d 208 (2006). Domestic violence often escalates in severity over time, see Brief for Major Cities Chiefs Association et al. as Amici Curiae 13-15; Brief for National Network to End Domestic Violence et al. as Amici Curiae 9-12, and the presence of a firearm increases the likelihood that it will escalate to homicide, see id., at 14-15; Campbell et al., Assessing Risk Factors for Intimate Partner Homicide, DOJ, Nat. Institute of Justice J., No. 250, p. 16 (Nov. 2003) ("When a gun was in the house, an abused woman was 6 times more likely than other abused women to be killed"). "[A]ll too often," as one Senator noted during the debate over § 922(g)(9), "the only difference between a battered woman and a dead woman is the presence of a gun." 142 Cong. Rec. 22986 (1996) (statement of Sen. Wellstone).
Congress enacted § 922(g)(9), in light of these sobering facts, to " 'close [a] dangerous loophole' " in the gun control laws: While felons had long been barred from possessing guns, many perpetrators of domestic violence are convicted only of misdemeanors. Hayes, 555 U.S., at 418, 426, 129 S.Ct. 1079.Section 922(g)(9) provides, as relevant, that any person "who has been convicted... of a misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" may not "possess in or affecting commerc[e] any firearm or ammunition." With exceptions that do not apply here, the statute defines a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" as
"an offense that... (i) is a misdemeanor under Federal, State, or Tribal law; and (ii) has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon, committed by a current or former spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim, by a person with whom the victim shares a child in common, by a person who is cohabiting with or has cohabited with the victim as a spouse, parent, or guardian, or by a person similarly situated to a spouse, parent, or guardian of the victim." § 921(a)(33)(A).
This case concerns the meaning of one phrase in this definition: "the use... of physical force."
B
In 2001, Castleman was charged in a Tennessee court with having "intentionally or knowingly cause[d] bodily injury to" the mother of his child, in violation of Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-111(b) (Supp.2002). App. 27. He pleaded guilty. Id., at 29.
In 2008, federal authorities learned that Castleman was selling firearms on the black market. A grand jury in the Western District of Tennessee indicted him on two counts of violating § 922(g)(9) and on other charges not relevant here. Id., at 13-16.
Castleman moved to dismiss the § 922(g)(9) charges, arguing that his Tennessee conviction did not qualify as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" because it did not "ha[ve], as an element, the use... of physical force," § 921(a)(33)(A)(ii). The District Court agreed, on the theory that "the 'use of physical force' for § 922(g)(9) purposes" must entail "violent contact with the victim." App. to Pet. for Cert. 40a. The court held that a conviction under the relevant Tennessee statute cannot qualify as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" because one can cause bodily injury without "violent contact"-for example, by "deceiving [the victim] into drinking a poisoned beverage." Id., at 41a.
A divided panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit affirmed, by different reasoning. 695 F.3d 582 (2012). The majority held that the degree of physical force required by § 921(a)(33)(A)(ii) is the same as required by § 924(e)(2)(B)(i), which defines "violent felony." Id., at 587. Applying our decision in Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133, 130 S.Ct. 1265, 176 L.Ed.2d 1 (2010), which held that § 924(e)(2)(B)(i) requires " violent force," id., at 140, 130 S.Ct. 1265, the majority held that Castleman's conviction did not qualify as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" because Castleman could have been convicted for "caus[ing] a slight, nonserious physical injury with conduct that cannot be described as violent." 695 F.3d, at 590. Judge MCKEAGUE dissented, arguing both that the majority erred in extending Johnson's definition of a "violent felony" to the context of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" and that, in any event, Castleman's conviction satisfied the Johnson standard. Id., at 593-597.
The Sixth Circuit's decision deepened a split of authority among the Courts of Appeals. Compare, e.g.,United States v. Nason, 269 F.3d 10, 18 (C.A.1 2001) (§ 922(g)(9) "encompass[es] crimes characterized by the application of any physical force"), with United States v. Belless, 338 F.3d 1063, 1068 (C.A.9 2003) (§ 922(g)(9) covers only "the violent use of force"). We granted certiorari to resolve this split, 570 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 49, 186 L.Ed.2d 962 (2013), and now reverse the Sixth Circuit's judgment.
II
A
"It is a settled principle of interpretation that, absent other indication, 'Congress intends to incorporate the well-settled meaning of the common-law terms it uses.' " Sekhar v. United States, 570 U.S. ----, ----, 133 S.Ct. 2720, 2724, 186 L.Ed.2d 794 (2013). Seeing no "other indication" here, we hold that Congress incorporated the common-law meaning of "force"-namely, offensive touching-in § 921(a)(33)(A)'s definition of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."
Johnson resolves this case in the Government's favor-not, as the Sixth Circuit held, in Castleman's. In Johnson, we considered whether a battery conviction was a "violent felony" under the Armed Career Criminal Act (ACCA), § 924(e)(1). As here, ACCA defines such a crime as one that "has as an element the use... of physical force," § 924(e)(2)(B)(i). We began by observing that at common law, the element of force in the crime of battery was "satisfied by even the slightest offensive touching." 559 U.S., at 139, 130 S.Ct. 1265 (citing 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 120 (1768)). 2 And we recognized the general rule that "a common-law term of art should be given its established common-law meaning," except "where that meaning does not fit." 559 U.S., at 139, 130 S.Ct. 1265. We declined to read the common-law meaning of "force" into ACCA's definition of a "violent felony," because we found it a "comical misfit with the defined term." Id., at 145, 130 S.Ct. 1265; see United States v. Stevens, 559 U.S. 460, 474, 130 S.Ct. 1577, 176 L.Ed.2d 435 (2010) ("[A]n unclear definitional phrase may take meaning from the term to be defined"). In defining a "'violent felony,' " we held, "the phrase 'physical force' " must "mea[n] violent force." Johnson, 559 U.S., at 140, 130 S.Ct. 1265. But here, the common-law meaning of "force" fits perfectly: The very reasons we gave for rejecting that meaning in defining a "violent felony" are reasons to embrace it in defining a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." 3
First, because perpetrators of domestic violence are "routinely prosecuted under generally applicable assault or battery laws," Hayes, 555 U.S., at 427, 129 S.Ct. 1079, it makes sense for Congress to have classified as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" the type of conduct that supports a common-law battery conviction. Whereas it was "unlikely" that Congress meant to incorporate in the definition of a " 'violent felony' a phrase that the common law gave peculiar meaning only in its definition of a misdemeanor," Johnson, 559 U.S., at 141, 130 S.Ct. 1265, it is likely that Congress meant to incorporate that misdemeanor-specific meaning of "force" in defining a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."
Second, whereas the word "violent" or "violence" standing alone "connotes a substantial degree of force," id., at 140, 130 S.Ct. 1265,4 that is not true of "domestic violence." "Domestic violence" is not merely a type of "violence"; it is a term of art encompassing acts that one might not characterize as "violent" in a nondomestic context. See Brief for National Network to End Domestic Violence et al. as Amici Curiae 4-9; DOJ, Office on Violence Against Women, Domestic Violence (defining physical forms of domestic violence to include "[h]itting, slapping, shoving, grabbing, pinching, biting, [and] hair pulling"), online at http:// www. ovw. usdoj. gov/ domviolence. htm. 5 Indeed, "most physical assaults committed against women and men by intimates are relatively minor and consist of pushing, grabbing, shoving, slapping, and hitting." DOJ, P. Tjaden & N. Thoennes, Extent, Nature and Consequences of Intimate Partner Violence 11 (2000).
Minor uses of force may not constitute "violence" in the generic sense. For example, in an opinion that we cited with approval in Johnson, the Seventh Circuit noted that it was "hard to describe... as 'violence' " "a squeeze of the arm [that] causes a bruise." Flores v. Ashcroft, 350 F.3d 666, 670 (2003). But an act of this nature is easy to describe as "domestic violence," when the accumulation of such acts over time can subject one intimate partner to the other's control. If a seemingly minor act like this draws the attention of authorities and leads to a successful prosecution for a misdemeanor offense, it does not offend common sense or the English language to characterize the resulting conviction as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."
Justice SCALIA'S concurrence discounts our reference to social-science definitions of "domestic violence," including those used by the organizations most directly engaged with the problem and thus most aware of its dimensions. See post, at 1420 - 1422. It is important to keep in mind, however, that the operative phrase we are construing is not "domestic violence"; it is "physical force." § 921(a)(33)(A). "Physical force" has a presumptive common-law meaning, and the question is simply whether that presumptive meaning makes sense in defining a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." 6
A third reason for distinguishing Johnson's definition of "physical force" is that unlike in Johnson-where a determination that the defendant's crime was a "violent felony" would have classified him as an "armed career criminal"-the statute here groups those convicted of "misdemeanor crimes of domestic violence" with others whose conduct does not warrant such a designation. Section 922(g) bars gun possession by anyone "addicted to any controlled substance," § 922(g)(3); by most people who have "been admitted to the United States under a nonimmigrant visa," § 922(g)(5)(B); by anyone who has renounced United States citizenship, § 922(g)(7); and by anyone subject to a domestic restraining order, § 922(g)(8). Whereas we have hesitated (as in Johnson ) to apply the Armed Career Criminal Act to "crimes which, though dangerous, are not typically committed by those whom one normally labels 'armed career criminals,' " Begay v. United States, 553 U.S. 137, 146, 128 S.Ct. 1581, 170 L.Ed.2d 490 (2008), we see no anomaly in grouping domestic abusers convicted of generic assault or battery offenses together with the others whom § 922(g) disqualifies from gun ownership.
An additional reason to read the statute as we do is that a contrary reading would have rendered § 922(g)(9) inoperative in many States at the time of its enactment. The "assault or battery laws" under which "domestic abusers were... routinely prosecuted" when Congress enacted § 922(g)(9), and under which many are still prosecuted today, Hayes, 555 U.S., at 427, 129 S.Ct. 1079, fall generally into two categories: those that prohibit both offensive touching and the causation of bodily injury, and those that prohibit only the latter. See Brief for United States 36-38. Whether or not the causation of bodily injury necessarily entails violent force-a question we do not reach-mere offensive touching does not. See Johnson, 559 U.S., at 139-140, 130 S.Ct. 1265. So if offensive touching did not constitute "force" under § 921(a)(33)(A), then § 922(g)(9) would have been ineffectual in at least 10 States-home to nearly thirty percent of the Nation's population 7-at the time of its enactment. See post, at 1419, and n. 5 (SCALIA, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (acknowledging that § 922(g)(9) would have been inapplicable in California and nine other States if it did not encompass offensive touching); App. to Brief for United States 10a-16a (listing statutes prohibiting both offensive touching and the causation of bodily injury, only some of which are divisible); cf. Hayes, 555 U.S., at 427, 129 S.Ct. 1079 (rejecting an interpretation under which " § 922(g)(9) would have been 'a dead letter' in some two-thirds of the States from the very moment of its enactment").
In sum, Johnson requires that we attribute the common-law meaning of "force" to § 921(a)(33)(A)'s definition of a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" as an offense that "has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force." We therefore hold that the requirement of "physical force" is satisfied, for purposes of § 922(g)(9), by the degree of force that supports a common-law battery conviction.
B
Applying this definition of "physical force," we conclude that Castleman's conviction qualifies as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." In doing so, we follow the analytic approach of Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990), and Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005). We begin with Taylor's categorical approach, under which we look to the statute of Castleman's conviction to determine whether that conviction necessarily "ha[d], as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon," § 921(a)(33)(A).
The Tennessee statute under which Castleman was convicted made it a crime to "commi[t] an assault... against" a "family or household member"-in Castleman's case, the mother of his child. Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-111(b). A provision incorporated by reference, § 39-13-101, defined three types of assault: "(1) [i]ntentionally, knowingly or recklessly caus[ing] bodily injury to another; (2) [i]ntentionally or knowingly caus[ing] another to reasonably fear imminent bodily injury; or (3) [i]ntentionally or knowingly caus[ing] physical contact with another" in a manner that a "reasonable person would regard... as extremely offensive or provocative." § 39-13-101(a).
It does not appear that every type of assault defined by § 39-13-101 necessarily involves "the use or attempted use of physical force, or the threatened use of a deadly weapon," § 921(a)(33)(A). A threat under § 39-13-101(2) may not necessarily involve a deadly weapon, and the merely reckless causation of bodily injury under § 39-13-101(1) may not be a "use" of force.8
But we need not decide whether a domestic assault conviction in Tennessee categorically constitutes a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence," because the parties do not contest that § 39-13-101 is a " 'divisible statute,' " Descamps v. United States, 570 U.S. ----, ----, 133 S.Ct. 2276, 2281, 186 L.Ed.2d 438 (2013). We may accordingly apply the modified categorical approach, consulting the indictment to which Castleman pleaded guilty in order to determine whether his conviction did entail the elements necessary to constitute the generic federal offense. Id., at ----, 133 S.Ct., at 2281-2282; see Shepard, 544 U.S., at 26, 125 S.Ct. 1254. Here, that analysis is straightforward: Castleman pleaded guilty to having "intentionally or knowingly cause[d] bodily injury" to the mother of his child, App. 27, and the knowing or intentional causation of bodily injury necessarily involves the use of physical force.
First, a "bodily injury" must result from "physical force." Under Tennessee law, "bodily injury" is a broad term: It "includes a cut, abrasion, bruise, burn or disfigurement; physical pain or temporary illness or impairment of the function of a bodily member, organ, or mental faculty." Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-11-106(a)(2) (1997). Justice SCALIA'S concurrence suggests that these forms of injury necessitate violent force, under Johnson's definition of that phrase. Post, at 1417. But whether or not that is so-a question we do not decide-these forms of injury do necessitate force in the common-law sense.
The District Court thought otherwise, reasoning that one can cause bodily injury "without the 'use of physical force' "-for example, by "deceiving [the victim] into drinking a poisoned beverage, without making contact of any kind." App. to Pet. for Cert. 41a. But as we explained in Johnson, "physical force" is simply "force exerted by and through concrete bodies," as opposed to "intellectual force or emotional force." 559 U.S., at 138, 130 S.Ct. 1265. And the common-law concept of "force" encompasses even its indirect application. "Force" in this sense "describ[es] one of the elements of the common-law crime of battery," id., at 139, 130 S.Ct. 1265, and "[t]he force used" in battery "need not be applied directly to the body of the victim." 2 W. LaFave, Substantive Criminal Law § 16.2(b) (2d ed. 2003). "[A] battery may be committed by administering a poison or by infecting with a disease, or even by resort to some intangible substance," such as a laser beam. Ibid. (footnote omitted) (citing State v. Monroe, 121 N.C. 677, 28 S.E. 547 (1897) (poison); State v. Lankford, 29 Del. 594, 102 A. 63 (1917) (disease); Adams v. Commonwealth, 33 Va.App. 463, 534 S.E.2d 347 (2000) (laser beam)). It is impossible to cause bodily injury without applying force in the common-law sense.
Second, the knowing or intentional application of force is a "use" of force. Castleman is correct that under Leocal v. Ashcroft, 543 U.S. 1, 125 S.Ct. 377, 160 L.Ed.2d 271 (2004), the word "use" "conveys the idea that the thing used (here, 'physical force') has been made the user's instrument." Brief for Respondent 37. But he errs in arguing that although "[p]oison may have 'forceful physical properties' as a matter of organic chemistry,... no one would say that a poisoner 'employs' force or 'carries out a purpose by means of force' when he or she sprinkles poison in a victim's drink," ibid. The "use of force" in Castleman's example is not the act of "sprinkl[ing]" the poison; it is the act of employing poison knowingly as a device to cause physical harm. That the harm occurs indirectly, rather than directly (as with a kick or punch), does not matter. Under Castleman's logic, after all, one could say that pulling the trigger on a gun is not a "use of force" because it is the bullet, not the trigger, that actually strikes the victim. Leocal held that the "use" of force must entail "a higher degree of intent than negligent or merely accidental conduct," 543 U.S., at 9, 125 S.Ct. 377; it did not hold that the word "use" somehow alters the meaning of "force."
Because Castleman's indictment makes clear that the use of physical force was an element of his conviction, that conviction qualifies as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence."
III
We are not persuaded by Castleman's nontextual arguments against our interpretation of § 922(g)(9).
A
First, Castleman invokes § 922(g)(9)'s legislative history to suggest that Congress could not have intended for the provision to apply to acts involving minimal force. But to the extent that legislative history can aid in the interpretation of this statute, Castleman's reliance on it is unpersuasive.
Castleman begins by observing that during the debate over § 922(g)(9), several Senators argued that the provision would help to prevent gun violence by perpetrators of severe domestic abuse. Senator Lautenberg referred to "serious spousal or child abuse" and to "violent individuals"; Senator Hutchison to " 'people who batter their wives' "; Senator Wellstone to people who "brutalize" their wives or children; and Senator Feinstein to "severe and recurring domestic violence." 142 Cong. Rec. 22985-22986, 22988. But as we noted above, see supra, at 1414, the impetus of § 922(g)(9) was that even perpetrators of severe domestic violence are often convicted "under generally applicable assault or battery laws." Hayes, 555 U.S., at 427, 129 S.Ct. 1079. So nothing about these Senators' isolated references to severe domestic violence suggests that they would not have wanted § 922(g)(9) to apply to a misdemeanor assault conviction like Castleman's.
Castleman next observes that § 922(g)(9) is the product of a legislative compromise. The provision originally barred gun possession for any "crime of domestic violence," defined as any "felony or misdemeanor crime of violence, regardless of length, term, or manner of punishment."
142 Cong. Rec. 5840. Congress rewrote the provision to require the use of physical force in response to the concern "that the term crime of violence was too broad, and could be interpreted to include an act such as cutting up a credit card with a pair of scissors," id., at 26675. See Hayes, 555 U.S., at 428, 129 S.Ct. 1079. Castleman would have us conclude that Congress thus meant "to narrow the scope of the statute to convictions based on especially severe conduct." Brief for Respondent 24. But all Congress meant to do was address the fear that § 922(g)(9) might be triggered by offenses in which no force at all was directed at a person. As Senator Lautenberg noted, the revised text was not only "more precise" than the original but also "probably broader." 142 Cong. Rec. 26675.
B
We are similarly unmoved by Castleman's invocation of the rule of lenity. Castleman is correct that our "construction of a criminal statute must be guided by the need for fair warning." Crandon v. United States, 494 U.S. 152, 160, 110 S.Ct. 997, 108 L.Ed.2d 132 (1990). But "the rule of lenity only applies if, after considering text, structure, history, and purpose, there remains a grievous ambiguity or uncertainty in the statute, such that the Court must simply guess as to what Congress intended." Barber v. Thomas, 560 U.S. 474, 488, 130 S.Ct. 2499, 177 L.Ed.2d 1 (2010) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted). That is not the case here.
C
Finally, Castleman suggests-in a single paragraph-that we should read § 922(g)(9) narrowly because it implicates his constitutional right to keep and bear arms. But Castleman has not challenged the constitutionality of § 922(g)(9), either on its face or as applied to him, and the meaning of the statute is sufficiently clear that we need not indulge Castleman's cursory nod to constitutional avoidance concerns.
* * *
Castleman's conviction for having "intentionally or knowingly cause[d] bodily injury to" the mother of his child qualifies as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence." The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice SCALIA, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment.
I agree with the Court that intentionally or knowingly causing bodily injury to a family member "has, as an element, the use... of physical force," 18 U.S.C. § § 921(a)(33)(A)(ii), and thus constitutes a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence," § 922(g)(9). I write separately, however, because I reach that conclusion on narrower grounds.
I
Our decision in Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133, 130 S.Ct. 1265, 176 L.Ed.2d 1 (2010), is the natural place to begin. Johnson is significant here because it concluded that "the phrase 'physical force' means violent force-that is, force capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person." Id., at 140, 130 S.Ct. 1265 (second emphasis added). This is an easy case if the phrase "physical force" has the same meaning in § 921(a)(33)(A)(ii), the provision that defines "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" for purposes of § 922(g)(9), as it does in § 924(e)(2)(B)(ii), the provision interpreted in Johnson, since it is impossible to cause bodily injury without using force "capable of" producing that result.
There are good reasons to give the phrase Johnson's interpretation. One is the presumption of consistent usage-the rule of thumb that a term generally means the same thing each time it is used. Although the presumption is most commonly applied to terms appearing in the same enactment, e.g., IBP, Inc. v. Alvarez, 546 U.S. 21, 33-34, 126 S.Ct. 514, 163 L.Ed.2d 288 (2005), it is equally relevant "when Congress uses the same language in two statutes having similar purposes," Smith v. City of Jackson, 544 U.S. 228, 233, 125 S.Ct. 1536, 161 L.Ed.2d 410 (2005) (plurality opinion); see also Northcross v. Board of Ed. of Memphis City Schools, 412 U.S. 427, 428, 93 S.Ct. 2201, 37 L.Ed.2d 48 (1973) ( per curiam ). This case is a textbook candidate for application of the Smith-Northcross branch of the rule. The "physical force" clauses at issue here and in Johnson are worded in nearly identical fashion: The former defines a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" as an offense that "has, as an element, the use or attempted use of physical force," § 921(a)(33)(A)(ii), while the latter defines a "violent felony" as an offense that "has as an element the use, attempted use, or threatened use of physical force against the person of another," § 924(e)(2)(B)(i). And both statutes are designed to promote public safety by deterring a class of criminals from possessing firearms.
Respondent's arguments fail to overcome the presumption of consistent usage. In respondent's view, "physical force" cannot mean " any force that produces any pain or bodily injury," Brief for Respondent 25, because § 921(a)(33)(A)(ii) defines a violent crime and one can inflict all sorts of minor injuries-bruises, paper cuts, etc.-by engaging in nonviolent behavior. Respondent therefore reasons that § 921(a)(33)(A)(ii) requires force capable of inflicting "serious" bodily injury. That requirement is more demanding than both of the plausible meanings of "physical force" we identified in Johnson : common-law offensive touching (which Johnson rejected) and force capable of causing physical pain or injury, serious or otherwise. See 559 U.S., at 138-140, 130 S.Ct. 1265. It would be surpassing strange to read a statute defining a " misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" as requiring greater force than the similarly worded statute in Johnson, which defined a "violent felony," and respondent does not make a convincing case for taking that extraordinary step.
For these reasons, I would give "physical force" the same meaning in § 921(a)(33)(A)(ii) as in Johnson. The rest of the analysis is straightforward. Because "intentionally or knowingly caus[ing] bodily injury," App. 27, categorically involves the use of "force capable of causing physical pain or injury to another person," 559 U.S., at 140, 130 S.Ct. 1265, respondent's 2001 domestic-assault conviction qualifies as a "misdemeanor crime of domestic violence" under § 922(g)(9).1 I would reverse the judgment below on that basis and remand for further proceedings.
II
Unfortunately, the Court bypasses that narrower interpretation of § 921(a)(33)(A)(ii) in favor of a much broader one that treats any offensive touching, no matter how slight, as sufficient. That expansive common-law definition cannot be squared with relevant precedent or statutory text.
We have twice addressed the meaning of "physical force" in the context of provisions that define a class
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question in this case, arising under our original jurisdiction, is whether California or the United States has dominion over the submerged lands and waters within the Channel Islands National Monument, which is situated within the three-mile marginal sea off the southern California mainland. For the reasons that follow, we hold that dominion lies with California and not the United States.
The Antiquities Act of 1906 authorizes the President to reserve lands “owned or controlled by the Government of the United States” for use as national monuments. Pursuant to this Act, President Franklin Roosevelt in 1938 issued Presidential Proclamation No. 2281, 52 Stat. 1541. This Proclamation “reserved from all forms of appropriation under the public-land laws” most of Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands, which were then federal lands, and set them aside as the Channel Islands National Monument. As the Proclamation recognized, these islands “contain fossils of Pleistocene elephants and ancient trees, and furnish noteworthy examples of ancient volcanism, deposition, and active sea erosion . . . .” Ibid.
The two large islands and the many smaller islets and rocks surrounding them also shelter a variety of marine life, some rare or endangered. Prompted by a desire to protect these species and other “objects of geological and scientific interest,” President Truman issued a Proclamation in 1949, enlarging the Monument to encompass “the areas within one nautical mile of the shoreline of Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands . . . .” Presidential Proclamation No. 2825, 63 Stat. 1258. It is undisputed that the islets and protruding rocks within these one-mile belts have long belonged to the United States and, as a result of President Truman’s Proclamation, are now part of the Monument. It is equally clear that the tidelands of Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands, as well as of the islets and rocks, belong to California. What is disputed in this litigation is dominion over the submerged lands and waters within the one-mile belts surrounding Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands.
When President Truman issued Proclamation No. 2825 in 1949, the submerged lands and waters within these belts were under federal dominion and control, as a result of this Court’s decision two years earlier in United States v. California, 332 U. S. 19. That case had held that the United States was “possessed of paramount rights in, and full dominion and power over, the lands, minerals and other things underlying the Pacific Ocean lying seaward of the ordinary low-water mark on the coast of California, and outside of the inland waters, extending seaward three nautical miles . . . United States v. California, 332 U. S. 804, 805.
There can be no serious question, therefore, that the President in 1949 had power under the Antiquities Act to reserve the submerged lands and waters within the one-mile belts as a national monument, since they were then “controlled by the Government of the United States.” Thus, whether Proclamation No. 2825 did in fact reserve these submerged lands and waters, or only the islets and protruding rocks, could be, at the time of the Proclamation, a question only of Presidential intent, not of Presidential power.
In addressing the controversy now before us, the parties have devoted large parts of their briefs to canvassing this question of intent: What did the Proclamation mean by the use of the word “areas”? We find it unnecessary, however, to decide this question. For even assuming that President Truman intended to reserve the submerged lands and waters within the one-mile belts for Monument purposes, we have concluded that the Submerged Lands Act, 67 Stat. 29, 43 U. S. C. § 1301 et seq., subsequently transferred dominion over them to California.
The very purpose of the Submerged Lands Act was to undo the effect of this Court's 1947 decision in United States v. California, 332 U. S. 19. In enacting it, Congress “recognized, confirmed, established, and vested in and assigned to,” § 6 (a), 67 Stat. 32, 43 U. S. C. § 1314 (a), the States “(1) title to and ownership of the lands beneath navigable waters within the boundaries of the respective States, and the natural resources within such lands and waters, and (2) the right and power to manage, administer, lease, develop, and use the said lands and natural resources . . . § 3 (a), 67 Stat. 30, 43 U. S. C. § 1311 (a). The submerged lands and waters within one mile of Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands plainly fall within this general grant.
The United States contends, however, that the Submerged Lands Act did not operate to relinquish these submerged lands and waters to California because of an exception to the broad statutory grant that Congress provided in § 5 (a) of the Act. The final clause of § 5 (a), upon which the United States relies, exempted from the grant “any rights the United States has in lands presently and actually occupied by the United States under claim of right.” The legislative history shows that this “claim of right” clause was added to preserve unperfected claims of federal title from extinction under § 3's general “conveyance or quitclaim or assignment.” In the words of the Acting Chairman of the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, the clause “neither validates the claim nor prejudices it,” but merely “leaves it where we found it” for eventual adjudication.
The entire purpose of the Submerged Lands Act would have been nullified, however, if the “claim of right” exemption saved claims of the United States based solely upon this Court’s 1947 decision in United States v. California. Not surprisingly, therefore, the legislative history unmistakably shows that the “claim of right” must be “other than the claim arising by virtue of the decision in [that case] . . . Thus, this exception applies to the submerged lands and waters in controversy here only if the United States’ claim to them ultimately rests on some basis other than the “paramount rights” doctrine of this Court’s 1947 California decision.
The United States has pointed to no other basis for believing that the submerged lands and waters in question were owned or controlled by the United States in 1949. The crucial question, then, is whether the 1949 reservation of the submerged lands and waters for Monument purposes (assuming that was the intent of the Proclamation) somehow changed the nature of the Government’s claim. If it did not — if the ownership or control of these areas by the United States in 1953 existed solely by virtue of this Court’s 1947 decision in United States v. California — then § 3 (a) of the Submerged Lands Act transferred “title to and ownership of” the submerged lands and waters to California, along with “the right and power to manage, administer, lease, develop, and use” them. 67 Stat. 30, 43 U. S. C. § 1311 (a).
We have concluded that the 1949 Proclamation did not and could not enhance the strength of the Government’s basic claim to a property interest in the submerged lands and waters in controversy. Reservation of federally controlled public lands for national monument purposes has the effect of placing the area reserved under the “supervision, management, and control” of the Director of the National Park Service. 39 Stat. 535, 16 U. S. C. §§ 1-3 (1976 ed.). Without such reservation, the federal lands would remain subject to “private appropriation and disposal under the public land laws,” 78 Stat. 985, 43 U. S. C. § 1400 (c), or to continued federal management for other designated purposes, see, e. g., ibid.; 78 Stat. 986, 43 U. S. C. § 1411. The Antiquities Act of 1906 permits the President, “in his discretion,” to create a national monument and reserve land for its use simply by issuing a proclamation with respect to land “owned or controlled by the Government of the United States.” 34 Stat. 225, 16 U. S. C. § 431 (1976 ed.). A reservation under the Antiquities Act thus means no more than that the land is shifted from one federal use, and perhaps from one federal managing agency, to another. A reservation for a national monument purpose cannot operate to escalate the underlying claim of the United States to the land in question.
Congress was well aware of its power to transfer to the States as much or as little of the submerged lands in which the Government held “paramount rights” as it deemed wise. With that knowledge, Congress expressly “emphasize [d] that the exceptions spelled out in [§ 5] do not in anywise include any claim resting solely upon the doctrine of 'paramount rights’ enunciated by the Supreme Court with respect to the Federal Government’s status in the areas beyond inland waters and mean low tide.” S. Rep. No. 133, 83d Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, p. 20 (1953). A plainer statement of congressional intent would be hard to find.
Because the United States’ claim to the submerged lands and waters within one mile of Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands derives solely from the doctrine of “paramount rights” announced in this Court’s 1947 California decision, we hold that, by operation of the Submerged Lands Act, the Government’s proprietary and administrative interests in these areas passed to the State of California in 1953.
The parties are requested to submit an appropriate decree within 90 days. So ordered.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of the case.
This case is part of ongoing litigation stemming from an action brought in this Court more than three decades ago. United States v. California, 332 U. S. 19. The first decree was entered in 1947, 332 U. S. 804; a supplemental decree was entered in 1966, 382 U. S. 448; and a second supplemental decree in 1977, 432 U. S. 40. In each instance, jurisdiction was reserved to enter further orders necessary to effectuate the decrees. California initiated the present suit under the 1966 reservation of jurisdiction:
“As to any portion of such boundary line or of any areas claimed to have been reserved under § 5 of the Submerged Lands Act as to which the parties may be unable to agree, either party may apply to the Court at any time for entry of a further supplemental decree.” 382 U. S., at 453.
Section 2 of the Act, 34 Stat. 225, 16 U. S. C. § 431 (1976 ed.), provides in pertinent part as follows :
“The President of the United States is authorized, in his discretion, to declare by public proclamation historic landmarks, historic and prehistoric structures, and other objects of historic or scientific interest that are situated upon the lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States to be national monuments, and may reserve as a part thereof parcels of land, the limits of which in all cases shall be confined to the smallest area compatible with the proper care and management of the objects to be protected.”
Federal title to the islands can be traced to the 1848 Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, 9 Stat. 922, by which Mexico ceded to the United States the islands lying off the coast of California, along with the adjacent mainland. See Bowman, The Question of Sovereignty over California’s Off-Shore Islands, 31 Pac. Hist. Rev. 291 (1962). While the Treaty obligated the United States to respect private property rights derived from Mexican land grants, all nongranted lands previously held by the Government of Mexico passed into the federal public domain. When California was admitted to the Union in 1850, the United States retained ownership of these public lands. See An Act for the Admission of the State of California into the Union, 9 Stat. 452.
The 1938 Proclamation did not reserve as a national monument the entire land area of these two islands. Portions were exempted for continued lighthouse purposes, for which the entire islands had previously been reserved. 52 Stat. 1541.
As early as 1940, Government officials recognized that enlargement of the Monument would be desirable to protect the birds, sea otters, elephant seals, and fur seals that inhabit the rocks and islets encircling the two large islands, and early drafts of the 1949 Proclamation acknowledged an intent to protect marine life. But after a representative of the Department of Justice expressed the view that the Antiquities Act did not permit establishment or enlargement of a national monument to protect plant and animal life, all references to marine life were dropped from the Proclamation.
As noted previously, the Antiquities Act authorizes the President to set aside only “lands owned or controlled by the Government of the United States . . . 34 Stat. 225, 16 U. S. C. §431 (1976 ed.). Like Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands, the islets and rocks protruding above the water within the boundaries of the extended Monument were in 1949 public lands owned by the Federal Government. See n. 3, supra.
The term “tidelands" is “defined as the shore of the mainland and of islands, between the line of mean high water and the line of mean lower low water . . . .” United States v. California, 382 U. S., at 452. Those tidelands in California that had not been subject to Mexican land grants entered the federal public domain in 1848, where they remained in trust until California gained statehood in 1850. At that time, they passed to the State under the “equal footing” doctrine. See Borax, Ltd. v. Los Angeles, 296 U. S. 10; United States v. California, 382 U. S. 448. Because the tidelands within the Monument were not “owned or controlled" by the United States in 1938 or in 1949, Presidents Roosevelt and Truman could not have reserved them by simply issuing proclamations pursuant to the Antiquities Act.
The present controversy apparently arose when California was frustrated in carrying out its program of leases for the harvesting of kelp in these waters. Giant kelp known as Macrocystis grows in the water along portions of the California coast and is harvested to obtain various substances, including algin, a chemical with many commercial uses. See North, Giant Kelp, Sequoias of the Sea, National Geographic (Aug. 1972), and Zahl, Algae: the Life-givers, National Geographic (Mar. 1974).
Although the Antiquities Act refers to “lands,” this Court has recognized that it also authorizes the reservation of waters located on or over federal lands. See Cappaert v. United States, 426 U. S. 128, 138-142; United States v. Oregon, 295 U. S. 1, 14.
In preparation for the Proclamation, memoranda were circulated within .and among Government agencies, many of which proposed adding to the Monument “all islets, rocks, and waters” within one nautical mile of Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands. The final version of the 1949 Proclamation, however, was not so clear. It began: “WHEREAS it appears that certain islets and rocks situated near Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands . . . are required for the proper care, management, and protection of the objects of geological and scientific interest located on lands within [the Channel Islands National Monument] . . .” (emphasis added). The Proclamation then went on to reserve “the areas within one nautical mile” of each of the two large islands, “as indicated on the diagram hereto attached The diagram showed Anacapa and Santa Barbara Islands, each encircled by a broken line at a distance of one mile from the island’s shoreline. At the bottom of the two maps appeared acreage figures that, according to stipulations filed by the parties, described approximately the entire surface area circumscribed by the broken lines.
Section 2 (a)(2) of the Act, 67 Stat. 29, 43 U. S. C. § 1301 (a)(2), defines “lands beneath navigable waters” as “all lands permanently or periodically covered by tidal waters up to but not above the line of mean high tide and seaward to a line three geographical miles distant from the coast line of each such State and to the boundary line of each such State where in any case such boundary as it existed at the time such State became a member of the Union, or as heretofore approved by Congress, extends seaward (or into the Gulf of Mexico) beyond three geographical miles . . . .” The term “natural resources” is defined in §2(e), 43 U. S. C. § 1301(e), to “includ[e], without limiting the generality thereof, oil, gas, and all other minerals, and fish, shrimp, oysters, clams, crabs, lobsters, sponges, kelp, and other marine animal and plant life” but not “water power, or the use of water for the production of power . . . .”
Section 5 (a) of the Act, 67 Stat. 32, 43 U. S. C. § 1313 (a), provides: “There is excepted from the operation of section 3 of this Act—
“(a) all tracts or parcels of land together with all accretions thereto, resources therein, or improvements thereon, title to which has been lawfully and expressly acquired by the United States from any State or from any person in whom title had vested under the law of the State or of the United States, and all lands which the United States lawfully holds under the law of the State; all lands expressly retained by or ceded to the United States when the State entered the Union (otherwise than by a general retention or cession of lands underlying the marginal sea); all lands acquired by the United States by eminent domain proceedings, purchase, cession, gift, or otherwise in a proprietary capacity; all lands filled in, built up, or otherwise reclaimed by the United States for its own use; and any rights the United States has in lands presently and actually occupied by the United States under claim of right.”
The parties have stipulated that “the United States 'presently and actually occupied’ the areas within one nautical mile of the shoreline of Anacapa and Santa Barbara, Islands for purposes of Section 5 of the Submerged Lands Act of 1953, 43 U. S. C. § 1313.” Thus, the question is simply what “rights” the United States had in these submerged lands and waters in 1953.
Remarks of Senator Cordon, Hearings on S. J. Res. 13 et ai. before the Senate Committee on Interior and Insular Affairs, 83d Cong., 1st Sess., 1322 (1953). During Committee hearings on the bill, the following exchange occurred between Senator Kuchel and Senator Cordon, who was Acting Chairman of the Committee:
“Senator KUCHEL. What does 'claim of right' mean?
“Senator CORDON. Well, it means that the United States is in actual occupancy and claims it has a right to the occupancy.
“Senator KUCHEL. And it permits the United States to keep the property in the absence of a title?
“Senator CORDON. No; it does not. It leaves the question of whether it is a good claim or not a good claim exactly where it was before. This is simply an exception by the United States of a voluntary release of its claim, whatever it is. It does not, in anywise, validate the claim or prejudice it.
“Senator KUCHEL. Why should we recognize it, Senator, any more than any other so-called color or title of claim . . . ?
“Senator CORDON. For the reason that in my opinion, Senator, this land now is not land to which the State has title and we are conveying title. We may except what we will.” Id., at 1321.
Id., at 1321, 1322.
Id., at 1322.
This view is reflected in a memorandum written by the Director of the Bureau of Land Management to the Director of the National Park Service in 1947, in response to the latter’s proposal that the Channel Islands National Monument be enlarged:
"If you wish to have these islands added to the Channel Islands National Monument, the bureau will be glad to prepare an appropriate proclamation. In the event you desire at this time to have the islands withdrawn for national monument classification, a public land order to accomplish this purpose will be prepared.”
With the exception, of course, of any interests retained by the United States via provisions other than the last clause of § 5 (a) of the Submerged Lands Act. For example, § 6 (a) provides for the retention by the United States of its navigational servitude and its “rights in and powers of regulation and control of said lands and navigable waters for the constitutional purposes of commerce, navigation, national defense, and international affairs . . . .” 67 Stat. 32, 43 U. S. C. § 1314 (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:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Kelly v. Robinson, 479 U. S. 36, 50 (1986), this Court held that restitution obligations imposed as conditions of probation in state criminal actions are nondischargeable in proceedings under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code, 11 U. S. C. §701 et seq. The Court rested its holding on its interpretation of the Code provision that protects from discharge any debt that is “a fine, penalty, or forfeiture payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit, and is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss.” § 523(a)(7). Because the Court determined that restitution orders fall within § 523(a)(7)’s exception to discharge, it declined to reach the question whether restitution orders are “debt[s]” as defined by §101(11) of the Code. In this case, we must decide whether restitution obligations are dischargeable debts in proceedings under Chapter 13, § 1301 et seq. The exception to discharge relied on in Kelly does not extend to Chapter 13. We conclude, based on the language and structure of the Code, that restitution obligations are “debt[s]” as defined by §101(11). We therefore hold that such payments are dis-chargeable under Chapter 13.
I
In September 1986, respondents Edward and Debora Davenport pleaded guilty in a Pennsylvania court to welfare fraud and were sentenced to one year’s probation. As a condition of probation, the state court ordered the Davenports to make monthly restitution payments to the county probation department, which in turn would forward the payments to the Pennsylvania Department of Public Welfare, the victim of the Davenports’ fraud. Pennsylvania law mandates restitution of welfare payments obtained through fraud, Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 62, §481(c) (Purdon Supp. 1989), and directs the probation section to “forward to the victim the property or payments made pursuant to the restitution order,” 18 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1106(e) (1988).
In May 1987, the Davenports filed a petition under Chapter 13 in the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. In their Chapter 13 statement, they listed their restitution obligation as an unsecured debt payable to the Department of Public Welfare. Soon thereafter, the Adult Probation and Parole Department of Bucks County (Probation Department) commenced a probation violation proceeding, alleging that the Davenports had failed to comply with the restitution order. The Davenports informed the Probation Department of the pending bankruptcy proceedings and requested that the Department withdraw the probation violation charges until the bankruptcy issues were settled. The Probation Department refused, and the Davenports filed an adversary action in Bankruptcy Court seeking both a declaration that the restitution obligation was a dischargeable debt and an injunction preventing the Probation Department from undertaking any further efforts to collect on the obligation.
While the adversary action was pending, the Bankruptcy Court confirmed the Davenports’ Chapter 13 plan without objection from any creditor. Although notified of the proceedings, neither the Probation Department nor the Department of Public Welfare filed a proof of claim in the bankruptcy action. Meanwhile, the Probation Department proceeded in state court on its motion to revoke probation. Although the court declined to revoke the Davenports’ probation and extended their payment period, it nonetheless ruled that its restitution order remained in effect.
The Bankruptcy Court subsequently held that the Davenports’ restitution obligation was an unsecured debt dis-chargeable under 11 U. S. C. § 1328(a). 83 B. R. 309 (ED Pa. 1988). On appeal, the District Court reversed, holding that state-imposed criminal restitution obligations cannot be discharged in a Chapter 13 bankruptcy. 89 B. R. 428 (ED Pa. 1988). The District Court emphasized the federalism concerns that are implicated when federal courts intrude on state criminal processes, id., at 430, and relied substantially on dicta in Kelly, supra, at 50, where the Court expressed “serious doubts whether Congress intended to make criminal penalties ‘debts’ ” under the Code. The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed, concluding that “the plain language of the chapter” demonstrated that restitution orders are debts within the meaning of the Code and hence dis-chargeable in proceedings under Chapter 13. In re Johnson-Alien, 871 F. 2d 421, 428 (1989).
To address a conflict among Bankruptcy Courts on this issue, we granted certiorari, 493 U. S. 808 (1989).
II
Our construction of the term “debt” is guided by the fundamental canon that statutory interpretation begins with the language of the statute itself. Landreth Timber Co. v. Landreth, 471 U. S. 681, 685 (1985). Section 101(11) of the Bankruptcy Code defines “debt” as a “liability on a claim.” This definition reveals Congress’ intent that the meanings of “debt” and “claim” be coextensive. See also H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, p. 310 (1977); S. Rep. No. 95-989, p. 23 (1978). Thus, the meaning of “claim” is crucial to our analysis. A “claim” is a “right to payment, whether or not such right is reduced to judgment, liquidated, unliquidated, fixed, contingent, matured, unmatured, disputed, undisputed, legal, equitable, secured, or unsecured.” 11 U. S. C. §101(4)(A) (emphasis added). As is apparent, Congress chose expansive language in both definitions relevant to this case. For example, to the extent the phrase “right to payment” is modified in the statute, the modifying language (“whether or not such right is . . .”) reflects Congress’ broad rather than restrictive view of the class of obligations that qualify as a “claim” giving rise to a “debt.” See also H. R. Rep. No. 95-595, supra, at 309 (describing definition of “claim” as “broadest possible” and noting that Code “contemplates that all legal obligations of the debtor . . . will be able to be dealt with in the bankruptcy case”); accord, S. Rep. No. 95-989, supra, at 22.
Petitioners maintain that a restitution order is not a “right to payment” because neither the Probation Department nor the victim stands in a traditional creditor-debtor relationship with the criminal offender. In support of this position, petitioners refer to Kelly’s discussion of the special purposes of punishment and rehabilitation underlying the imposition of restitution obligations. 479 U. S., at 52. Petitioners also emphasize that restitution orders are enforced differently from other obligations that are considered “rights to payment.”
In Kelly, the Court decided that restitution orders fall within 11 U. S. C. § 523(a)(7)’s exception to discharge provision, which protects from discharge any debt “to the extent such debt is for a fine, penalty, or forfeiture payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit, and is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss.” In reaching that conclusion, the Court necessarily found that such orders are “not compensation for actual pecuniary loss.” Rather, “[bjecause criminal proceedings focus on the State’s interests in rehabilitation and punishment,” the Court held that “restitution orders imposed in such proceedings operate ‘for the benefit of’ the State” and not “‘for . . . compensation’ of the victim.” 479 U. S., at 53.
Contrary to petitioners’ argument, however, the Court’s prior characterization of the purposes underlying restitution orders does not bear on our construction of the phrase “right to payment” in § 101(4)(A). The Court in Kelly analyzed the purposes of restitution in construing the qualifying clauses of § 523(a)(7), which explicitly tie the application of that provision to the purpose of the compensation required. But the language employed to define “claim” in § 101(4)(A) makes no reference to purpose. The plain meaning of a “right to payment” is nothing more nor less than an enforceable obligation, regardless of the objectives the State seeks to serve in imposing the obligation.
Nor does the State’s method of enforcing restitution obligations suggest that such obligations are not “claims.” Although neither the Probation Department nor the victim can enforce restitution obligations in civil proceedings, Commonwealth v. Mourar, 349 Pa. Super. 583, 603, 504 A. 2d 197, 208 (1986), vacated and remanded on other grounds, 517 Pa. 83, 534 A. 2d 1050 (1987), the obligation is enforceable by the substantial threat of revocation of probation and incarceration. That the Probation Department’s enforcement mechanism is criminal rather than civil does not alter the restitution order’s character as a “right to payment.” Indeed, the right created by such an order made as a condition of probation is in some sense greater than the right conferred by an ordinary civil obligation, because it is secured by the debtor’s freedom rather than his property. Accordingly, we do not regard the purpose or enforcement mechanism of restitution orders as placing such orders outside the scope of § 101(4)(A).
Ill
Moving beyond the language of § 101, the United States, appearing as amicus in support of petitioners, contends that other provisions in the Code, particularly the exemption to the automatic stay provision, § 362(b)(1), and Chapter 7’s distribution of claims provision, § 726, reflect Congress’ intent to exempt restitution orders from discharge under Chapter 13. We are not persuaded, however, that the language or the structure of the Code as a whole supports that conclusion.
Section 362(a) automatically stays a wide array of collection and enforcement proceedings against the debtor and his property. Section 362(b)(1) exempts from the stay “the commencement or continuation of a criminal action or proceeding against the debtor.” According to the Senate Report, the exception from the automatic stay ensures that “[t]he bankruptcy laws are not a haven for criminal offenders.” S. Rep. No. 95-989, supra, at 51. Section 362(b)(1) does not, however, explicitly exempt governmental efforts to collect restitution obligations from a debtor. Cf. 11 U. S. C. § 362(b)(2) (“collection of alimony, maintenance, or support” is not barred by the stay). Nonetheless, the United States argues that it would be anomalous to construe the Code as eliminating a haven for criminal offenders under the automatic stay provision while granting them sanctuary from restitution obligations under Chapter 13.
We find no inconsistency in these provisions. Section 362(b)(1) ensures that the automatic stay provision is not construed to bar federal or state prosecution of alleged criminal offenses. It is not an irrational or inconsistent policy choice to permit prosecution of criminal offenses during the pend-ency of a bankruptcy action and at the same time to preclude probation officials from enforcing restitution orders while a debtor seeks relief under Chapter 13. Congress could well have concluded that maintaining criminal prosecutions during bankruptcy proceedings is essential to the functioning of government but that, in the context of Chapter 13, a debtor’s interest in full and complete release of his obligations outweighs society’s interest in collecting or enforcing a restitution obligation outside the agreement reached in the Chapter 13 plan.
The United States’ reliance on § 726 is likewise unavailing. That section establishes the order in which claims are settled under Chapter 7. Section 726(a)(4) assigns a low priority to “any allowed claim, whether secured or unsecured, for any fine, penalty, or forfeiture ... to the extent that such fine, penalty, forfeiture, or damages are not compensation for actual pecuniary loss suffered by the holder of such claim.” The United States argues that the phrase “fine, penalty, or forfeiture” should be construed to apply only to civil fines, penalties, and forfeitures, and not to criminal restitution obligations. Otherwise, State and Federal Governments will receive disfavored treatment relative to other creditors both in Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 proceedings, see § 1325(a)(4) (a Chapter 13 plan must ensure that unsecured creditors receive no worse treatment than they would under Chapter 7), a result the United States regards as anomalous given the strength of the governmental interest in collecting restitution payments.
The central difficulty with the United States’ construction of § 726(a)(4) is that it conflicts with Kelly’s holding that § 523(a)(7), the exception to discharge provision, applies to criminal restitution obligations. 479 U. S., at 51 (§ 523(a)(7) “creates a broad exception for all penal sanctions”). The United States acknowledges that the phrase “fine, penalty, or forfeiture” as it appears in § 726(a)(4) must have the same meaning as in § 523(a)(7). We are unwilling to revisit Kelly’s determination that § 523(a)(7) “protects traditional criminal fines [by] codif[ying] the judicially created exception to discharge for fines.” Ibid, (emphasis added). Thus, we reject the view that §§ 523(a)(7) and 726(a)(4) implicitly refer only to civil fines and penalties.
The United States’ position here highlights the tension between Kelly’s, interpretation of § 523(a)(7) and its dictum suggesting that restitution obligations are not “debts.” See supra, at 557. As stated above, Kelly found explicitly that § 523(a)(7) “codifies the judicially created exception to discharge” for both civil and criminal fines. 479 U. S., at 51. Had Congress believed that restitution obligations were not “debts” giving rise to “claims,” it would have had no reason to except such obligations from discharge in § 523(a)(7). Given Kelly’s interpretation of § 523(a)(7), then, it would be anomalous to construe “debt” narrowly so as to exclude criminal restitution orders. Such a narrow construction of “debt” necessarily renders § 523(a)(7)’s codification of the judicial exception for criminal restitution orders mere surplusage. Our cases express a deep reluctance to interpret a statutory provision so as to render superfluous other provisions in the same enactment. See, e. g., Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service, Inc., 486 U. S. 825, 837 (1988).
Moreover, in locating Congress’ policy choice regarding the dischargeability of restitution orders in § 523(a)(7), Kelly is faithful to the language and structure of the Code: Congress defined “debt” broadly and took care to except particular debts from discharge where policy considerations so warranted. Accordingly, Congress secured a broader discharge for debtors under Chapter 13 than Chapter 7 by extending to Chapter 13 proceedings some, but not all, of § 523(a)’s exceptions to discharge. See 5 Collier on Bankruptcy ¶ 1328.01 [l][c] (15th ed. 1986) (“[T]he dischargeability of debts in chapter 13 that are not dischargeable in chapter 7 represents a policy judgment that [it] is preferable for debtors to attempt to pay such debts to the best of their abilities over three years rather than for those debtors to have those debts hanging over their heads indefinitely, perhaps for the rest of their lives”) (footnote omitted). Among those exceptions that Congress chose not to extend to Chapter 13 proceedings is § 523(a)(7)’s exception for debts arising from a “fine, penalty, or forfeiture.” Thus, to construe “debt” narrowly in this context would be to override the balance Congress struck in crafting the appropriate discharge exceptions for Chapter 7 and Chapter 13 debtors.
IV
Our refusal to carve out a broad judicial exception to discharge for restitution orders does not signal a retreat from the principles applied in Kelly. We will not read the Bankruptcy Code to erode past bankruptcy practice absent a clear indication that Congress intended such a departure. Kelly, supra, at 47 (citing Midlantic National Bank v. New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, 474 U. S. 494 (1986)). In Kelly, the Court examined pre-Code practice and identified a general reluctance “to interpret federal bankruptcy statutes to remit state criminal judgments.” 479 U. S., at 44. This pre-Code practice informed the Court’s conclusion that § 523(a)(7) broadly applies to all penal sanctions, including criminal fines. Here, on the other hand, the statutory language plainly reveals Congress’ intent not to except restitution orders from discharge in certain Chapter 13 proceedings. This intent is clear from Congress’ decision to limit the exceptions to discharge applicable to Chapter 13, § 1328(a), as well as its adoption of the “broadest possible” definition of “debt” in § 101(11). See supra, at 558.
Nor do we conclude lightly that Congress intended to interfere with States’ administration of their criminal justice systems. Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37, 46 (1971). As the Court stated in Kelly, permitting discharge of criminal restitution obligations may hamper the flexibility of state criminal judges in fashioning appropriate sentences and require state prosecutors to participate in federal bankruptcy proceedings to safeguard state interests. 479 U. S., at 49. Certainly the legitimate state interest in avoiding such intrusions is not lessened simply because the offender files under Chapter 13 rather than Chapter 7. Nonetheless, the concerns animating Younger cannot justify rewriting the Code to avoid federal intrusion. Where, as here, congressional intent is clear, our sole function is to enforce the statute according to its terms.
V
Restitution obligations constitute debts within the meaning of § 101(11) of the Bankruptcy Code and are therefore dis-chargeable under Chapter 13. The decision of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
The Davenports subsequently fulfilled their obligations under the plan and received a discharge pursuant to 11 U. S. C. § 1328(a), which provides: “As soon as practicable after completion by the debtor of all payments under the plan, unless the court approves a written waiver of discharge executed by the debtor after the order for relief under this chapter, the court shall grant the debtor a discharge of all debts provided for by the plan or disallowed under section 502 of this title.” The section contains two exceptions that the parties agree are not applicable to this case.
Compare, e. g., In re Kohr, 82 B. R. 706, 712 (MD Pa. 1988) (restitution obligations are not “debts” within the meaning of the Code), with In re Cullens, 77 B. R. 825, 828 (Colo. 1987) (restitution orders are “debts”).
Although the automatic stay protects a debtor from various collection efforts over a specified period, it does not extinguish or discharge any debt. See generally 1 W. Norton, Bankruptcy Law and Practice §§20.04-20.36 (1986 and Supp. 1989).
In any event, the Government’s contention that Congress must have intended to favor criminal, as opposed to civil, claims held by the government is unsubstantiated. The United States’ view about the wisdom of this policy choice, unsupported by any textual authority that Congress in fact adopted such a policy, is an inadequate basis for rejecting the statute’s broad definition of “debt.” See supra, at 557-558.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This case raises the issue whether the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit erred in ruling that the California Court of Appeal’s decision affirming Leandro An-drade’s two consecutive terms of 25 years to life in prison for a “third strike” conviction is contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law as determined by this Court within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1).
I
A
On November 4, 1995, Leandro Andrade stole five videotapes worth $84.70 from a Kmart store in Ontario, California. Security personnel detained Andrade as he was leaving the store. On November 18, 1995, Andrade entered a different Kmart store in Montclair, California, and placed four videotapes worth $68.84 in the rear waistband of his pants. Again, security guards apprehended Andrade as he was exiting the premises. Police subsequently arrested Andrade for these crimes.
These two incidents were not Andrade’s first or only encounters with law enforcement. According to the state probation officer’s presentenee report, Andrade has been in and out of state and federal prison since 1982. In January 1982, he was convicted of a misdemeanor theft offense and was sentenced to 6 days in jail with 12 months’ probation. An-drade was arrested again in November 1982 for multiple counts of first-degree residential burglary. He pleaded guilty to at least three of those counts, and in April of the following year he was sentenced to 120 months in prison. In 1988, Andrade was convicted in federal court of “[transportation of [mjarijuana,” App. 24, and was sentenced to eight years in federal prison. In 1990, he was convicted in state court for a misdemeanor petty theft offense and was ordered to serve 180 days in jail. In September 1990, An-drade was convicted again in federal court for the same felony of “transportation of [mjarijuana,” ibid,., and was sentenced to 2,191 days in federal prison. And in 1991, Andrade was arrested for a state parole violation — escape from federal prison. He was paroled from the state penitentiary system in 1993.
A state probation officer interviewed Andrade after his arrest in this case. The presentence report notes:
“The defendant admitted committing the offense. The defendant further stated he went into the K-Mart Store to steal videos. He took four of them to sell so he could buy heroin. He has been a heroin addict since 1977. He says when he gets out of jail or prison he always does something stupid. He admits his addiction controls his life and he steals for his habit.” Id., at 25.
Because of his 1990 misdemeanor conviction, the State charged Andrade in this case with two counts of petty theft with a prior conviction, in violation of Cal. Penal Code Ann. §666 (West Supp. 2002). Under California law, petty theft with a prior conviction is a so-called “wobbler” offense because it is punishable either as a misdemeanor or as a felony. Ibid.; cf. Ewing v. California, ante, at 16-17 (plurality opinion). The decision to prosecute petty theft with a prior conviction as a misdemeanor or as a felony is in the discretion of the prosecutor. See ante, at 17. The trial court also has discretion to reduce the charge to a misdemeanor at the time of sentencing. See People v. Superior Court of Los Angeles Cty. ex rel. Alvarez, 14 Cal. 4th 968, 979, 928 P. 2d 1171, 1177-1178 (1997); see also Ewing v. California, ante, at 17.
Under California’s three strikes law, any felony can constitute the third strike, and thus can subject a defendant to a term of 25 years to life in prison. See Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 667(e)(2)(A) (West 1999); see also Ewing v. California, ante, at 16. In this case, the prosecutor decided to charge the two counts of theft as felonies rather than misdemeanors. The trial court denied Andrade’s motion to reduce the offenses to misdemeanors, both before the jury verdict and again in state habeas proceedings.
A jury found Andrade guilty of two counts of petty theft with a prior conviction. According to California law, a jury must also find that a defendant has been convicted of at least two serious or violent felonies that serve as qualifying offenses under the three strikes regime. In this case, the jury made a special finding that Andrade was convicted of three counts of first-degree residential burglary. A conviction for first-degree residential burglary qualifies as a serious or violent felony for the purposes of the three strikes law. Cal. Penal Code Ann. §§667.5, 1192.7 (West 1999); see also Ewing v. California, ante, at 19. As a consequence, each of An-drade’s convictions for theft under Cal. Penal Code Ann. §666 (West Supp. 2002) triggered a separate application of the three strikes law. Pursuant to California law, the judge sentenced Andrade to two consecutive terms of 25 years to life in prison. See §§ 667(c)(6), 667(e)(2)(B). The State stated at oral argument that under the decision announced by the Supreme Court of California in People v. Garcia, 20 Cal. 4th 490, 976 P. 2d 831 (1999) — a decision that postdates his conviction and sentence — it remains “available” for An-drade to “file another State habeas corpus petition” arguing that he should serve only one term of 25 years to life in prison because “sentencing courts have a right to dismiss strikes on a count-by-eount basis.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 24.
B
On direct appeal in 1997, the California Court of Appeal affirmed Andrade’s sentence of two consecutive terms of 25 years to life in prison. It rejected Andrade’s claim that his sentence violates the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. The court stated that “the proportionality analysis” of Solem v. Helm, 463 U. S. 277 (1983), “is questionable in light of” Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U. S. 957 (1991). App. to Pet. for Cert. 76. The court then applied our decision in Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U. S. 263 (1980), where we rejected the defendant’s claim that a life sentence was “‘grossly disproportionate’ to the three felonies that formed the predicate for his sentence.” Id., at 265. The California Court of Appeal then examined Andrade’s claim in light of the facts in Rummel: “Comparing [Andrade’s] crimes and criminal history with that of defendant Rummel, we cannot say the sentence of 50 years to life at issue in this case is disproportionate and constitutes cruel and unusual punishment under the United States Constitution.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 76-77.
After the Supreme Court of California denied discretionary review, Andrade filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Federal District Court. The District Court denied his petition. The Ninth Circuit granted Andrade a certificate of appealability as to his claim that his sentence violated the Eighth Amendment, and subsequently reversed the judgment of the District Court. 270 F. 3d 743 (2001).
The Ninth Circuit first noted that it was reviewing An-drade’s petition under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), 110 Stat. 1214. Applying its own precedent, the Ninth Circuit held that an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law occurs “when our independent review of the legal question ‘leaves us with a “firm conviction” that one answer, the one rejected by the [state] court, was correct and the other, the application of the federal law that the [state] court adopted, was erroneous — in other words that clear error occurred.’” 270 F. 3d, at 753 (alteration in original) (quoting Van Tran v. Lindsey, 212 F. 3d 1143, 1153-1154 (CA9 2000)).
The court then reviewed our three most recent major precedents in this area — Rummel v. Estelle, supra, Solem v. Helm, supra, and Harmelin v. Michigan, supra. The Ninth Circuit “follow[ed] the test prescribed by Justice Kennedy in Harmelin,” concluding that “both Rummel and Solem remain good law and are instructive in Harmelin’s application.” 270 F. 3d, at 766. It then noted that the California Court of Appeal compared the facts of Andrade’s case to the facts of Rummel, but not Solem. 270 F. 3d, at 766. The Ninth Circuit concluded that it should grant the writ of ha-beas corpus because the state court’s “disregard for Solem results in an unreasonable application of clearly established Supreme Court law,” and “is irreconcilable with . . . Solem,” thus constituting “clear error.” Id., at 766-767.
Judge Sneed dissented in relevant part. He wrote that “[t]he sentence imposed in this case is not one of the ‘exceedingly rare’ terms of imprisonment prohibited by the Eighth Amendment’s proscription against cruel and unusual punishment.” Id., at 767 (quoting Harmelin v. Michigan, supra, at 1001 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment)). Under his view, the state court decision upholding Andrade’s sentence was thus “not an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law.” 270 F. 3d, at 772. We granted certiorari, 535 U. S. 969 (2002), and now reverse.
II
Andrade’s argument in this Court is that two consecutive terms of 25 years to life for stealing approximately $150 in videotapes is grossly disproportionate in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Andrade similarly maintains that the state court decision affirming his sentence is “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).
AEDPA circumscribes a federal habeas court’s review of a state court decision. Section 2254 provides:
“(d) An application for a writ of habeas corpus on behalf of a person in custody pursuant to the judgment of a State court shall not be granted with respect to any claim that was adjudicated on the merits in State court proceedings unless the adjudication of the claim—
“(1) resulted in a decision that was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.”
The Ninth Circuit requires federal habeas courts to review the state court decision de novo before applying the AEDPA standard of review. See, e. g., Van Tran v. Lindsey, supra, at 1154-1155; Clark v. Murphy, 317 F. 3d 1038, 1044, n. 3 (CA9 2003). We disagree with this approach. AEDPA does not require a federal habeas court to adopt any one methodology in deciding the only question that matters under § 2254(d)(1) — whether a state court decision is contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law. See Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U. S. 225 (2000). In this case, we do not reach the question whether the state court erred and instead focus solely on whether § 2254(d) forecloses habeas relief on Andrade’s Eighth Amendment claim.
Ill
A
As a threshold matter here, we first decide what constitutes “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” § 2254(d)(1). An-drade relies upon a series of precedents from this Court— Rummel v. Estelle, supra, Solem v. Helm, 463 U. S. 277 (1983), and Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U. S. 957 (1991) — that he claims clearly establish a principle that his sentence is so grossly disproportionate that it violates the Eighth Amendment. Section 2254(d)(l)’s “clearly established” phrase “refers to the holdings, as opposed to the dicta, of this Court’s decisions as of the time of the relevant state-court decision.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, 412 (2000). In other words, “clearly established Federal law” under § 2254(d)(1) is the governing legal principle or principles set forth by the Supreme Court at the time the state court renders its decision. See id., at 405, 413; Bell v. Cone, 535 U. S. 685, 698 (2002). In most situations, the task of determining what we have clearly established will be straightforward. The difficulty with Andrade’s position, however, is that our precedents in this area have not been a model of clarity. See Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U. S., at 965 (opinion of Scalia, J.); id., at 996, 998 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Indeed, in determining whether a particular sentence for a term of years can violate the Eighth Amendment, we have not established a clear or consistent path for courts to follow. See Ewing v. California, ante, at 20-23.
B
Through this thicket of Eighth Amendment jurisprudence, one governing legal principle emerges as “clearly established” under § 2254(d)(1): A gross disproportionality principle is applicable to sentences for terms of years.
Our cases exhibit a lack of clarity regarding what factors may indicate gross disproportionality. In Solem (the case upon which Andrade relies most heavily), we stated: “It is clear that a 25-year sentence generally is more severe than a 15-year sentence, but in most cases it would be difficult to decide that the former violates the Eighth Amendment while the latter does not.” 463 U. S., at 294 (footnote omitted). And in Harmelin, both Justice Kennedy and Justice Scalia repeatedly emphasized this lack of clarity: that “Solem was scarcely the expression of clear... constitutional law,” 501 U. S., at 965 (opinion of Scalia, J.), that in “adhering] to the narrow proportionality principle . . . our proportionality decisions have not been clear or consistent in all respects,” id., at 996 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment), that “we lack clear objective standards to distinguish between sentences for different terms of years,” id., at 1001 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment), and that the “precise contours” of the proportionality principle “are unclear,” id., at 998 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).
Thus, in this case, the only relevant clearly established law amenable to the “contrary to” or “unreasonable application of” framework is the gross disproportionality principle, the precise contours of which are unclear, applicable only in the “exceedingly rare” and “extreme” case. Id., at 1001 (KENNEDY, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Solem v. Helm, supra, at 290; Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U. S., at 272.
IV
The final question is whether the California Court of Appeal’s decision affirming Andrade’s sentence is “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of,” this clearly established gross disproportionality principle.
First, a state court decision is “contrary to our clearly established precedent if the state court applies a rule that contradicts the governing law set forth in our cases” or “if the state court confronts a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of this Court and nevertheless arrives at a result different from our precedent.” Williams v. Taylor, supra, at 405-406; see also Bell v. Cone, supra, at 694. In terms of length of sentence and availability of parole, severity of the underlying offense, and the impact of recidivism, Andrade’s sentence implicates factors relevant in both Rummel and Solem. Because Harmelin and Solem specifically stated that they did not overrule. Rummel, it was not contrary to our clearly established law for the California Court of Appeal to turn to Rummel in deciding whether a sentence is grossly disproportionate. See Harmelin, supra, at 998 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); Solem, supra, at 288, n. 13, 303-304, n. 32. Indeed, Harmelin allows a state court to reasonably rely on Rummel in determining whether a sentence is grossly disproportionate. The California Court of Appeal’s decision was therefore not “contrary to” the governing legal principles set forth in our cases.
Andrade’s sentence also was not materially indistinguishable from the facts in Solem. The facts here fall in between the facts in Rummel and the facts in Solem. Solem involved a sentence of life in prison without the possibility of parole. 463 U. S., at 279. The defendant in Rummel was sentenced to life in prison with the possibility of parole. 445 U. S., at 267. Here, Andrade retains the possibility of parole. Solem acknowledged that Rummel would apply in a “similar factual situation.” 463 U. S., at 304, n. 32. And while this case resembles to some degree both Rummel and Solem, it is not materially indistinguishable from either. Cf. Ewing v. California, ante, at 40 (Breyer, J., dissenting) (recognizing a “twilight zone between Solem and Rummel”). Consequently, the state court did not “confron[tJ a set of facts that are materially indistinguishable from a decision of this Court and nevertheless arriv[e] at a result different from our precedent.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S., at 406.
Second, “[ujnder the ‘unreasonable application’ clause, a federal habeas court may grant the writ if the state court identifies the correct governing legal principle from this Court’s decisions but unreasonably applies that principle to the facts of the prisoner’s case.” Id., at 413. The “unreasonable application” clause requires the state court decision to be more than incorrect or erroneous. Id., at 410, 412. The state court’s application of clearly established law must be objectively unreasonable. Id., at 409.
The Ninth Circuit made an initial error in its “unreasonable application” analysis. In Van Tran v. Lindsey, 212 F. 3d, at 1152-1154, the Ninth Circuit defined “objectively unreasonable” to mean “clear error.” These two standards, however, are not the same. The gloss of clear error fails to give proper deference to state courts by conflating error (even clear error) with unreasonableness. See Williams v. Taylor, supra, at 410; Bell v. Cone, 535 U. S., at 699.
It is not enough that a federal habeas court, in its “independent review of the legal question,” is left with a “‘firm conviction’” that the state court was “‘erroneous.’” 270 F. 3d, at 753 (quoting Van Tran v. Lindsey, supra, at 1153-1154). We have held precisely the opposite: “Under § 2254(d)(l)’s ‘unreasonable application’ clause, then, a federal habeas court may not issue the writ simply because that court concludes in its independent judgment that the relevant state-court decision applied clearly established federal law erroneously or incorrectly.” Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S., at 411. Rather, that application must be objectively unreasonable. Id., at 409; Bell v. Cone, supra, at 699; Woodford v. Visciotti, 537 U. S. 19, 27 (2002) (per curiam).
Section 2254(d)(1) permits a federal court to grant habeas relief based on the application of a governing legal principle to a set of facts different from those of the case in which the principle was announced. See, e. g., Williams v. Taylor, supra, at 407 (noting that it is “an unreasonable application of this Court’s precedent if the state court identifies the correct governing legal rule from this Court’s cases but unreasonably applies it to the facts of the particular state prisoner’s case”). Here, however, the governing legal principle gives legislatures broad discretion to fashion a sentence that fits within the scope of the proportionality principle — the “precise contours” of which “are unclear.” Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U. S., at 998 (Kennedy, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). And it was not objectively unreasonable for the California Court of Appeal to conclude that these “contours” permitted an affirmance of Andrade’s sentence.
Indeed, since Harmelin, several Members of this Court have expressed “uncertainty” regarding the application of the proportionality principle to the California three strikes law. Riggs v. California, 525 U. S. 1114, 1115 (1999) (Stevens, J., joined by Souter and Ginsburg, JJ., respecting denial of certiorari) (“[T]here is some uncertainty about how our cases dealing with the punishment of recidivists should apply”); see also id., at 1116 (“It is thus unclear how, if at all, a defendant’s criminal record beyond the requisite two prior ‘strikes’ . . . affects the constitutionality of his sentence”); cf. Durden v. California, 531 U. S. 1184 (2001) (Softer, J., joined by Breyer, J., dissenting from denial of certiorari) (arguing that the Court should hear the three strikes gross disproportionality issue on direct review because of the “potential for disagreement over application of” AEDPA).
The gross disproportionality principle reserves a constitutional violation for only the extraordinary case. In applying this principle for § 2254(d)(1) purposes, it was not an unreasonable application of our clearly established law for the California Court of Appeal to affirm Andrade’s sentence of two consecutive terms of 25 years to life in prison.
V
The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, accordingly, is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Justice Souter argues that the possibility of Andrade's receiving parole in 50 years makes this case similar to the facts in Solem v. Helm, 463 U. S. 277 (1983). Post, at 78-79 (dissenting opinion). Andrade’s sentence, however, is also similar to the facts in Rummel v. Estelle, 445 U. S. 263 (1980), a case that is also “controlling,” Post, at 78. Given the lack of clarity of our precedents in Solem, Rummel, and Harmelin v. Michigan, 501 U. S. 957 (1991), we cannot say that the state court’s affirmance of two sentences of 25 years to life in prison was contrary to our clearly established precedent. And to the extent that Justice ¿OUTER is arguing that the similarity of Solem to this case entitles Andrade to relief under the unreasonable application prong of § 2254(d), we reject his analysis for the reasons given infra, at 76-77. Moreover, it is not true that Andrade’s “sentence can only be understood as punishment for the total amount he stole.” Post, at 78. To the contrary, California law specifically provides that each violation of Cal. Penal Code Ann. § 666 (West Supp. 2002) triggers a separate application of the three strikes law, if the different felony counts are “not arising from the same set of operative facts.” 8 667(c)(6) (West 1999); see also § 667(e)(2)(B). Here, Andrade was sentenced to two consecutive terms under California law precisely because the two thefts of two different Kmart stores occurring two weeks apart were two distinct crimes.
Justice Soutee, relying on Robinson v. California, 370 U. S. 660 (1962), also argues that in this ease, it is “unrealistic” to think that a sentence of 50 years to life for Andrade is not equivalent to life in prison without parole. Post, at 79. This argument, however, misses the point. Based on our precedents, the state court decision was not contrary to, or an unreasonable application of, our clearly established law. Moreover, Justice Souter’s position would treat a sentence of life without parole for the 77-year-old person convicted of murder as equivalent to a sentence of life with the possibility of parole in 10 years for the same person convicted of the same crime. Two different sentences do not become materially indistinguishable based solely upon the age of the persons sentenced.
Justice Souter would hold that Andrade’s sentence also violates the unreasonable application prong of § 2254(d)(1). Post, at 79-82. His reasons, however, do not change the “uncertainty” of the scope of the proportionality principle. We cannot say that the state court decision was an unreasonable application of this principle.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Upon a plea of not guilty by reason of insanity, the petitioner was found guilty by an Indiana jury of murder in the second degree. The Indiana Supreme Court upon direct appeal affirmed the conviction. Moore v. State, 260 Ind. 154, 293 N. E. 2d 28 (1973). The petitioner then sought a writ of habeas corpus in a Federal District Court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2254. He claimed, inter alia, that he had been denied due process of law because he had been convicted upon evidence allegedly insufficient to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was sane at the time the victim was killed. The District Court denied the writ, and the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit affirmed. 581 F. 2d 639 (1978).
In holding that the District Court had been correct in rejecting the petitioner’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, the Court of Appeals stated that such a challenge presents a federal due process issue “only where a state court conviction is totally devoid of evi-dentiary support.” Id., at 642. The petitioner claims that this was error, and he urges that under In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970), a state prisoner is entitled to a determination whether the record evidence could support a finding of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We agree. Jackson v. Virginia, ante, p. 307. Nonetheless, under the circumstances of this ease we conclude that a remand for further consideration in light of Jackson v. Virginia would be inappropriate.
The petitioner has contended that the prosecution failed to meet its burden because it relied upon lay witnesses to prove sanity without providing any expert testimony to rebut his expert opinion testimony. But, as the Court of Appeals noted, under Indiana law sanity may be established by either expert or lay testimony. The state appellate court, in an opinion thoroughly discussing the record evidence and the petitioner’s sufficiency challenge, concluded that the lay evidence in this case could have been credited by the jury, and it held that the State’s evidence was fully sufficient to support a jury finding beyond a reasonable doubt that the petitioner was sane at the time of the killing.
The Court of Appeals properly deferred to the Indiana law governing proof of sanity. Although that court applied an improper legal standard when it considered the petitioner’s due process claim, it is clear from its opinion that the essence of that challenge concerned the rule of state law that permits the State to rely on lay proof of sanity. It is likewise clear from the record that under the standard enunciated in Jackson v. Virginia, the evidence in support of this conviction was constitutionally adequate.
Accordingly, the writ of certiorari is granted, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
The District Court found, and the Court of Appeals' agreed, that the petitioner had failed to exhaust his available state remedies on all but his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. The petitioner takes issue with this ruling, but we are satisfied that it was correct.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Panagis Vartelas, a native of Greece, became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 1989. He pleaded guilty to a felony (conspiring to make a counterfeit security) in 1994, and served a prison sentence of four months for that offense. Vartelas traveled to Greece in 2003 to visit his parents. On his return to the United States a week later, he was treated as an inadmissible alien and placed in removal proceedings. Under the law governing at the time of Var-telas’ plea, an alien in his situation could travel abroad for brief periods without jeopardizing his resident alien status. See 8 U. S. C. § 1101(a)(13) (1988 ed.), as construed in Rosenberg v. Fleuti, 374 U. S. 449 (1963).
In 1996, Congress enacted the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRIRA), 110 Stat. 3009-546. That Act effectively precluded foreign travel by lawful permanent residents who had a conviction like Vartelas’. Under IIRIRA, such aliens, on return from a sojourn abroad, however brief, may be permanently removed from the United States. See 8 U. S. C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v); § 1182(a)(2).
This case presents a question of retroactivity not addressed by Congress: As to a lawful permanent resident convicted of a crime before the effective date of IIRIRA, which regime governs, the one in force at the time of the conviction, or IIRIRA? If the former, Vartelas’ brief trip abroad would not disturb his lawful permanent resident status. If the latter, he may be denied reentry. We conclude that the relevant provision of IIRIRA, § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v), attached a new disability (denial of reentry) in respect to past events (Vartelas’ pre-IIRIRA offense, plea, and conviction). Guided by the deeply rooted presumption against retroactive legislation, we hold that § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) does not apply to Vartelas’ conviction. The impact of Vartelas’ brief travel abroad on his permanent resident status is therefore determined not by IIRIRA, but by the legal regime in force at the time of his conviction.
I
A
Before IIRIRA’s passage, United States immigration law established “two types of proceedings in which aliens can be denied the hospitality of the United States: deportation hearings and exclusion hearings.” Landon v. Plasencia, 459 U. S. 21, 25 (1982). Exclusion hearings were held for certain aliens seeking entry to the United States, and deportation hearings were held for certain aliens who had already entered this country. See ibid.
Under this regime, “entry” into the United States was defined as “any coming of an alien into the United States, from a foreign port or place.” 8 U. S. C. §1101(a)(13) (1988 ed.). The statute, however, provided an exception for lawful permanent residents; aliens lawfully residing here were not regarded as making an “entry” if their “departure to a foreign port or place... was not intended or reasonably to be expected by [them] or [their] presence in a foreign port or place... was not voluntary.” Ibid. Interpreting this cryptic provision, we held in Fleuti, 374 U. S., at 461-462, that Congress did not intend to exclude aliens long resident in the United States upon their return from “innocent, casual, and brief exeursion[s]. <. outside this country’s borders.” Instead, the Court determined, Congress meant to rank a once-permanent resident as a new entrant only when the foreign excursion “meaningfully interrupted]... the alien’s [U. SJ residence.” Id., at 462. Absent such “disruption]” of the alien’s residency, the alien would not be “subject... to the consequences of an ‘entry’ into the country on his return.” Ibid.
In IIRIRA, Congress abolished the distinction between exclusion and deportation procedures and created a uniform proceeding known as “removal.” See 8 U. S. C. §§ 1229, 1229a; Judulang v. Holder, 565 U. S. 42, 46 (2011). Congress made “admission” the key word, and defined admission to mean “the lawful entry of the alien into the United States after inspection and authorization by an immigration officer.” § 1101(a)(13)(A). This alteration, the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) determined, superseded Fleuti. See In re Collado-Munoz, 21 I. & N. Dec. 1061, 1065-1066 (1998) (en banc). Thus, lawful permanent residents returning post-IIRIRA, like Vartelas, may be required to “ ‘see[k] an admission’ into the United States, without regard to whether the alien’s departure from the United States might previously have been regarded as ‘brief, casual, and innocent’ under the Fleuti doctrine.” Id., at 1066.
An alien seeking “admission” to the United States is subject to various requirements, see, e. g., § 1181(a), and cannot gain entry if she is deemed “inadmissible” on any of the numerous grounds set out in the immigration statutes, see § 1182. Under IIRIRA, lawful permanent residents are regarded as seeking admission into the United States if they fall into any of six enumerated categories. § 1101(a)(13)(C). Relevant here, the fifth of these categories covers aliens who “ha[ve] committed an offense identified in section 1182(a)(2) of this title.” § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v). Offenses in this category include “a crime involving moral turpitude (other than a purely political offense) or an attempt or conspiracy to commit such a crime.” § 1182(a)(2)(A)(i).
In sum, before IIRIRA, lawful permanent residents who had committed a crime of moral turpitude could, under the Fleuti doctrine, return from brief trips abroad without applying for admission to the United States. Under IIRIRA, such residents are subject to admission procedures, and, potentially, to removal from the United States on grounds of inadmissibility.
B
Panagis Vartelas, born and raised in Greece, has resided in the United States for over 30 years. Originally admitted on a student visa issued in 1979, Vartelas became a lawful permanent resident in 1989' He currently lives in the New York area and works as a sales manager for a roofing company.
In 1992, Vartelas opened an auto body shop in Queens, New York. One of his business partners used the shop’s photocopier to make counterfeit travelers’ checks. Vartelas helped his partner perforate the sheets into individual checks, but Vartelas did not sell the checks or receive any money from the venture. In 1994, he pleaded guilty to conspiracy to make or possess counterfeit securities, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 871. He was sentenced to four months’ incarceration, followed by two years’ supervised release.
Vartelas regularly traveled to Greece to visit his aging parents in the years after his 1994 conviction; even after the passage of IIRIRA in 1996, his return to the United States from these visits remained uneventful. In January 2003, however, when Vartelas returned from a week-long trip to Greece, an immigration officer classified him as an alien seeking “admission.” The officer based this classification on Vartelas’ 1994 conviction. See United States ex rel. Volpe v. Smith, 289 U. S. 422, 423 (1933) (counterfeiting ranks as a crime of moral turpitude).
At Vartelas’ removal proceedings, his initial attorney conceded removability, and requested discretionary relief from removal under the former § 212(c) of the Immigration and Nationality Act. See 8 U. S. C. § 1182(c) (1994 ed.) (repealed 1996). This attorney twice failed to appear for hearings and once failed to submit a requested brief. Vartelas engaged a new attorney, who continued to concede removability and to request discretionary relief. The Immigration Judge denied the request for relief, and ordered Vartelas removed to Greece. The BIA affirmed the Immigration Judge’s decision.
In July 2008, Vartelas filed with the BIA a timely motion to reopen the removal proceedings, alleging that his previous attorneys were ineffective for, among other lapses, conceding his removability. He sought to withdraw the concession of removability on the ground that IIRIRA’s new “admission” provision, codified at § 1101.(a)(13), did not reach back to deprive him of lawful resident status based on his pre-IIRIRA conviction. The BIA denied the motion, declaring that Var-íelas had not been prejudiced by his lawyers’ performance, for no legal authority prevented the application of IIRIRA to Varíelas’ pre-IIRIRA conduct.
The U. S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the BIA’s decision, agreeing that Varíelas had failed to show he was prejudiced by his attorneys’ allegedly ineffective performance. Rejecting Varíelas’ argument that IIRIRA operated prospectively and therefore did not govern his case, the Second Circuit reasoned that he had not relied on the prior legal regime at the time he committed the disqualifying crime. See 620 F. 3d 108, 118-120 (2010).
In so ruling, the Second Circuit created a split with two other Circuits. The Fourth and Ninth Circuits have held that the new § 1101(a)(13) may not be applied to lawful permanent residents who committed crimes listed in §1182 (among them, crimes of moral turpitude) prior to IIRIRA’s enactment. See Olatunji v. Ashcroft, 387 F. 3d 383 (CA4 2004); Camins v. Gonzales, 500 F. 3d 872 (CA9 2007). We granted certiorari, 564 U. S. 1066 (2011), to resolve the conflict among the Circuits.
II
As earlier explained, see supra, at 261-263, pre-IIRIRA, a resident alien who once committed a crime of moral turpitude could travel abroad for short durations without jeopardizing his status as a lawful permanent resident. Under IIRIRA, on return from foreign travel, such an alien is treated as a new arrival to our shores, and may be removed from the United States. Varíelas does not question Congress’ authority to restrict reentry in this manner. Nor does he contend that Congress could not do so retroactively. Instead, he invokes the principle against retroactive legislation, under which courts read laws as prospective in application unless Congress has unambiguously instructed retroactivity. See Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U. S. 244, 263 (1994).
The presumption against retroactive legislation, the Court recalled in Landgraf, “embodies a legal doctrine centuries older than our Republic.” Id., at 265. Several provisions, of the Constitution, the Court noted, embrace the doctrine, among them, the Ex Post Facto Clause, the Contract Clause, and the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Id., at 266. Numerous decisions of this Court repeat the classic formulation Justice Story penned for determining when retrospective application of a law would collide with the doctrine. It would do so, Story stated, when such application would “tak[e] away or impai[r] vested rights acquired under existing laws, or creatfe] a new obligation, imposte] a new duty, or attac[h] a new disability, in respect to transactions or considerations already past.” Society for Propagation of Gospel v. Wheeler, 22 F. Cas. 756, 767 (No. 13,156) (CC NH 1814). See, e. g., INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U. S. 289, 321 (2001) (invoking Story’s formulation); Hughes Aircraft Co. v. United States ex rel. Schumer, 520 U. S. 939, 947 (1997); Landgraf, 511 U. S., at 283.
Vartelas urges that applying IIRIRA to him, rather than the law that existed at the time of his conviction, would attach a “new disability,” effectively a ban on travel outside the United States, “in respect to [events]... already past,” i. e., his offense, guilty plea, conviction, and punishment, all occurring prior to the passage of IIRIRA. In evaluating Vartelas’ argument, we note first a matter not disputed by the Government: Congress did not expressly prescribe the temporal reach of the IIRIRA provision in question, 8 U. S. C. § 1101(a)(13). See Landgraf, 511 U. S., at 280 (Court asks first “whether Congress has expressly prescribed [new § 1101(a)(13)’s] proper reach”); Brief for Respondent 11 (Court’s holding in INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U. S., at 317-320, “compels the conclusion that Congress has not ‘expressly prescribed the statute’s proper reach’ ” (quoting Landgraf, 511 U. S., at 280)). Several other provisions of IIRIRA, in contrast to § 1101(a)(13), expressly direct retroactive application, e. g., § 1101(a)(43) (IIRIRA’s amendment of the “aggravated felony” definition applies expressly to “conviction[s]... entered before, on, or after” the statute’s enactment date (internal quotation marks omitted)). See St. Cyr, 533 U. S., at 319-320, and n. 43 (setting out further examples). Accordingly, we proceed to the dispositive question whether, as Vartelas maintains, application of IIRIRA’s travel restraint to him “would have retroactive effect” Congress did not authorize. See Landgraf, 511 U. S., at 280.
Vartelas presents a firm ease for application of the antiret-roactivity principle. Neither his sentence, nor the immigration law in effect when he was convicted and sentenced, blocked him from occasional visits to his parents in Greece. Current § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v), if applied to him, would thus attach “a new disability” to conduct over and done well before the provision’s enactment.
Beyond genuine doubt, we note, the restraint § 1101(a) (13)(C)(v) places on lawful permanent residents like Vartelas ranks as a “new disability.” Once able to journey abroad to fulfill religious obligations, attend funerals and weddings of family members, tend to vital financial interests, or respond to family emergencies, permanent residents situated as Var-telas is now face potential banishment. We have several times recognized the severity of that sanction. See, e.g., Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U. S. 356, 365-366, 373-374 (2010).
It is no answer to say, as the Government suggests, that Vartelas could have avoided any adverse consequences if he simply stayed at home in the United States, his residence for 24 years prior to his 2003 visit'to his parents in Greece. See Brief in Opposition 13 (Vartelas “could have avoided the application of the statute... [by] refraining] from departing from the United States (or from returning to the United States).”); post, at 278. Loss of the ability to travel abroad is itself a harsh penalty, made all the more devastating if it means enduring separation from close family members living abroad. See Brief for Asian American Justice Center et al. as Amici Curiae 16-23 (describing illustrative cases). We have rejected arguments for retroactivity in similar cases, and in cases in which the loss at stake was less momentous.
In Chew Heong v. United States, 112 U. S. 536 (1884), a pathmarking decision, the Court confronted the “Chinese Restriction Act,” which barred Chinese laborers from reentering the United States without a certificate issued on their departure. The Court held the reentry bar inapplicable to aliens who had left the country prior to the Act’s passage and tried to return afterward without a certificate. The Act’s text, the Court observed, was not “so clear and positive as to leave no room to doubt [retroactive application] was the intention of the legislature.” Id., at 559.
In Landgraf, the question was whether an amendment to Title VII’s ban on employment discrimination authorizing compensatory and punitive damages applied to preenactment conduct. The Court held it did not. No doubt the complaint against the employer charged discrimination that violated the Act at the time it occurred. But compensatory and punitive damages were not then available remedies. The later provision for such damages, the Court determined, operated prospectively only, and did not apply to employers whose discriminatory conduct occurred prior to the amendment. See 511 U. S., at 280-286. And in Hughes Aircraft, the Court held that a provision removing an affirmative defense to qui tam suits did not apply to preenactment fraud. As in Landgraf, the provision attached “a new disability” to past wrongful conduct and therefore could not apply retrospectively unless Congress clearly manifested such an intention. Hughes Aircraft, 520 U. S., at 946-950.
Most recently, in St. Cyr, the Court took up the case of an alien who had entered a plea to a deportable offense. At the time of the plea, the alien was eligible for discretionary relief from deportation. IIRIRA, enacted after entry of the plea, removed that eligibility. The Court held that the IIRIRA provision in point could not be applied to the alien, for it attached a “new disability” to the guilty plea and Congress had not instructed such a result. 533 U. S., at 321-323.
HH 1 — I ⅜ — l
The Government, echoed in part by the dissent, argues that no retroactive effect is involved in this case, for the Legislature has not attached any disability to past conduct. Rather, it has made the relevant event the alien’s post-IIRIRA act of returning to the United States. See Brief for Respondent 19-20; post, at 278. We find this argument disingenuous. Vartelas’ return to the United States occasioned his treatment as a new entrant, but the reason for the “new disability” imposed on him was not his lawful foreign travel. It was, indeed, his conviction, pre-IIRIRA, of an offense qualifying as one of moral turpitude. That past misconduct, in other words, not present travel, is the wrongful activity Congress targeted in § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v).
The Government observes that lower courts have upheld Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act prosecutions that encompassed preenactment conduct. See Brief for Respondent 18 (citing United States v. Brown, 555 F. 2d 407, 416-417 (CA5 1977), and United States v. Campanale, 518 F. 2d 352, 364-365 (CA9 1975) (per curiam)). But those prosecutions depended on criminal activity, i. e., an act of racketeering occurring after the provision’s effective date. Section 1101(a)(13)(C)(v), in contrast, does not require any showing of criminal conduct postdating IIRIRA’s enactment.
Fernandez-Vargas v. Gonzales, 548 U. S. 30 (2006), featured by the Government and the dissent, Brief for Respondent 17, 36 — 37; post, at 278, is similarly inapposite. That case involved 8 U. S. C. § 1231(a)(5), an IIRIRA addition, which provides that an alien who reenters the United States after having been removed can be removed again under the same removal order. We held that the provision could be applied to an alien who reentered illegally before IIRIRA’s enactment. Explaining the Court’s decision, we said: “[T]he conduct of remaining in the country... is the predicate action; the statute applies to stop an indefinitely continuing violation.... It is therefore the alien’s choice to continue his illegal presence... after the effective date of the new la[w] that subjects him to the new... legal regime, not a past act that he is helpless to undo.” 548 U. S., at 44 (emphasis added). Vartelas, we have several times stressed, engaged in no criminal activity after IIRIRA’s passage. He simply took a brief trip to Greece, anticipating a return without incident as in past visits to his parents. No “indefinitely continuing” crime occurred; instead, Vartelas was apprehended because of a pre-IIRIRA crime he was “helpless to undo.” Ibid.
The Government further refers to lower court decisions in cases involving 18 U. S. C. § 922(g), which prohibits the possession of firearms by convicted felons. Brief for Respondent 18-19 (citing United States v. Pfeifer, 371 F. 3d 430, 436 (CA8 2004), and United States v. Hemmings, 258 F. 3d 587, 594 (CA7 2001)). “[longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 626 (2008), however, target a present danger, i. e., the danger posed by felons who bear arms. See, e. g., Pfeifer, 371 F. 3d, at 436 (hazardous conduct that statute targets “occurred after enactment of the statute”); Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, § 1201, 82 Stat. 236 (noting hazards involved when felons possess firearms).
Nor do recidivism sentencing enhancements support the Government’s position. Enhanced punishment imposed for the later offense “ ‘is not to be viewed as... [an] additional penalty for the earlier crimes,’ but instead, as a ‘stiffened penalty for the latest crime, which is considered to be an aggravated offense because [it is] a repetitive one.’” Witte v. United States, 515 U. S. 389, 400 (1995) (quoting Gryger v. Burke, 334 U. S. 728, 732 (1948)). In Vartelas’ case, however, there is no “aggravated... repetitive” offense. There is, in contrast, no post-IIRIRA criminal offense at all. Var-telas’ travel abroad and return are “innocent” acts, see Fleuti, 374 U. S., at 462, burdened only because of his pre-IIRIRA offense.
In sum, Vartelas’ brief trip abroad post-IIRIRA involved no criminal infraction. IIRIRA disabled him from leaving the United States and returning as a lawful permanent resident. That new disability rested not on any continuing criminal activity, but on a single crime committed years before IIRIRA’s enactment. The antiretroactivity principle instructs against application of the new proscription to render Vartelas a first-time arrival at the country’s gateway.
IV
The Second Circuit homed in on the words “committed an offense” in § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v) in determining that the change IIRIRA wrought had no retroactive effect. 620 F. 3d, at 119-121. It matters not that Vartelas may have relied on the prospect of continuing visits to Greece in deciding to plead guilty, the court reasoned. “[I]t would border on the absurd,” the court observed, “to suggest that Vartelas committed his counterfeiting crime in reliance on the immigration laws.” Id., at 120. This reasoning is doubly flawed.
As the Government acknowledges, “th[is] Court has not required a party challenging the application of a statute to show [he relied on prior law] in structuring his conduct.” Brief for Respondent 25-26. In Landgraf, for example, the issue was the retroactivity of compensatory and punitive damages as remedies for employment discrimination. “[C]oncerns of... upsetting expectations are attenuated in the case of intentional employment discrimination,” the Court noted, for such discrimination “has been unlawful for more than a generation.” 511 U. S., at 282, n. 35. But “[e]ven when the conduct in question is morally reprehensible or illegal,” the Court added, “a degree of unfairness is inherent whenever the law imposes additional burdens based On conduct that occurred in the past.” Id., at 283, n. 35. And in Hughes Aircraft, the Court found that Congress’ 1986 removal of a defense to a qui tam action did not apply to pre-1986 conduct in light of the presumption against retroac-tivity. 520 U. S., at 941-942. As in Landgraf, the relevant conduct (submitting a false claim) had been unlawful for decades. See 520 U. S., at 947.
The operative presumption, after all, is that Congress intends its laws to govern prospectively only. See supra, at 265-266. “It is a strange ‘presumption,’ ” the Third Circuit commented, “that arises only on... a showing [of] actual reliance.” Ponnapula v. Ashcroft, 373 F. 3d 480, 491 (2004). The essential inquiry, as stated in Landgraf, 511 U. S., at 269-270, is “whether the new provision attaches new legal consequences to events completed before its enactment.” That is just what occurred here.
In any event, Vartelas likely relied on then-existing immigration law. While the presumption against retroactive application of statutes does not require a showing of detrimental reliance, see Olatunji, 387 F. 3d, at 389-395, reasonable reliance has been noted among the “familiar considerations” animating the presumption, see Landgraf, 511 U. S., at 270 (presumption reflects “familiar considerations of fair notice, reasonable reliance, and settled expectations”). Although not a necessary predicate for invoking the antiretroactivity principle, the likelihood of reliance on prior.law strengthens the case for reading a newly enacted law prospectively. See Olatunji, 387 F. 3d, at 393 (discussing St. Cyr).
St. Cyr is illustrative. That case involved a lawful permanent resident who pleaded guilty to a criminal charge that made him deportable. Under the immigration law in effect when he was convicted, he would have been eligible to apply for a waiver of deportation. But his removal proceeding was commenced after Congress, in IIRIRA, withdrew that dispensation. Disallowance of discretionary waivers, the Court recognized, “attache[d] a new disability, in respect to transactions or considerations already past.” 533 U. S., at 321 (internal quotation marks omitted). Aliens like St. Cyr, the Court observed, “almost certainly relied upon th[e] likelihood [of receiving discretionary relief] in deciding [to plead guilty, thereby] forgo[ing] their right to a trial.” Id., at 325. Hence, applying the IIRIRA withdrawal to St. Cyr would have an “obvious and severe retroactive effect.” Ibid. Because Congress made no such intention plain, ibid., n. 55, we held that the prior law, permitting relief from deportation, governed St. Cyr’s ease.
As to retroactivity, one might think Vartelas’ case even easier than St. Cyr’s. St. Cyr could seek the Attorney General’s discretionary dispensation. Vartelas, under Fleuti, was free, without seeking an official’s permission, to make trips of short duration to see and assist his parents in Greece. The Second Circuit thought otherwise, compounding its initial misperception (treating reliance as essential to application of the antiretroactivity principle). The deportation provision involved in St Cyr, 8 U. S. C. § 1229b(a)(3), referred to the alien’s “convict[ion]” of a crime, while the statutory words sub judice in Vartelas’ case were “committed an offense,” § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v); see supra, at 272. The practical difference, so far as retroactivity is concerned, escapes from our grasp. Ordinarily, to determine whether there is clear and convincing evidence that an alien has committed a qualifying crime, the immigration officer at the border would check the alien’s records for a conviction. He would not call into session a piepowder court to entertain a plea or conduct a trial.
Satisfied that Vartelas’ case is at least as clear as St. Cyr’s for declining to apply a new law retroactively, we hold that Fleuti continues to govern Vartelas’ short-term travel.
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The dissent appears driven, in no small measure, by its dim view of the Court’s opinion in Fleuti. See post, at 280 (“same instinct” operative in Fleuti and this ease).
The BIA determined that the Fleuti doctrine no longer held sway because it was rooted in the “no longer existent definition of ‘entry’ in the [Immigration and Nationality] Act.” 211. & N. Dec., at 1065. The Board also noted that “Congress... amended the law to expressly preserve some, but not all, of the Fleuti doctrine” when it provided that a lawful permanent resident absent from the United States for less than 180 days would not be regarded- as seeking an admission except in certain enumerated circumstances, among them, prior commission of a crime of moral turpitude. See ibid, (citing 8 U. S. C. § 1101(a)(13)(C)(ii)).
Vartelas does not challenge the ruling in Collado-Munoz. We therefore assume, but do not decide, that IIRIRA’s amendments to § 1101(a)(13)(A) abrogated Fleuti.
Although IIRIRA created a uniform removal procedure for both ex-cludable and deportable aliens, the list of criminal offenses that subject aliens to exclusion remains separate from the list of offenses that render an alien deportable. These lists are “sometimes overlapping and sometimes divergent.” Judulang v. Holder, 565 U. S. 42, 46 (2011). Pertinent here, although a single crime involving moral turpitude may render an alien inadmissible, it would not render her deportable. See 8 U. S. C. § 1182(a)(2) (listing excludable crimes); § 1227(a)(2) (listing deportable crimes).
The dissent asserts that Justice Story’s opinion “bearfe] no relation to the presumption against retroactivity.” Post, at 281. That is a bold statement in view of this Court’s many references to Justice Story’s formulation in cases involving the presumption that statutes operate only prospectively in the absence of a clear congressional statement to the contrary.
In St. Cyr, 533 U. S., at 317-320, we rejected the Government’s contention that Congress directed retroactive application of IIRIRA in its entirety.
See Kent v. Dulles, 357 U. S. 116, 126 (1958) (“Freedom of movement across frontiers... may be as close to the heart of the individual as the choice of what he eats, or wears, or reads.”); Aptheker v. Secretary of State, 378 U. S. 500, 519-520 (1964) (Douglas, J., concurring) (right to travel, “at home and abroad, is important for... business[,]... cultural, political, and social activities—for all the commingling which gregarious man enjoys”).
The dissent, see post, at 281, notes two statutes of the same genre: laws prohibiting persons convicted of a sex crime against a victim under 16 years of age from working in jobs involving frequent contact with minors, and laws prohibiting a person “who has been adjudicated as a mental defective or who has been committed to a mental institution” from possessing guns, 18 U. S. C. § 922(g)(4). The dissent is correct that these statutes do not operate retroactively. Rather, they address dangers that arise postenactment: sex offenders with a history of child molestation working in close proximity to children, and mentally unstable persons pur-‘ chasing guns. The act of flying to Greece, in contrast, does not render a lawful permanent resident like Varíelas hazardous. Nor is it plausible that Congress’ solution to the problem of dangerous lawful permanent residents would be to pass a law’that would deter such persons from ever leaving the United States.
As for student loans, it is unlikely that the provision noted by the dissent, 20 U. S. C. § 1091(r), would raise retroactivity questions in the first place. The statute has a prospective thrust. It concerns “[sjuspension of eligibility” when a student receiving a college loan commits a drug crime. The suspension runs “from the date of th[e] conviction” for specified periods, e. g., two years for a second offense of possession. Moreover, eligibility may be restored before the period of ineligibility ends if the student establishes, under prescribed criteria, his rehabilitation.
The deleted defense permitted qui tam defendants to escape liability if the information on which a private plaintiff (relator) relied was already in the Government’s possession. Detrimental reliance was hardly apparent, for the Government, both before and after the statutory change, could bring suit with that information, and “the monetary liability faced by [a False Claims Act] defendant is the same whether the action is brought by the Government or by a qui tam relator.” 520 U. S., at 948.
“There can be little doubt,” the Court noted in St Cyr, “that, as a general matter, alien defendants considering whether to enter into a plea agreement are acutely aware of the immigration consequences of their convictions.” 533 U. S., at 322. Indeed, “[p]reserving [their] right to remain in the United States may be more important to [them] than any potential jail sentence.” Ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted). See Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U. S. 356, 366-369 (2010) (holding that counsel has a duty under the Sixth Amendment to inform a noncitizen defendant that his plea would make him eligible for deportation).
Armed with knowledge that a guilty plea would preclude travel abroad, aliens like Vartelas might endeavor to negotiate a plea to a nonex-' dudable offense — in Vartelas’ case, e. g., possession of counterfeit securities — or exercise a right to trial.
After the words “committed an offense,” § 1101(a)(13)(C)(v)’s next words are “identified
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana held unconstitutional a section of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 1305, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 231 et seq., and the United States Railroad Retirement Board has appealed to this Court pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1252. We noted probable jurisdiction. 444 U. S. 1069 (1980).
The 1974 Act fundamentally restructured the railroad retirement system. The Act’s predecessor statute, adopted in 1937, provided a system of retirement and disability benefits for persons who pursued careers in the railroad industry. Under that statute, a person who worked for both railroad and nonrailroad employers and who qualified for railroad retirement benefits and social security benefits, 42 U. S. C. § 401 et seq., received retirement benefits under both systems and an accompanying “windfall” benefit. The legislative history of the 1974 Act shows that the payment of windfall benefits threatened the railroad retirement system with bankruptcy by the year 1981. Congress therefore determined to place the system on a “sound financial basis” by eliminating future accruals of those benefits. Congress also enacted various transitional provisions, including a grandfather provision, § 231b (h), which expressly preserved windfall benefits for some classes of employees.
In restructuring the Railroad Retirement Act in 1974, Congress divided employees into various groups. First, those employees who lacked the requisite 10 years of railroad employment to qualify for railroad retirement benefits as of January 1, 1975, the changeover date, would have their retirement benefits computed under' the new system and would not receive any windfall benefit. Second, those individuals already retired and already receiving dual benefits as of the changeover date would have their benefits, computed under the old system and would continue to receive a windfall benefit. Third, those employees who had qualified for both railroad and social security benefits as of the changeover date, but who had not yet retired as of that date (and thus were not yet receiving dual benefits), were entitled to windfall benefits if they had (1) performed some railroad service in 1974 or (2) had a “current connection” with the railroad industry as of December 31, 1974, or (3) completed 25 years of railroad service as of December 31, 1974. 45 U. S. C. § 231b (h)(1). Fourth, those employees who had qualified for railroad benefits as of the changeover date, but lacked a current connection with the railroad industry in 1974 and lacked 25 years of railroad employment, could obtain a lesser amount of windfall benefit if they had qualified for social security benefits as of the year (prior to 1975) they left railroad employment. 45 U. S. C. § 231b (h) (2).
Thus, an individual who, as of the changeover date, was unretired and had 10 years of railroad employment and sufficient nonrailroad employment to qualify for social security benefits is eligible for the full windfall amount if he worked for the railroad in 1974 or had a current connection with the railroad as of December 31, 1974, or his later retirement date. But an unretired individual with 24 years of railroad service and sufficient nonrailroad service to qualify for social security benefits is not eligible for a full windfall amount unless he worked for the railroad in 1974, or had a current connection with the railroad as of December 31, 1974, or his later retirement date. And an employee with 10 years of railroad employment who qualified for social security benefits only after leaving the railroad industry will not receive a reduced windfall benefit while an employee who qualified for social security benefits prior to leaving the railroad industry would receive a reduced benefit. It was with these complicated comparisons that Congress wrestled in 1974.
Appellee and others filed this class action in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, seeking a declaratory judgment that 45 U. S. C. § 231b (h) is unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment because it irrationally distinguishes between classes of annuitants. The District Court eventually certified a class of all persons eligible to retire between January 1, 1975, and January 31, 1977, who were permanently insured under the Social Security Act as of December 31,1974, but who were not eligible to receive any “windfall component” because they had left the railroad industry before 1974, had no “current connection” with it at the end of 1974, and had less than 25 years of railroad service. Appellee contended below that it was irrational for Congress to have drawn a distinction between employees who had more than 10 years but less than 25 years of railroad employment simply on the basis of whether they had a “current connection” with the railroad industry as of the changeover date or as of the date of retirement.
The District Court agreed with appellee that a differentiation based solely on whether an employee was “active” in the railroad business as of 1974 was not “rationally related” to the congressional purposes of insuring the solvency of the railroad retirement system and protecting vested benefits. We disagree and reverse.
The initial issue presented by this case is the appropriate standard of judicial review to be applied when social and economic legislation enacted by Congress is challenged as being violative of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. There is no claim here that Congress has taken property in violation of the Fifth Amendment, since railroad benefits, like social security benefits, are not contractual and may be altered or even eliminated at any time. Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U. S. 572, 575 (1979); Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U. S. 603, 608-611 (1960). And because the distinctions drawn in § 231b (h) do not burden fundamental constitutional rights or create “suspect” classifications, such as race or national origin, we may put cases involving judicial review of such claims to one side. San Antonio Independent School District v. Rodriguez, 411 U. S. 1 (1973); Vance v. Bradley, 440 U. S. 93 (1979).
Despite the narrowness of the issue, this Court in earlier cases has not been altogether consistent in its pronouncements in this area. In Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S. 61, 78-79 (1911), the Court said that “[w]hen the classification in such a law is called in question, if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it, the existence of that state of facts at the time that the law was enacted must be assumed.” On the other hand, only nine years later in F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U. S. 412, 415 (1920), the Court said that for a classification to be valid under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment it “must rest upon some ground of difference having a fair and substantial relation to the object of the legislation . . .
In more recent years, however, the Court in cases involving-social and economic benefits has consistently refused to invalidate on equal protection grounds legislation which it simply deemed unwise or unartfully drawn.
Thus in Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471 (1970), the Court rejected a claim that Maryland welfare legislation violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It said:
“In the area of economics and social welfare, a State does not violate the Equal Protection Clause merely because the classifications made by its laws are imperfect. If the classification has some 'reasonable basis,’ it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification 'is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.’ Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S. 61, 78. The problems of government are practical ones and may justify, if they do not require, rough accommodations — illogical, it may be, and unscientific.’ Metropolis Theatre Co. v. City of Chicago, 228 U. S. 61, 68-70. . . .
. . . “[The rational-basis standard] is true to the principle that the Fourteenth Amendment gives the federal courts no power to impose upon the States their views of what constitutes wise economic or social policy.” Id., at 485-486.
Of like tenor are Vance v. Bradley, supra, at 97, and New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U. S. 297, 303 (1976). Earlier, in Flemming v. Nestor, supra, at 611, the Court upheld the constitutionality of a social security eligibility provision, saying:
“[I]t is not within our authority to determine whether the Congressional judgment expressed in that Section is sound or equitable, or whether it comports well or ill with purposes of the Act. . . . The answer to such inquiries must come from Congress, not the courts. Our concern here, as often, is with power, not with wisdom.”
And in a case not dissimilar from the present one, in that the State was forced to make a choice which would undoubtedly seem inequitable to some members of a class, we said:
“Applying the traditional standard of review under [the Equal Protection Clause], we cannot say that Texas’ decision to provide somewhat lower welfare benefits for [Aid to Families with Dependent Children] recipients is invidious or irrational. Since budgetary constraints do not allow the payment of the full standard of need for all welfare recipients, the State may have concluded that the aged and infirm are the least able of the categorical grant recipients to bear the hardships of an inadequate standard of living. While different policy judgments are of course possible, it is not irrational for the State to believe that the young are more adaptable than the sick and elderly, especially because the latter have less hope of improving their situation in the years remaining to them. Whether or not one agrees with this state determination, there is nothing in the Constitution that forbids it.” Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U. S. 535, 549 (1972).
Applying those principles to this case, the plain language of § 231b (h) marks the beginning and end of our inquiry. There Congress determined that some of those who in the past received full windfall benefits would not continue to do so. Because Congress could have eliminated windfall benefits for all classes of employees, it is not constitutionally impermissible for Congress to have drawn lines between groups of employees for the purpose of phasing out those benefits. New Orleans v. Dukes, supra, at 305.
The only remaining question is whether Congress achieved its purpose in a patently arbitrary or irrational way. The classification here is not arbitrary, says appellant, because it is an attempt to protect the relative equities of employees and to provide benefits to career railroad employees. Congress fully protected, for example, the expectations of those employees who had already retired and those unretired employees who had 25 years of railroad employment. Conversely, Congress denied all windfall benefits to those employees who lacked 10 years of railroad employment. Congress additionally provided windfall benefits, in lesser amount, to those employees with 10 years’ railroad employment who had qualified for social security benefits at the time they had left railroad employment, regardless of a current connection with the industry in 1974 or on their retirement date.
Thus, the only eligible former railroad employees denied full windfall benefits are those, like appellee, who had no statutory entitlement to dual benefits at the time they left the railroad industry, but thereafter became eligible for dual benefits when they subsequently qualified for social security benefits. Congress could properly conclude that persons who had actually acquired statutory entitlement to windfall benefits while still employed in the railroad industry had a greater equitable claim to those benefits than the members of appel-lee’s class who were no longer in railroad employment when they became eligible for dual benefits. Furthermore, the “current connection” test is not a patently arbitrary means for determining which employees are “career railroaders,” particularly since the test has been used by Congress elsewhere as an eligibility requirement for retirement benefits. Congress could assume that those who had a current connection with the railroad industry when the Act was passed in 1974, or who returned to the industry before their retirement, were more likely than those who had left the industry prior to 1974 and who never returned, to be among the class of persons who pursue careers in the railroad industry, the class for whom the Railroad Retirement Act was designed. Hisquierdo v. Hisquierdo, 439 U. S., at 573.
Where, as here, there are plausible reasons for Congress’ action, our inquiry is at an end. It is, of course, “constitutionally irrelevant whether this reasoning in fact underlay the legislative decision,” Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U. S., at 612, because this Court has never insisted that a legislative body articulate its reasons for enacting a statute. This is particularly true where the legislature must necessarily engage in a process of line-drawing. The “task of classifying persons for . . . benefits . . . inevitably requires that some persons who have an almost equally strong claim to favored treatment be placed on different sides of the line,” Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U. S. 67, 83-84 (1976), and the fact the line might have been drawn differently at some points is a matter for legislative, rather than judicial, consideration.
Finally, we disagree with the District Court’s conclusion that Congress was unaware of what it accomplished or that it was misled by the groups that appeared before it. If this test were applied literally to every member of any legislature that ever voted on a law, there would be very few laws which would survive it. The language of the statute is clear, and we have historically assumed that Congress intended what it enacted. To be sure, appellee lost a political battle in which he had a strong interest, but this is neither the first nor the last time that such a result will occur in the legislative forum. What we have said is enough to dispose of the claims that Congress not only failed to accept appel-lee’s argument as to restructuring in toto, but that such failure denied him equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fifth Amendment.
For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the District Court is
Reversed.
Under the old Act, as under the new, an employee who worked 10 years in the railroad business qualified for railroad retirement benefits. If the employee also worked outside the railroad industry for a sufficient enough time to qualify for social security benefits, he qualified for dual benefits. Due to the formula under which those benefits were computed, however, persons who split their employment between railroad and nonrailroad employment received dual benefits in excess of the amount they would have received had they not split their employment. For example, if 10 yearn of either railroad or nonrailroad employment would produce a monthly benefit of $300, an additional 10 years of the same employment at the same level of creditable compensation would not double that benefit, but would increase it by some lesser amount to say $500. If that 20 years of service had been divided equally between railroad and nonrailroad employment, however, the social security benefit would be $300 and the railroad retirement benefit would also be $300, for a total benefit of $600. The $100 difference in the example constitutes the “windfall” benefit. See generally, S. Rep. No. 93-1163, pp. 2-3 (1974); H. R. Rep. No. 93-1345, pp. 2-3 (1974).
The relevant Committee Reports stated: “Resolution of the so called ‘dual benefit’ problem is central both to insuring the fiscal soundness of the railroad retirement system and to establishing equitable retirement benefits for all railroad employees.” S. Rep. No. 93-1163, supra, at 11; H. R. Rep. No. 93-1345, supra, at 11. The reason for the problem was that a financial interchange agreement entered into in 1951 between the social security and railroad systems caused the entire cost of the windfall benefits to be borne by the railroad system, not the social security system. The annual drain on the railroad system amounted to approximately $450 million per year, and if it were not for “the problem of dual beneficiaries, the railroad retirement system would be almost completely solvent.” S. Rep. No. 93-1163, supra, at 8; H. R. Rep. No. 93-1345, supra, at 7.
S. Rep. No. 93-1163, supra, at 1; H. R. Rep. No. 93-1345, supra, at 1. Congress eliminated future accruals of windfall benefits by establishing a two-tier system for benefits. The first tier is measured by what the social security system would pay on the basis of combined railroad and nonrailroad service, while the second tier is based on railroad service alone. However, both tiers are part of the railroad retirement system, rather than the first tier being placed directly under social security, and the benefits actually paid by social security on the basis of nonrailroad employment are deducted so as to eliminate the windfall benefit.
The Railroad Retirement Act of 1974 had its origins in 1970 when Congress created the Commission on Railroad Retirement to study the actuarial soundness of the railroad retirement system. The Commission submitted its report in 1972 and identified “dual benefits and their attendant windfalls” as a principal cause of the system’s financial difficulties. It also found that windfall benefits were inequitable, favoring those employees who split their employment over those employees who spent their entire career in the railroad industry. Report of the Commission on Railroad Retirement, The Railroad Retirement System: Its Coming Crisis, H. R. Doc. No. 92-350 (1972). It therefore recommended that future accruals of windfall benefits be eliminated by the establishment of a two-tier system, somewhat similar to the type of system eventually adopted by Congress. It also recommended that “legally vested rights of railroad workers” be preserved. An employee who was fully insured under both the railroad and social security systems as of the changeover date (i. e., by having at least 10 years of railroad employment and the requisite length of social security employment) was deemed to have “legally vested rights.”
Following receipt of the Commission’s report, Congress requested members of management, labor, and retirees to form a Joint Labor Management Railroad Retirement Negotiating Committee (hereinafter referred to as the Joint Committee) and submit a report, “tak[ing] into account” the recommendations of the Commission. The Joint Committee outlined its proposals in the form of a letter to Congress, dated April 10, 1974. 120 Cong. Rec. 18391-18392 (1974). Although it agreed with the Commission that future accruals of windfall benefits be eliminated, it differed as to the protection to be afforded those already statutorily entitled to benefits and recommended the transitional provisions that were eventually adopted by Congress. A bill embodying those principles was drafted and submitted to Congress, where the relevant committees held lengthy hearings and submitted detailed Reports. See S. Rep. No. 93-1163, supra; H. R. Rep. No. 93-1345, supra.
Section 3 (h) of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1974, 88 Stat. 1323, 45 U. S. C. § 231b (h), provides in pertinent part:
“(1) The amount of the annuity ... of an individual who (A) will have (i) rendered service as an employee to an employer, or as an employee representative, during the calendar year 1974, or (ii) had a current connection with the railroad industry on December 31, 1974, or at the time his annuity under section 2 (a)(1) of this Act began to accrue, or (iii) completed twenty-five years of service prior to January 1, 1975, and (B) will have (i) completed ten years of service prior to January 1, 1975, and (ii) been permanently insured under the Society Security Act on December 31, 1974, shall be increased by an amount equal to [the amount of windfall dual benefit he would have received prior to January 1, 1975] ....
“(2) The amount of the annuity ... to an individual who (A) will not have met the conditions set forth in subclause (i), (ii), or (iii) of clause (A) of subdivision (1) of this subsection, but (B) will have (i) completed ten years of service prior to January 1, 1975, and (ii) been permanently insured under the Social Security Act as of December 31 of the calendar year prior to 1975 in which he last rendered service as an employee to an employer, or as an employee representative, shall be increased by an amount equal to the amount ... [of windfall benefit calculated at time he left the railroad service] . . . .”
The relevant Committee Reports stated that the most “difficult problem” was the “manner in which dual benefits should be phased out on an equitable basis.” S. Rep. No. 93-1163, supra, at 11; H. R. Rep. No. 93-1345, supra, at 11.
88 Stat. 1353, see note following 45 U. S. C. §231. The transition provisions in Title II of the bill are not included in the United States Code. The windfall amount for retired employees is preserved by §§ 204 (a) (3) and (4) of the Act.
The term “current connection” is defined in 45 U. S. C. § 231 (o) to mean, in general, employment in the railroad industry in 12 of the preceding 30 calendar months.
The amount of the “windfall component” is greater under subsection (1) than under subsection (2) of 45 U. S. C. §231b (h). The former consists of benefits computed on the basis of social security service through December 31, 1974, while the latter is computed on the basis of social security service only through the year in which the individual left the railroad industry. The difference corresponds to the different dates by which the retired employee must have been permanently insured under the Social Security Act in order to be eligible for any windfall benefit.
Although “the Fifth Amendment contains no equal protection clause, it does forbid discrimination that is 'so unjustifiable as to be violative of due process.’” Schneider v. Rusk, 377 U. S. 163, 168 (1964). Thus, if a federal statute is valid under the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment, it is perforce valid under the Due Process Clause of that Amendment. Richardson v. Belcher, 404 U. S. 78, 81 (1971).
It is somewhat unclear precisely who is and is not within the class certified by the District Court. By its terms, the class certified by the District Court would appear to include those employees who qualified for reduced windfall benefits under § 231b (h) (2) by reason of their qualifying for social security benefits as of the year they left the railroad industry. It appears, however, that the District Court intended to include in the class only those, like appellee Fritz, who subsequently qualified for social security benefits and who are therefore ineligible for even the reduced windfall benefit.
This opinion and Justice Brennan’s dissent cite a number of equal protection cases including Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S. 61 (1911); F. S. Royster Guano Co. v. Virginia, 253 U. S. 412 (1920); Morey v. Doud, 354 U. S. 457 (1957); Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U. S. 603 (1960); Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U. S. 307 (1976); New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U. S. 297 (1976); Johnson v. Robison, 415 U. S. 361 (1974); U. S. Dept. of Agriculture v. Moreno, 413 U. S. 528 (1973); U. S. Dept. of Agriculture v. Murry, 413 U. S. 508 (1973); Weinberger v. Wiesenfeld, 420 U. S. 636 (1975); and James v. Strange, 407 U. S. 128 (1972). The most arrogant legal scholar would not claim that all of these cases applied a uniform or consistent test under equal protection principles. And realistically speaking, we can be no more certain that this opinion will remain undisturbed than were those who joined the opinion in Lindsley, supra, Royster Guano Co., supra, or any of the other cases referred to in this opinion and in the dissenting opinion. But like our predecessors and our successors, we are obliged to apply the equal protection component of the Fifth Amendment as we believe the Constitution requires and in so doing we have no hesitation in asserting, contrary to the dissent, that where social or economic regulations are involved Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471 (1970), and Jefferson v. Hackney, 406 U. S. 535 (1972), together with this case, state the proper application of the test. The comments in the dissenting opinion about the proper cases-for which to look for the correct statement of the equal protection rational-basis standard, and about which cases limit earlier cases, are just that: comments in a dissenting opinion.
The "current connection” test has been used since 1946 as an eligibility requirement for both occupational disability and survivor annuities, 45 U. S. C. §§ 231a (a) (1) (iv), 231a (d)(1) (ch. 709, §§203, 205, 213, 60 Stat. 726-735), and it has been used since 1966 in determining eligibility for a supplemental annuity. 45 U. S. C. § 231a (b)(1). (Pub. L. 89-699, § 1, 80 Stat. 1073.)
Appellee contends that the “current connection” test is impermissible because it draws a distinction not on the duration of employment but rather on the time of employment. But this Court has clearly held that Congress may condition eligibility for benefits such as these on the character as well as the duration of an employee’s ties to an industry. Mathews v. Diaz, 426 U. S. 67, 83 (1976).
As we have recently stated: “The Constitution presumes that, absent some reason to infer antipathy, even improvident decisions will eventually be rectified by the democratic process and that judicial intervention is generally unwarranted no matter how unwisely we may think a political branch has acted.” Vance v. Bradley, 440 U. S. 93, 97 (1979) (footnote omitted).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion to dismiss the appeal for want of jurisdiction is granted. 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2). Treating the papers whereon the appeal was taken as a petition for writ of certiorari, 28 U. S. C. § 2103, the petition is granted. 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (3).
Stephen Girard, by a will probated in 1831, left a fund in trust for the erection, maintenance, and operation of a “college.” The will provided that the college was to admit “as many poor white male orphans, between the ages of six and ten years, as the said income shall be adequate to maintain.” The will named as trustee the City of Philadelphia. The provisions of the will were carried out by the State and City and the college was opened in 1848. Since 1869, by virtue of an act of the Pennsylvania Legislature, the trust has been administered and the college operated by the “Board of Directors of City Trusts of the City of Philadelphia.” Pa. Laws 1869, No. 1258, p. 1276; Purdon’s Pa. Stat. Ann., 1957, Tit. 53, § 16365.
In February 1954, the petitioners Foust and Felder applied for admission to the college. They met all qualifications except that they were Negroes. For this reason the Board refused to admit them. They petitioned the Orphans’ Court of Philadelphia County for an order directing the Board to admit them, alleging that their exclusion because of race violated the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution. The State of Pennsylvania and the City of Philadelphia joined in the suit also contending the Board’s action violated the Fourteenth Amendment. The Orphans’ Court rejected the constitutional contention and refused to order the applicants’ admission. 4 D. & C. 2d 671 (Orph. Ct. Philadelphia). This was affirmed by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. 386 Pa. 548, 127 A. 2d 287.
The Board which operates Girard College is an agency of the State of Pennsylvania. Therefore, even though the Board was acting as a trustee, its refusal to admit Foust and Felder to the college because they were Negroes was discrimination by the State. Such discrimination is forbidden by the Fourteenth Amendment. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania is reversed and the cause is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
In 1987, respondent Kenneth T. Richey was tried in Ohio for aggravated murder committed in the course of a felony. Evidence showed that respondent set fire to the apartment of his neighbor, Hope Collins, in an attempt to kill his ex-girlfriend and her new boyfriend, who were spending the night together in the apartment below. The intended victims escaped unharmed, but Hope Collins’ 2-year-old daughter Cynthia died in the fire. At trial, the State presented evidence of respondent’s intent to kill his ex-girlfriend and her boyfriend, but not of specific intent to kill Cynthia Collins. The State also offered expert forensic evidence to show that the fire had been started deliberately. Respondent did not contest this forensic evidence at trial because his retained arson expert had reported that the State’s evidence conclusively established arson. Respondent was convicted of aggravated felony murder on a theory of transferred intent and sentenced to death. His conviction and sentence were affirmed on direct appeal, where he was represented by new counsel.
Respondent sought postconviction relief in state court. The state trial court denied his request for an evidentiary hearing and denied relief on all claims, and the state appellate court affirmed. Respondent then sought federal habeas relief. The District Court permitted discovery on certain issues, but ultimately denied all of respondent’s claims. The Sixth Circuit reversed, holding that respondent was entitled to habeas relief on two alternative grounds. First, that transferred intent was not a permissible theory for aggravated felony murder under Ohio law, and that the evidence of direct intent was constitutionally insufficient to support conviction. Second, that the performance of respondent’s trial counsel had been constitutionally deficient under Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984), in his retaining and mishandling of his arson expert and in his inadequate treatment of the State’s expert testimony.
We now grant the State’s petition for writ of certiorari and vacate the judgment below.
HH
The Sixth Circuit erred in holding that the doctrine of transferred intent was inapplicable to aggravated felony murder for the version of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2903.01(B) (Anderson 1982) under which respondent was convicted. See Richey v. Mitchell, 395 F. 3d 660, 675 (2005). The Ohio Supreme Court’s interpretation of that section, as announced in its review of respondent’s case, directly contradicts the Sixth Circuit’s analysis:
“The fact that the intended victims escaped harm, and that an innocent child, Cynthia Collins, was killed instead, does not alter Richey’s legal and moral responsibility. ‘The doctrine of transferred intent is firmly rooted in Ohio law.’ Very simply, ‘the culpability of a scheme designed to implement the calculated decision to kill is not altered by the fact that the scheme is directed at someone other than the actual victim.’” State v. Richey, 64 Ohio St. 3d 353, 364, 595 N. E. 2d 915, 925 (1992) (citations omitted).
This statement was dictum, since the only sufficiency-of-evidence elaim raised by respondent pertained to his setting of the fire. Nonetheless, its explanation of Ohio law was perfectly clear and unambiguous. We have repeatedly held that a state court’s interpretation of state law, including one announced on direct appeal of the challenged conviction, binds a federal court sitting in habeas corpus. Estelle v. McGuire, 502 U. S. 62, 67-68 (1991); Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S. 684, 691 (1975).
The Sixth Circuit held that the Ohio Supreme Court’s opinion should not be read to endorse transferred intent in respondent’s case because such a construction would likely constitute “an unforeseeable and retroactive judicial expansion of narrow and precise statutory language,” Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 347, 352 (1964), in violation of the Due Process Clause. 395 F. 3d, at 677 (citing United States v. Lanier, 520 U. S. 259 (1991)-, Bouie, 378 U. S., at 351). It is doubtful whether this principle of fair notice has any application to a case of transferred intent, where the defendant’s contemplated conduct was exactly what the relevant statute forbade, see id., at 351. And it is further doubtful whether the doctrine of constitutional doubt permits such a flatly countertextual interpretation of what the Ohio Supreme Court said, see Salinas v. United States, 522 U. S. 52, 59-60 (1997). But assuming all that, Ohio law at the time of respondent’s offense provided fully adequate notice of the applicability of transferred intent. The relevant mens rea provision in § 2903.01(D) required only that “[n]o person shall be convicted of aggravated murder unless he is specifically found to have intended to cause the death of another.” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2903.01(D) (Anderson 1982) (emphasis added). Respondent’s intention to kill his ex-girlfriend and her boyfriend plainly came within this provision. There was no reason to read “another” (countertex-tually) as meaning only “the actual victim,” since the doctrine of transferred intent was “firmly rooted in Ohio law.” State v. Sowell, 39 Ohio St. 3d 322, 332, 530 N. E. 2d 1294, 1305 (1988) (citing Wareham v. State, 25 Ohio St. 601 (1874)). Respondent could not plausibly claim unfair surprise that the doctrine applied in his case. See Lanier, supra, at 269-270 (requiring, as adequate notice for due process purposes, only “reasonable warning,” rather than fundamentally similar prior cases).
The foregoing provision was in effect at the time of respondent’s crime in 1986. The Sixth Circuit reasoned, however, that the following subsequent clause in the version of § 2903.01(D) that existed in 1986 foreclosed transferred intent in this case:
“If a jury in an aggravated murder case is instructed that a person who commits or attempts to commit any offense listed in division (B) of this section may be inferred, because he engaged in a common design with others to commit the offense by force or violence or because the offense and the manner of its commission would be likely to produce death, to have intended to cause the death of any person who is killed during the commission of . . . the offense, the jury also shall be instructed that ... it is to consider all evidence introduced by the prosecution to indicate the person’s intent and by the person to indicate his lack of intent in determining whether the person specifically intended to cause the death of the person killed . . . .” Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 2903.01(D) (Anderson 1982) (emphasis added).
Contrary to the Sixth Circuit’s reading, see 395 F. 3d, at 673, this clause by its terms did not apply to every case in which the defendant was charged with aggravated felony murder, but rather only to those in which intent to kill was sought to be proved from the inherent dangerousness of the relevant felony. See State v. Phillips, 74 Ohio St. 3d 72, 100, 656 N. E. 2d 643, 668 (1995) (“R. C. § 2903.01(D) does not apply in this case because the trial court never instructed that the jury could infer purpose to kill from the commission of an underlying felony in a manner ‘likely to produce death’”). Here, however, intent to kill was proved directly. It was not inferred from the dangerousness of the arson; it was shown to be the purpose of the arson.
The Sixth Circuit also argued that dicta in a case decided by an intermediate Ohio appellate court, prior to the Ohio Supreme Court’s opinion here, rejected transferred intent for respondent’s crime, and thus rendered its application in respondent’s case unforeseeable and retroactive. 395 F. 3d, at 675-676 (citing State v. Mullins, 76 Ohio App. 3d 633, 602 N. E. 2d 769 (1992)). But that case was decided long after the 1986 offense for which respondent was convicted, and thus has no bearing on whether the law at the time of the charged conduct was clear enough to provide fair notice. Lanier, supra; see also Marks v. United States, 430 U. S. 188, 196 (1977).
Because the Sixth Circuit disregarded the Ohio Supreme Court’s authoritative interpretation of Ohio law, its ruling on sufficiency of the evidence was erroneous.
J — I » — I
The Sixth Circuit also held that respondent was entitled to relief on the ground that the state courts’ denial of his Strickland claim was unreasonable. 395 F. 3d, at 688. As petitioner contends, the Sixth Circuit erred in its adjudication of this claim by relying on evidence that was not properly presented to the state habeas courts without first determining (1) whether respondent was at fault for failing to develop the factual bases for his claims in state court, see Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 420, 430-432 (2000), or (2) whether respondent satisfied the criteria established by 28 U. S. C. § 2254(e)(2). See Holland v. Jackson, 542 U. S. 649, 653 (2004) (per curiam). Similarly, the Sixth Circuit erred by disregarding the state habeas courts’ conclusion that the forensic expert whom respondent’s trial counsel hired was a “properly qualified expert,” App. to Pet. for Cert. 347a, without analyzing whether the state court’s factual finding had been rebutted by clear and convincing evidence. See 28 U. S. C. § 2254(e)(1). Compare App. to Pet. for Cert. 347a with 395 F. 3d, at 683. In addition, as petitioner contends, the Sixth Circuit erred in relying on certain grounds that were apparent from the trial record but not raised on direct appeal — namely, that trial counsel (1) inadequately cross-examined experts called by the State, (2) erred by prematurely placing the forensic expert counsel had hired on the witness list, and (3) failed to present competing scientific evidence against the State’s forensic experts — without first determining whether respondent’s procedural default of these subclaims could be excused by a showing of cause and prejudice or by the need to avoid a miscarriage of justice. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 340a-341a, 351a-354a (state courts’ holding that these subclaims should have been raised on direct appeal); id., at 109a-110a (District Court’s holding that this default was not excusable under Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U. S. 722, 749-750 (1991)). Respondent, however, contends that the State failed to preserve its objection to the Sixth Circuit’s reliance on evidence not presented in state court by failing to raise this argument properly before the Sixth Circuit. See Brief in Opposition 24-26. Because the relevant errors had not yet occurred, the Sixth Circuit has had no opportunity to address the argument that the State failed to preserve its Holland argument. It is better situated to address this argument in the first instance.
* * *
For the foregoing reásons, the judgment of the Sixth 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:
|
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 concerns the proper apportionment between New Mexico and Colorado of the water of an interstate river. The water of the Vermejo River is at present fully appropriated by users in New Mexico. Colorado seeks to divert water for future uses. Invoking this Court’s original jurisdiction under Art. Ill, §2, of the Constitution, Colorado brought this action for an equitable apportionment of the water of the Vermejo River. A Special Master appointed by the Court recommended that Colorado be permitted a diversion of 4,000 acre-feet per year. The case is before us on New Mexico’s exceptions to the Special Master’s report.
f — 1
The Vermejo River is a small, nonnavigable river that originates in the snow belt of the Rocky Mountains in southern Colorado and flows southeasterly into New Mexico for a distance of roughly 55 miles before it joins the Canadian River. The major portion of the river is located in New Mexico. The Colorado portion consists of three main tributaries that combine to form the Vermejo River proper approximately one mile below the Colorado-New Mexico border. At present there are no uses of the water of the Vermejo River in Colorado, and no use or diversion has ever been made in Colorado. In New Mexico, by contrast, farmers and industrial users have diverted water from the Vermejo for many years. In 1941 a New Mexico state court issued a decree apportioning the water of the Vermejo River among the various New Mexico users.
In 1975, a Colorado corporation, Colorado Fuel and Iron Steel Corp. (C. F. & I.), obtained in Colorado state court a conditional right to divert 75 cubic feet per second from the headwaters of the Vermejo River. C. F. & I. proposed a transmountain diversion of the water to a tributary of the Purgatoire River in Colorado to be used for industrial development and other purposes. Upon learning of this decree, the four principal New Mexico users — Phelps Dodge Corp. (Phelps Dodge), Kaiser Steel Corp. (Kaiser Steel), Vermejo Park Corp. (Vermejo Park), and the Vermejo Conservancy District (Conservancy District) — filed suit in the United States District Court for the District of New Mexico, seeking to enjoin any diversion by C. F. & I. that would violate their senior rights. On January 16, 1978, the District Court enjoined C. F. & I. from diverting any water from the Vermejo River in derogation of the senior water rights of New Mexico users. The court found that under the doctrine of prior appropriation, which both New Mexico and Colorado recognize, the New Mexico users were entitled to have their needs fully satisfied because their appropriation was prior in time. C. F. & I. filed a notice of appeal, and the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has stayed its proceedings during the pendency of this case before us.
In June 1978 Colorado moved for leave to file an original complaint in this Court. New Mexico opposed the motion. On April 16, 1979, we granted Colorado’s motion and appointed the Honorable Ewing T. Kerr, Senior Judge of the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming, as Special Master in this case. 441U. S. 902. After a lengthy trial involving an extensive presentation of evidence, the Special Master submitted a report to the Court on January 9, 1982. The report was accepted for filing on February 22, 1982. 455 U. S. 932.
The Special Master found that most of the water of the Vermejo River is consumed by the New Mexico users and that very little, if any, reaches the confluence with the Canadian River. He thus recognized that strict application of the rule of priority would not permit Colorado any diversion since the entire available supply is needed to satisfy the demands of appropriators in New Mexico with senior rights. Nevertheless, applying the principle of equitable apportionment established in our prior cases, he recommended permitting Colorado a transmountain diversion of 4,000 acre-feet of water per year from the headwaters of the Vermejo River. He stated:
“It is the opinion of the Master that a transmountain diversion would not materially affect the appropriations granted by New Mexico for users downstream. A thorough examination of the existing economies in New Mexico convinces the Master that the injury to New Mexico, if any, will be more than offset by the benefit to Colorado.” Report of Special Master 23.
Explaining his conclusion, the Special Master noted that any injury to New Mexico would be restricted to the Conservancy District, the user in New Mexico furthest downstream, since there was sufficient water in the Vermejo River for the three other principal New Mexico water users, Vermejo Park, Kaiser Steel, and Phelps Dodge. He further found that the “Vermejo Conservancy District has never been an economically feasible operation.” Ibid.
The Special Master’s recommendation appears to rest on two alternative grounds: first, that New Mexico could compensate for some or all the Colorado diversion through reasonable water conservation measures; and second, that the injury, if any, to New Mexico would be outweighed by the benefit to Colorado from the diversion. In its various exceptions to his report, New Mexico challenges the Special Master’s interpretation of the law of equitable apportionment. New Mexico maintains that the rule of priority should be strictly applied in this case to preclude Colorado from diverting any water from the Vermejo River. New Mexico also challenges the factual bases of the Special Master’s conclusions that the recommended diversion would not materially affect New Mexico users and that any harm to New Mexico would be offset by the benefits to Colorado.
We conclude that the criteria relied upon by the Special Master comport with the doctrine of equitable apportionment as it has evolved in our prior cases. We thus reject New Mexico’s contention that the Special Master was required to focus exclusively on the rule of priority. However, the report of the Special Master does not contain sufficient factual findings to enable us to assess the correctness of the Special Master’s application of the principle of equitable apportionment to the facts of this case. We therefore remand with instructions to the Special Master to make further findings of fact.
II
Equitable apportionment is the doctrine of federal common law that governs disputes between States concerning their rights to use the water of an interstate stream. Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 98 (1907); Connecticut v. Massachusetts, 282 U. S. 660, 670-671 (1931). It is a flexible doctrine which calls for “the exercise of an informed judgment on a consideration of many factors” to secure a “just and equitable” allocation. Nebraska v. Wyoming, 325 U. S. 589, 618 (1945). We have stressed that in arriving at “the delicate adjustment of interests which must be made,” ibid., we must consider all relevant factors, including:
“physical and climatic conditions, the consumptive use of water in the several sections of the river, the character and rate of return flows, the extent of established uses, the availability of storage water, the practical effect of wasteful uses on downstream areas, [and] the damage to upstream areas as compared to the benefits to downstream areas if a limitation is imposed on the former.” Ibid.
Our aim is always to secure a just and equitable apportionment “without quibbling over formulas.” New Jersey v. New York, 283 U. S. 336, 343 (1931).
The laws of the contending States concerning intrastate water disputes are an important consideration governing equitable apportionment. When, as in this case, both States recognize the doctrine of prior appropriation, priority becomes the “guiding principle” in an allocation between competing States. Nebraska v. Wyoming, supra, at 618. But state law is not controlling. Rather, the just apportionment of interstate waters is a question of federal law that depends “upon a consideration of the pertinent laws of the contending States and all other relevant facts.” Connecticut v. Massachusetts, supra, at 670-671 (emphasis added).
In reaching his recommendation the Special Master did not focus exclusively on the rule of priority, but considered other factors such as the efficiency of current uses in New Mexico and the balance of benefits to Colorado and harm to New Mexico. New Mexico contends that it is improper tc consider these other factors. It maintains that this Court has strictly applied the rule of priority when apportioning water between States adhering to the prior appropriation doctrine, and has departed from that rule only to protect an existing economy built upon junior appropriations. Since there is no existing economy in Colorado dependent upon the use of water from the Vermejo River, New Mexico contends that the rule of priority is controlling. We disagree with this inflexible interpretation of the doctrine of equitable apportionment.
Our prior cases clearly establish that equitable apportionment will protect only those rights to water that are “reasonably required and applied.” Wyoming v. Colorado, 259 U. S. 419, 484 (1922). Especially in those Western States where water is scarce, “[tjhere must be no waste ... of the ‘treasure’ of a river. . . . Only diligence and good faith will keep the privilege alive.” Washington v. Oregon, 297 U. S. 517, 527 (1936). Thus, wasteful or inefficient uses will not be protected. See ibid.; Nebraska v. Wyoming, supra, at 618. Similarly, concededly senior water rights will be deemed forfeited or substantially diminished where the rights have not been exercised or asserted with reasonable diligence. Washington v. Oregon, supra, at 527-528; Colorado v. Kansas, 320 U. S. 383, 394 (1943).
We have invoked equitable apportionment not only to require the reasonably efficient use of water, but also to impose on States an affirmative duty to take reasonable steps to conserve and augment the water supply of an interstate stream. In Wyoming v. Colorado, Wyoming brought suit to prevent a proposed diversion by Colorado from the Laramie River. This Court calculated the dependable supply available to both States, subtracted the senior Wyoming uses, and permitted Colorado to divert an amount not exceeding the balance. In calculating the dependable supply we placed on each State the duty to employ “financially and physically feasible” measures “adapted to conserving and equalizing the natural flow.” 259 U. S., at 484 (emphasis added). Adopting a position similar to New Mexico’s in this case, Wyoming objected to a requirement that it employ conservation measures to facilitate Colorado’s proposed uses. The answer we gave is especially relevant to this case:
“The question here is not what one State should do for the other, but how each should exercise her relative rights in the waters of this interstate stream. . . . Both States recognize that conservation within practicable limits is essential in order that needless waste may be prevented and the largest feasible use may be secured. This comports with the all-pervading spirit of the doctrine of appropriation and takes appropriate heed of the natural necessities out of which it arose. We think that doctrine lays on each of these States a duty to exercise her right reasonably and in a manner calculated to conserve the common supply.” Ibid,.
We conclude that it is entirely appropriate to consider the extent to which reasonable conservation measures by New Mexico might offset the proposed Colorado diversion and thereby minimize any injury to New Mexico users. Similarly, it is appropriate to consider whether Colorado has undertaken reasonable steps to minimize the amount of diversion that will be required.
In addition, we have held that in an equitable apportionment of interstate waters it is proper to weigh the harms and benefits to competing States. In Kansas v. Colorado, where we first announced the doctrine of equitable apportionment, we found that users in Kansas were injured by Colorado’s upstream diversions from the Arkansas River. 206 U. S., at 113-114, 117. Yet we declined to grant any relief to Kansas on the ground that the great benefit to Colorado outweighed the detriment to Kansas. Id., at 100-101, 113-114, 117. Similarly, in Nebraska v. Wyoming, we held that water rights in Wyoming and Nebraska, which under state law were senior, had to yield to the “countervailing equities” of an established economy in Colorado even though it was based on junior appropriations. 325 U. S., at 622. We noted that the rule of priority should not be strictly applied where it “would work more hardship” on the junior user “than it would bestow benefits” on the senior user. Id., at 619. See also Washington v. Oregon, swpra, at 522. The same principle is applicable in balancing the benefits of a diversion for proposed uses against the possible harms to existing uses. See, e. g., Wyoming v. Colorado, supra (placing upon Wyoming, the State with senior water rights, a duty to conserve water in order to facilitate a diversion for a proposed use in Colorado); Connecticut v. Massachusetts, 282 U. S. 660 (1931); New Jersey v. New York, 283 U. S. 336 (1931).
We recognize that the equities supporting the protection of existing economies will usually be compelling. The harm that may result from disrupting established uses is typically certain and immediate, whereas the potential benefits from a proposed diversion may be speculative and remote. Under some circumstances, however, the countervailing equities supporting a diversion for future use in one State may justify the detriment to existing users in another State. This may be the case, for example, where the State seeking a diversion demonstrates by clear and convincing evidence that the benefits of the diversion substantially outweigh the harm that might result. In the determination of whether the State proposing the diversion has carried this burden, an important consideration is whether the existing users could offset the diversion by reasonable conservation measures to prevent waste. This approach comports with our emphasis on flexibility in equitable apportionment and also accords sufficient protection to existing uses.
We conclude, therefore, that in the determination of an equitable apportionment of the water of the Vermejo River the rule of priority is not the sole criterion. While the equities supporting the protection of established, senior uses are substantial, it is also appropriate to consider additional factors relevant to a just apportionment, such as the conservation measures available to both States and the balance of harm and benefit that might result from the diversion sought by Colorado.
t — 4 ► — I * — I
Applying the doctrine of equitable apportionment, the Special Master recommended that Colorado be permitted to divert 4,000 acre-feet of water per year from the headwaters of the Vermejo River. Because all of the water of the Vermejo River is currently consumed by New Mexico appropriators, the recommended diversion would necessarily reduce the amount of water available to New Mexico.
In explaining the basis for his recommendation, the Special Master stated that the diversion would not “materially affect” existing New Mexico appropriations. This conclusion appears to reflect certain assumptions about the ability of New Mexico users to implement water conservation measures. See supra, at 181, and n. 7. The Special Master also concluded that any injury to New Mexico would be “more than offset” by the benefits to Colorado. Report of Special Master 23. Both the availability of conservation measures and a weighing of the harm and benefits that would result from the diversion are factors relevant to the determination of a just and equitable apportionment. However, the Special Master did not clearly state the factual findings supporting his reliance on these factors. Accordingly, we remand for additional factual findings. In particular, we request specific findings concerning the following areas:
(1) the existing uses of water from the Vermejo River, and the extent to which present levels of use reflect current or historical water shortages or the failure of existing users to develop their uses diligently;
(2) the available supply of water from the Vermejo River, accounting for factors such as variations in streamflow, the needs of current users for a continuous supply, the possibilities of equalizing and enhancing the water supply through water storage and conservation, and the availability of substitute sources of water to relieve the demand for water from the Vermejo River;
(3) the extent to which reasonable conservation measures in both States might eliminate waste and inefficiency in the use of water from the Vermejo River;
(4) the precise nature of the proposed interim and ultimate use in Colorado of water from the Vermejo River, and the benefits that would result from a diversion to Colorado;
(5) the injury, if any, that New Mexico would likely suffer as a result of any such diversion, taking into account the extent to which reasonable conservation measures could offset the diversion.
IV
The flexible doctrine of equitable apportionment clearly extends to a State’s claim to divert water for future uses. Whether such a diversion should be permitted will turn on an examination of all factors relevant to a just apportionment. It is proper, therefore, to consider factors such as the extent to which reasonable conservation measures by existing users can offset the reduction in supply due to diversion, and whether the benefits to the State seeking the diversion substantially outweigh the harm to existing uses in another State. We remand for specific factual findings relevant to determining a just and equitable apportionment of the water of the Vermejo River between Colorado and New Mexico.
It is so ordered.
Phelps Dodge Corp. v. W. S. Land and Cattle Co., No. 7201 (Dist. Ct. Colfax Cty., Nov. 13, 1941).
In re Application for Water Rights of C. F. & I. Corp., No. W-3961 (Dist. Ct., W. Div. No. 2, June 20, 1975).
Kaiser Steel Corp. v. C. F. & I. Steel Corp., Civ. No. 76-244 (NM 1978). The injunction was not based on a determination of the right of the two States under the law of equitable apportionment, since neither Colorado nor New Mexico was a party to the action.
N. M. Const., Art. XVI, §2; Colo. Const., Art. XVI, §§5, 6. The administration of water rights in each State is governed by statute. Colo. Rev. Stat. §37-92-101 et seq. (1973 and Supp. 1982); N. M. Stat. Ann. § 72-1-1 et seq. (1978 and Supp. 1982).
The prior appropriation doctrine and the riparian doctrine are the two basic doctrines governing the rights to the use of water. Under the prior appropriation doctrine, recognized in most of the Western States, water rights are acquired by diverting water and applying it for a beneficial purpose. A distinctive feature of the prior appropriation doctrine is the rule of priority, under which the relative rights of water users are ranked in the order of their seniority. Under the riparian doctrine, recognized primarily in the Eastern, Midwestern and Southern States, the owner of land contiguous to a watercourse is entitled to have the stream flow by or through his land undiminished in quantity and unpolluted in quality, except that any riparian proprietor may make whatever use of the water that is reasonable with respect to the needs of other appropriators.
Appropriative rights do not depend on land ownership and are acquired and maintained by actual use. Riparian rights, by contrast, originate from land ownership and remain vested even if unexercised. Appropri-ative rights are fixed in quantity; riparian rights are variable depending on streamflow and subject to the reasonable uses of others. See generally 1 R. Clark, Waters and Water Rights (1967); W. Hutchins, Selected Problems in the Law of Water Rights in the West (U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Mise. Pub. No. 418, 1942); 1 W. Hutchins, Water Rights Laws in the Nineteen Western States (U. S. Dept. of Agriculture, Misc. Pub. No. 1206, 1971).
An acre-foot is a volumetric measurement which means the amount of water required to cover one acre of ground one foot deep. One acre-foot equals 43,560 cubic feet or 325,900 gallons of water.
The Conservancy District is the largest user of water from the Vermejo River in New Mexico. It consists of over 60 farms irrigated by an extensive system of canals and reservoirs. The United States Maxwell Wildlife Refuge is also located within the District. In the early 1950’s the District was part of a large reclamation project funded by the Federal Government.
Vermejo Park diverts water primarily to irrigate land used to grow hay for its cattle operation. Kaiser Steel uses water primarily for its coal facilities. Phelps Dodge leases its rights to Kaiser Steel and to the C. S. Springer Cattle Co.
This is a fair reading of the Special Master’s conclusion that New Mexico users would not be “materially affected” by the recommended diversion. While the report does not expressly state that Colorado’s diversion might be offset by reasonable conservation efforts, it does refer specifically to the waste and inefficiency of the Conservancy District’s system of water canals. Report of Special Master 8, 28. In addition, in its second exception to the report New Mexico acknowledges that the Special Master based his conclusion that New Mexico users would not be materially affected on certain findings concerning waste and inefficiency within the Conservancy District.
New Mexico contends that the Special Master relied on a third ground, namely, that the mere fact that the Vermejo River originates in Colorado automatically entitles Colorado to a share of the water of the Vermejo River. See id., at 8. To the extent that the Special Master applied such a per se rule of apportionment, we reject it as inconsistent with our emphasis on flexibility in equitable apportionment.
New Mexico also contends that Colorado is improperly suing directly and solely for the benefit of a private individual — C. F. & I. — in violation of the Eleventh Amendment, and that Colorado’s suit is barred by laches. We find no merit to these claims.
Because the State of Colorado has a substantial interest in the outcome of this suit, New Mexico may not invoke its Eleventh Amendment immunity from federal actions by citizens of another State. The portion of the Vermejo River in Colorado is owned by the State in trust for its citizens. Colo. Const., Art. XVI, § 5. While C. F. & I. will most likely be the primary user of any water diverted from the Vermejo River, other Colorado citizens may jointly use the water or purchase water rights in the future. In any event, Colorado surely has a sovereign interest in the beneficial effects of a diversion on the general prosperity of the State. Faced with a similar set of circumstances in Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S. 46, 99 (1907), we concluded that “[t]he controversy rises . . . above a mere question of local private right and involves a matter of state interest and must be considered from that standpoint.”
We also conclude that Colorado is not barred by laches from seeking an equitable apportionment. For the reasons that we elaborate infra, at 186-188, we hold that under some circumstances the countervailing equities supporting a diversion of water for a future use in one State may justify the detriment suffered by existing users in another State. Therefore the mere fact that Colorado has no existing uses of the waters of the Vermejo River and that current users in New Mexico may suffer some detriment from a diversion does not bar Colorado’s suit for an equitable apportionment for future uses. These circumstances, however, do bear on the burden of proof that Colorado must satisfy to justify the possible disruption of existing uses. See infra, at 187-188, and n. 13. A contrary conclusion is not dictated by Washington v. Oregon, 297 U. S. 517, 528 (1936), or Colorado v. Kansas, 320 U. S. 383, 394 (1943) (dictum), which merely require established users or holders of water rights to exercise diligence in protecting their rights and putting them to beneficial uses. See infra, at 184.
This description is only roughly accurate, since we did not rigidly follow this procedure in apportioning the Laramie River, but instead departed from a strict application of the rule of priority in numerous respects. For instance, our decree in Wyoming v. Colorado granted Colorado an unqualified right to divert 22,500 acre-feet, even though there were Wyoming appropriations senior to the Colorado appropriations underlying the 22,500 acre-feet grant. 259 U. S., at 480-490. In addition, we granted to Colorado priority to divert a total of 37,750 acre-feet, even though some of the underlying appropriations were junior to a number of Wyoming appropriations. Id., at 495-496. The effect was to guarantee water to junior appropriators in Colorado to the potential detriment of senior appropriators downstream in Wyoming. See 2 R. Clark, Waters and Water Rights § 132.4 (1967).
We thus required Wyoming to enhance and equalize the water supply through “practicable storage and conservation” measures, such as the use of storage facilities similar to those already in use in Wyoming. 259 U. S., at 485.
In Connecticut v. Massachusetts we declined to enjoin Massachusetts’ proposed diversion for future uses. We took into account the impending “serious water shortage” in the Boston area and the absence of “real or substantial injury or damage” to Connecticut. 282 U. S., at 664, 672. Although Connecticut v. Massachusetts, as well as New Jersey v. New York, involved States that follow the riparian rather than the prior appropriation doctrine, see n. 4, supra, our allocation of water for future uses rested on the federal common law of equitable apportionment, which, as we made clear, “is not governed by the same rules of [state] law that are applied . . . for the solution of similar questions of private right.” Connecticut v. Massachusetts, 282 U. S., at 670; see also New Jersey v. New York, 283 U. S., at 342-343. Nothing in those two cases suggested that the apportionment of water for future uses in any way depended on the adherence of both States to the riparian doctrine.
Our cases establish that a State seeking to prevent or enjoin a diversion by another State bears the burden of proving that the diversion will cause it “real or substantial injury or damage.” Connecticut v. Massachusetts, supra, at 672. See also New Jersey v. New York, supra, at 344-345; Kansas v. Colorado, 206 U. S., at 117; Colorado v. Kansas, 320 U. S., at 393-394. This rule applies even if the State seeking to prevent or enjoin a diversion is the nominal defendant in a lawsuit. In Colorado v. Kansas, for instance, Colorado sued Kansas seeking to enjoin further lawsuits by-Kansas water users against Colorado users. Although Kansas was the defendant, we granted Colorado an injunction based on Kansas’ failure to sustain the burden of showing that the Colorado diversions had “worked a serious detriment to the substantial interests of Kansas.” Id., at 400; see also id., at 389-390.
New Mexico must therefore bear the initial burden of showing that a diversion by Colorado will cause substantial injury to the interests of New Mexico. In this case New Mexico has met its burden since any diversion by Colorado, unless offset by New Mexico at its own expense, will necessarily reduce the amount of water available to New Mexico users.
The burden has therefore shifted to Colorado to establish that a diversion should nevertheless be permitted under the principle of equitable apportionment. Thus, with respect to whether reasonable conservation measures by New Mexico will offset the loss of water due to Colorado’s diversion, or whether the benefit to Colorado from the diversion will substantially outweigh the possible harm to New Mexico, Colorado will bear the burden of proof. It must show, in effect, that without such a diversion New Mexico would be using “more than its equitable share of the benefits of a stream.” Id., at 394. Moreover, Colorado must establish not only that its claim is of a “serious magnitude,” but also that its position is supported by “clear and convincing evidence.” Connecticut v. Massachusetts, supra, at 669. See also Colorado v. Kansas, supra, at 393; Washington v. Oregon, 297 U. S., at 522.
The Special Master may make any other factual findings that he considers relevant. Additional hearings may be held, although they may be unnecessary in light of the extensive evidence already presented at trial. Upon remand, the Special Master is free to reaffirm his original recommendation or make a different recommendation on the basis of the evidence and applicable principles of equitable apportionment.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is whether a criminal defendant, abducted to the United States from a nation with which it has an extradition treaty, thereby acquires a defense to the jurisdiction of this country’s courts. We hold that he does not, and that he may be tried in federal district court for violations of the criminal law of the United States.
Respondent, Humberto Alvarez-Machain, is a citizen and resident of Mexico. He was indicted for participating in the kidnap and murder of United States Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) special agent Enrique Camarena-Salazar and a Mexican pilot working with Camarena, Alfredo Zavala-Avelar. The DEA believes that respondent, a medical doctor, participated in the murder by prolonging Agent Camare-na’s life so that others could further torture and interrogate him. On April 2, 1990, respondent was forcibly kidnaped from his medical office in Guadalajara, Mexico, to be flown by private plane to El Paso, Texas, where he was arrested by DEA officials. The District Court concluded that DEA agents were responsible for respondent’s abduction, although they were not personally involved in it. United States v. Caro-Quintero, 745 F. Supp. 599, 602-604, 609 (CD Cal. 1990).
Respondent moved to dismiss the indictment, claiming that his abduction constituted outrageous governmental conduct, and that the District Court lacked jurisdiction to try him because he was abducted in violation of the extradition treaty between the United States and Mexico. Extradition Treaty, May 4, 1978, [1979] United States-United Mexican States, 31 U. S. T. 5059, T. I. A. S. No. 9656 (Extradition Treaty or Treaty). The District Court rejected the outrageous governmental conduct claim, but held that it lacked jurisdiction to try respondent because his abduction violated the Extradition Treaty. The District Court discharged respondent and ordered that he be repatriated to Mexico. 745 F. Supp., at 614.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of the indictment and the repatriation of respondent, relying on its decision in United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 939 F. 2d 1341 (CA9 1991), cert. pending, No. 91-670. 946 F. 2d 1466 (1991). In Verdugo, the Court of Appeals held that the forcible abduction of a Mexican national with the authorization or participation of the United States violated the Extradition Treaty between the United States and Mexico. Although the Treaty does not expressly prohibit such abductions, the Court of Appeals held that the “purpose” of the Treaty was violated by a forcible abduction, 939 F. 2d, at 1350, which, along with a formal protest by the offended nation, would give a defendant the right to invoke the Treaty violation to defeat jurisdiction of the District Court to try him. The Court of Appeals further held that the proper remedy for such a violation would be dismissal of the indictment and repatriation of the defendant to Mexico.
In the instant case, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s finding that the United States had authorized the abduction of respondent, and that letters from the Mexican Government to the United States Government served as an official protest of the Treaty violation. Therefore, the Court of Appeals ordered that the indictment against respondent be dismissed and that respondent be repatriated to Mexico. 946 F. 2d, at 1467. We granted certiorari, 502 U. S. 1024 (1992), and now reverse.
Although we have never before addressed the precise issue raised in the present case, we have previously considered proceedings in claimed violation of an extradition treaty and proceedings against a defendant brought before a court by means of a forcible abduction. We addressed the former issue in United States v. Rauscher, 119 U. S. 407 (1886); more precisely, the issue whether the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of 1842, 8 Stat. 576, which governed extraditions between England and the United States, prohibited the prosecution of defendant Rauscher for a crime other than the crime for which he had been extradited. Whether this prohibition, known as the doctrine of specialty, was an intended part of the treaty had been disputed between the two nations for some time. Rauscher, 119 U. S., at 411. Justice Miller delivered the opinion of the Court, which carefully examined the terms and history of the treaty; the practice of nations in regards to extradition treaties; the case law from the States; and the writings of commentators, and reached the following conclusion:
“[A] person who has been brought within the jurisdiction of the court by virtue of proceedings under an extradition treaty, can only be tried for one of the offences described in that treaty, and for the offence with which he is charged in the proceedings for his extradition, until a reasonable time and opportunity have been given him, after his release or trial upon such charge, to return to the country from whose asylum he had been forcibly taken under those proceedings.” Id., at 430 (emphasis added).
In addition, Justice Miller’s opinion noted that any doubt as to this interpretation was put to rest by two federal statutes which imposed the doctrine of specialty' upon extradition treaties to which the United States was a party. Id., at 423. Unlike the case before us today, the defendant in Rauscher had been brought to the United States by way of an extradition treaty; there was nojssue of a forcible abduction.
In Ker v. Illinois, 119 U. S. 436 (1886), also written by Justice Miller and decided the same day as Rauscher, we addressed the issue of a defendant brought before the court by way of a forcible abduction. Frederick Ker had been, tried and convicted in an Illinois, court for larceny; his presence before the court was procured by means of forcible abduction from Peru. A messenger was sent to Lima with the proper warrant to demand Ker by yirtue of the extradition treaty between Peru and the United States: The messenger, however, disdained reliance on-the treaty processes,, and instead forcibly kidnaped Ker and brought him to the United States. We distinguished Ker’s case from Rauscher, on the basis that Ker was not brought into the United States by virtue of the extradition treaty between the United States and Peru, and rejected Ker’s argument that- he had a right under the extradition treaty to be returned to this country only in accordance with its terms. We rejected Ker’s due process argument more broadly, holding in line with “the highest authorities” that “such forcible abduction is no sufficient reason why the party should not answer when brought within the jurisdiction of the court which has the right to try him for such an offence, and presents no valid objection to his trial in such court.” Ker, supra, at 444.
In Frisbie v. Collins, 342 U. S. 519, rehearing denied, 343 U. S. 937 (1952), we applied the rule in Ker to a case in which the defendant had been kidnaped in Chicago by Michigan officers and brought to trial in Michigan. We upheld the conviction over objections based on the Due Process Clause and the federal Kidnaping Act and stated:
“This Court has never departed from the rule announced in [Ker] that the power of a court to try a person for crime is not impaired by the fact that he had been brought within the court’s jurisdiction by reason of a ‘forcible abduction.’ No persuasive reasons are now presented to justify overruling this line of cases. They rest on the sound basis that due process of law is satisfied when one present in court is convicted of crime after having been fairly apprized of the charges against him and after a fair trial in accordance with constitutional procedural safeguards. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires a court to permit a guilty person rightfully convicted to escape justice because he was brought to trial against his will.” Frisbie, supra, at 522 (citation and footnote omitted).
The only differences between Ker and the present case are that Ker was decided on the premise that there was no governmental involvement in the abduction, 119 U. S., at 443; and Peru, from which Ker was abducted, did not object to his prosecution. Respondent finds these differences to be dispositive, as did the Court of Appeals in Verdugo, 939 F. 2d, at 1346, contending that they show that respondent’s prosecution, like the prosecution of Rauscher, violates the implied terms of a valid extradition treaty. The Government, on the other hand, argues that Rauscher stands as an “exception” to the rule in Ker only when an extradition treaty is invoked, and the terms of the treaty provide that its breach will limit the jurisdiction of a court. Brief for United States 17. Therefore, our first inquiry must be whether the abduction of respondent from Mexico violated the Extradition Treaty between the United States and Mexico. If we conclude that the Treaty does not prohibit respondent’s abduction, the rule in Ker applies, and the court need not inquire as to how respondent came before it.
In construing a treaty, as in construing a statute, we first look to its terms to determine its meaning. Air France v. Saks, 470 U. S. 392, 397 (1985); Valentine v. United States ex rel. Neidecker, 299 U. S. 5, 11 (1936). The Treaty says nothing about the obligations of the United States and Mexico to refrain from forcible abductions of people from the territory of the other nation, or the consequences under the Treaty if such an abduction occurs. Respondent submits that Article 22(1) of the Treaty, which states that it “shall apply to offenses specified in Article 2 [including murder] committed before and after this Treaty enters into force,” 31 U. S. T., at 5073-5074, evidences an intent to make application of the Treaty mandatory for those offenses. However, the more natural conclusion is that Article 22 was included to ensure that the Treaty was applied to extraditions requested after the Treaty went into force, regardless of when the crime of extradition occurred.
More critical to respondent’s argument is Article 9 of the Treaty, which provides:
“1. Neither Contracting Party shall be bound to deliver up its own nationals, but the executive authority of the requested Party shall, if not prevented by the laws of that Party, have the power to deliver them up if, in its discretion, it be deemed proper to do so.
“2. If extradition is not granted pursuant to paragraph 1 of this Article, the requested Party shall submit the case to its competent authorities for the purpose of prosecution, provided that Party has jurisdiction over the offense.” Id., at 5065.
According to respondent, Article 9 embodies the terms of the bargain which the United States struck: If the United States wishes to prosecute a Mexican national, it may request that individual’s extradition. Upon a request from the United States, Mexico may either extradite the individual or submit the case to the proper authorities for prosecution in Mexico. In this way, respondent reasons, each nation preserved its right to choose whether its nationals would be tried in its own courts or by the courts of the other nation. This preservation of rights would be frustrated if either nation were free to abduct nationals of the other nation for the purposes of prosecution. More broadly, respondent reasons, as did the Court of Appeals, that all the processes and restrictions on the obligation to extradite established by the Treaty would make no sense if either nation were free to resort to forcible kidnaping to gain the presence of an individual for prosecution in a manner not contemplated by the Treaty. Verdugo, supra, at 1350.
We do not read the Treaty in such a fashion. Article 9 does not purport to specify the only way in which one country may gain custody of a national of the other country for the purposes of prosecution. In the absence of an extradition treaty, nations are under no obligation to surrender those in their country to foreign authorities for prosecution. Rauscher, 119 U. S., at 411-412; Factor v. Laubenheimer, 290 U. S. 276, 287 (1933); cf. Valentine v. United States ex rel. Neidecker, supra, at 8-9 (United States may not extradite a citizen in the absence of a statute or treaty obligation). Extradition treaties exist so as to impose mutual obligations to surrender individuals in certain defined sets of circumstances, following established procedures. See 1 J. Moore, A Treatise on Extradition and Interstate Rendition § 72 (1891). The Treaty thus provides a mechanism which would not otherwise exist, requiring, under certain circumstances, the United States and Mexico to extradite individuals to the other country, and establishing the procedures to be followed when the Treaty is invoked.
The history of negotiation and practice under the Treaty also fails to show that abductions outside of the Treaty constitute a violation of the Treaty. As the Solicitor General notes, the Mexican Government was made aware, as early as 1906, of the Ker doctrine, and the United States’ position that it applied to forcible abductions made outside of the terms of the United States-Mexico Extradition Treaty. Nonetheless, the current version of the Treaty, signed in 1978, does not attempt to establish a rule that would in any way curtail the effect of Ker. Moreover, although language which would grant individuals exactly the right sought by respondent had been considered and drafted as early as 1935 by a prominent group of legal scholars sponsored by the faculty of Harvard Law School, no such clause appears in the current Treaty.
Thus, the language of the Treaty, in the context of its history, does not support the proposition that the Treaty prohibits abductions outside of its terms. The remaining question, therefore, is whether the Treaty should be interpreted so as to include an implied term prohibiting prosecution where the defendant’s presence is obtained by means other than those established by the Treaty. See Valentine, 299 U. S., at 17 (“Strictly the question is not whether there had been a uniform practical construction denying the power, but whether the power had been so clearly recognized that the grant should be implied”).
Respondent contends that the Treaty must be interpreted against the backdrop of customary international law, and that international abductions are “so clearly prohibited in international law” that there was no reason to include such a clause in the Treaty itself. Brief for Respondent 11. The international censure of international abductions is further evidenced, according to respondent, by the United Nations Charter and the Charter of the Organization of American States. Id., at 17. Respondent does not argue that these sources of international law provide an independent basis for the right respondent asserts not to be tried in the United States, but rather that they should inform the interpretation of the Treaty terms.
The Court of Appeals deemed it essential, in order for the individual defendant to assert a right under the Treaty, that the affected foreign government had registered a protest. Verdugo, 939 F. 2d, at 1357 (“[I]n the kidnapping case there must be a formal protest from the offended government after the kidnapping”)- Respondent agrees that the right exercised by the individual is derivative of the nation’s right under the Treaty, since nations are authorized, notwithstanding the terms of an extradition treaty, to voluntarily render an individual to the other country on terms completely outside of those provided in the treaty. The formal protest, therefore, ensures that the “offended” nation actually objects to the abduction and has not in some way voluntarily rendered the individual for prosecution. Thus the Extradition Treaty only prohibits gaining the defendant’s presence by means other than those set forth in the Treaty when the nation from which the defendant was abducted objects.
This argument seems to us inconsistent with the remainder of respondent’s argument. The Extradition Treaty has the force of law, and if, as respondent asserts, it is self-executing, it would appear that a court must enforce it on behalf of an individual regardless of the offensiveness of the practice of one nation to the other nation. In Rauscher, the Court noted that Great Britain had taken the position in other cases that the Webster-Ashburton Treaty included the doctrine of specialty, but no importance was attached to whether or not Great Britain had protested the prosecution of Rauscher for the crime of cruel and unusual punishment as opposed to murder.
More fundamentally, the difficulty with the support respondent garners from international law is that none of it relates to the practice of nations in relation to extradition treaties. In Rauscher, we implied a term in the Webster-Ashburton Treaty because of the practice of nations with regard to extradition treaties. In the instant case, respondent would imply terms in the Extradition Treaty from the practice of nations with regards to international law more generally. Respondent would have us find that the Treaty acts as a prohibition against a violation of the general principle of international law that one government may not “exercise its police power in the territory of another state.” Brief for Respondent 16. There are many actions which could be taken by a nation that would violate this principle, including waging war, but it cannot seriously be contended that an invasion of the United States by Mexico would violate the terms of the Extradition Treaty between the two nations.
In sum, to infer from this Treaty and its terms that it prohibits all means of gaining the presence of an individual outside of its terms goes beyond established precedent and practice. In Rauscher, the implication of a doctrine of specialty into the terms of the Webster-Ashburton Treaty, which, by its terms, required the presentation of evidence establishing probable cause of the crime of extradition before extradition was required, was a small step to take. By contrast, to imply from the terms of this Treaty that it prohibits obtaining the presence of an individual by means outside of the procedures the Treaty establishes requires a much larger inferential leap, with only the most general of international law principles to support it. The general principles cited by respondent simply fail to persuade us that we should imply in the . United States-Mexico Extradition Treaty a term prohibiting international abductions.
Respondent and his amici may be correct that respondent’s abduction was “shocking,” Tr. of Oral Arg. 40, and that it may be in violation of general international law principles. Mexico has protested the abduction of respondent through diplomatic notes, App. 33-38, and the decision of whether respondent should be returned to Mexico, as a matter outside of the Treaty, is a matter for the Executive Branch. We conclude, however, that respondent’s abduction was not in violation of the Extradition Treaty between the United States and Mexico, and therefore the rule of Ker v. Illinois is fully applicable to this case. The fact of respondent’s forcible abduction does not therefore prohibit his trial in a court in the United States for violations of the criminal laws of the United States.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.'
So ordered.
Respondent is charged in a sixth superseding indictment with: conspiracy to commit violent acts in furtherance of racketeering activity (in violation of 18 U. S. C. §§371, 1959); committing violent acts in furtherance of racketeering activity (in violation of § 1959(a)(2)); conspiracy to kidnap a federal agent (in violation of §§ 1201(a)(5), (c)); kidnap of a federal agent (in violation of § 1201(a)(5)); and felony murder of a federal agent (in violation of §§ 1111(a), 1114). App. 12-32.
Apparently, DEA officials had attempted to gain respondent’s presence in the United States through informal negotiations with Mexican officials, but were unsuccessful. DEA officials then, through a contact in Mexico, offered to pay a reward and expenses in return for the delivery of respondent to the United States. United States v. Caro-Quintero, 745 F. Supp., at 602-604.
Rene Martin Verdugo-Urquidez was also indicted for the murder of Agent Camarena. In an earlier decision, we held that the Fourth Amendment did not apply to a search by United States agents of Verdugo-Urquidez’ home in Mexico. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U. S. 259 (1990).
The Court of Appeals remanded for an evidentiary hearing as to whether Verdugo’s abduction had been authorized by authorities in the United States. United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 939 F. 2d, at 1362.
Justice Gray, concurring, would have rested the decision on the basis of these Acts of Congress alone. Rauscher, 119 U. S., at 433. Chief Justice Waite dissented, concluding that the treaty did not forbid trial on a charge other than that on which extradition was granted, and that the Acts of Congress did not change the “effect of the treaty.” Id., at 436.
Although the opinion does not explain why the messenger failed to present the warrant to the proper authorities, commentators have suggested that the seizure of Ker in the aftermath of a revolution in Peru provided the messenger with no “proper authorities” to whom the warrant could be presented. See Kester, Some Myths of United States Extradition Law, 76 Geo. L. J. 1441, 1461 (1988).
In the words of Justice Miller, the “treaty was not called into operation, was not relied upon, was not made the pretext of arrest, and the facts show that it was a clear case of kidnapping within the dominions of Peru, without any pretence of authority under the treaty or from the government of the United States.” Ker v. Illinois, 119 U. S., at 443.
Two cases decided during the Prohibition Era in this country have dealt with seizures claiméd to have been in violation of a treaty entered into between the United States and Great Britain to assist the United States in offshore enforcement of its prohibition laws, and to allow British passenger ships to carry liquor while in the waters of the United States. 43 Stat. 1761 (1924). The history of the negotiations leading to the treaty is set forth in Cook v. United States, 288 U. S. 102, 111-118 (1933). In that case we held that the treaty provision for seizure of British vessels operating beyond the 3-mile limit was intended to be exclusive, and that therefore liquor seized from a British vessel in violation of the treaty could not form the basis of a conviction.
In Ford v. United States, 273 U. S. 593 (1927), the argument as to personal jurisdiction was deemed to have been waived.
We have applied Ker to numerous cases where the presence of the defendant was obtained by an interstate abduction. See, e. g., Mahon v. Justice, 127 U. S. 700 (1888); Cook v. Hart, 146 U. S. 183 (1892); Pettibone v. Nichols, 203 U. S. 192, 215-216 (1906).
Ker also was not a national of Peru, whereas respondent is a national of the country from which he was abducted. Respondent finds this difference to be immaterial. Tr. of Oral Arg. 26.
This interpretation is supported by the second clause of Article 22, which provides that “[r]equests for extradition that are under process on the date of the entry into force of this Treaty, shall be resolved in accordance with the provisions of the Treaty of 22 February, 1899,..." Extradition Treaty, May 4, 1978, [1979] United States-United Mexican States, 31 U. S. T. 5059, 5074, T. I. A. S. No. 9656.
In correspondence between the United States and Mexico growing out of the 1905 Martinez incident, in which a Mexican national was abducted from Mexico and brought to the United States for trial, the Mexican Chargé wrote to the Secretary of State protesting that as Martinez’ arrest was made outside of the procedures established in the extradition treaty, “the action pending against the man can not rest [on] any legal foundation.” Letter of Balbino Davalos to Secretary of State, reprinted in Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, H. R. Doc. No. 1, 59th Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 2, p. 1121 (1906). The Secretary of State responded that the exact issue raised by the Martinez incident had been decided by Ker, and that the remedy open to the Mexican Government, namely, a request to the United States for extradition of Martinez’ abductor, had been granted by the United States. Letter of Robert Bacon to Mexican Chargé, reprinted in Papers Relating to the Foreign Relations of the United States, H. R. Doc. No. 1, supra, at 1121-1122.
Respondent and the Court of Appeals stress a statement made in 1881 by Secretary of State James Blaine to the Governor of Texas to the effect that the extradition treaty in its form at that time did not authorize unconsented to abductions from Mexico. Verdugo, 939 F. 2d, at 1354; Brief for Respondent 14. This misses the mark, however, for the Government’s argument is not that the Treaty authorizes the abduction of respondent, but that the Treaty does not prohibit the abduction.
The parties did expressly include the doctrine of specialty in Article 17 of the Treaty, notwithstanding the judicial recognition of it in United States v. Rauseher, 119 U. S. 407 (1886). 31 U. S. T., at 5071-6072.
In Article 16 of the Draft Convention on Jurisdiction with Respect to Crime, the Advisory Committee of the Research in International Law proposed:
“In exercising jurisdiction under this Convention, no State shall prosecute or punish any person who has been brought within its territory or a place subject to its authority by recourse to measures in violation of international law or internationál convention without first obtaining the consent of the State or States whose rights have been violated by such measures.” Harvard Research in International Law, 29 Am. J. Int’l L. 442 (Supp. 1935).
Similarly, the Court of Appeals in Verdugo reasoned that international abductions violate the “purpose” of the Treaty, stating that “[t]he requirements extradition treaties impose constitute a means of safeguarding the sovereignty of the signatory nations, as well as ensuring the fair treatment of individuals.” 939 F. 2d, at 1350. The ambitious purpose ascribed to the Treaty by the Court of Appeals, we believe, places a greater burden on its language and history than they can logically bear. In a broad sense, most international agreements have the common purpose of safeguarding the sovereignty of signatory nations, in that they seek to further peaceful relations between nations. This, however, does not mean that the violation of any principle of international law constitutes a violation of this particular treaty.
In the same category are the examples cited by respondent in which, after a forcible international abduction, the offended nation protested the abduction and the abducting nation then returned the individual to the protesting nation. Brief for Respondent 18, citing, inter alia, 1 Bassiouni, International Extradition: United States Law and Practice § 5.4, pp. 235-237 (2d rev. ed. 1987). These may show the practice of nations under customary international law, but they are of little aid in construing the terms of an extradition treaty, or the authority of a court to later try an individual who has been so abducted. More to the point for our purposes are cases such as The Richmond, 9 Cranch 102 (1815), and The Merino, 9 Wheat. 391 (1824), both of which hold that a seizure of a vessel in violation of international law does not affect the jurisdiction of a United States court to adjudicate rights in connection with the vessel . These cases are discussed, and distinguished, in Cook v. United States, 288 U. S., at 122.
The Mexican Government has also requested from the United States the extradition of two individuals it suspects of having abducted respondent in Mexico, on charges of kidnaping. App. 39-66.
The advantage of the diplomatic approach to the resolution of difficulties between two sovereign nations, as opposed to unilateral action by the courts of one nation, is illustrated by the history of the negotiations leading to the treaty discussed in Cook v. United States, supra. The United States was interested in being able to search British vessels that hovered beyond the 3-mile limit and served as supply ships for motor launches, which took intoxicating liquor from them into ports for further distribution in violation of prohibition laws. The United States initially proposed that both nations agree to searches of the other’s vessels beyond the 3-mile limit; Great Britain rejected such an approach, since it had no prohibition laws and therefore no problem with United States vessels hovering just beyond its territorial waters. The parties appeared to be at loggerheads; then this Court decided Cunard S. S. Co. v. Mellon, 262 U. S. 100 (1923), holding that our prohibition laws applied to foreign merchant ves-seis as well as domestic within the territorial waters of the United States, and that therefore the carrying of intoxicating liquors by foreign passenger ships violated those laws. A treaty was then successfully negotiated, giving the United States the right to seizure beyond the 3-mile limit (which it desired), and giving British passenger ships the right to bring liquor into United States waters so long as the liquor supply was sealed while in those waters (which Great Britain desired). Cook v. United States, 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:
|
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.
Rule 21 (b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that where it appears that an offense was committed in more than one district or division and the court “is satisfied that in the interest of justice the proceeding should be transferred” to another such district or division than the one wherein it is filed, the court shall, upon motion, transfer the case. The respondent filed such a motion to transfer this antitrust prosecution from the Eastern District of Illinois to the District of Minnesota. After a hearing, the trial judge denied this motion on the ground that the factors of convenience, expense and early trial, together with the fact that it “would be more difficult [for the Government] to get a fair and impartial jury in the Minnesota District,” convinced him that “the interest of justice” would not be promoted by a transfer. The respondent then petitioned the Court of Appeals to issue a writ of mandamus directing the transfer. The Court of Appeals found that the trial judge had treated the factor of a fair and impartial trial as the “most important item” in his decision and that this was not an appropriate criterion. It concluded that in addition to “the essential elements of convenience, expense and early trial, constituting ‘interest of justice’ in a civil case,” a criminal case was “impressed with the fundamental historical right of a defendant to be prosecuted in its own environment or district . ...” Upon reviewing the record, the Court of Appeals substituted its own findings for those of the trial judge and ordered the case transferred. 314 F. 2d 369. Chief Judge Hastings dissented. We granted the petition for certiorari in view of the importance of the questions to the prosecution of multi-venue cases. 374 U. S. 825. We believe that the Court of Appeals erred in ordering the transfer and therefore vacate its judgment and remand the case for further consideration by the District Court.
I.
A grand jury sitting at Danville, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Illinois, returned an indictment charging the respondent with violating §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act. The indictment charged an attempt to monopolize and a conspiracy to restrain and monopolize interstate and foreign commerce in pressure-sensitive tape, magnetic recording media and aluminum presensitized lithographic plates. The offense was alleged to have been committed in part in the Eastern District of Illinois, which includes both Danville and East St. Louis. It is agreed that the indictment could have been returned in the District of Minnesota as well as several other districts.
The Court of Appeals found, in contradiction to the finding of the District Court, that a trial in the Eastern District of Illinois would result in unjustifiable increased expenses to the respondent of “at least $100,000, great inconvenience of witnesses, serious disruption of business and interference of contact between the [respondent’s] executives and its trial attorneys . ...” It also found that respondent had no office, plant, or other facility in the Eastern District and that there was less congestion in the docket of the Minnesota District than in the Eastern District of Illinois. The court concluded that this was a “demonstration by proof or admission of the essential elements of convenience, expense and early trial, constituting 'interest of justice’ in a civil case,” which, augmented by the additional consideration that this was a criminal action, compelled the granting of the motion to transfer.
In awarding the mandamus the Court of Appeals placed particular weight on the trial judge’s finding that it “would be more difficult to get a fair and impartial jury in the Minnesota District than in the Eastern District of Illinois.” The Court of Appeals stated that this finding, if true (which it doubted), “would not justify a refusal to make a transfer otherwise proper under rule 21 (b) . . .” and concluded that “it would be an unsound and dangerous innovation in our federal court system for a judge in any district to appraise or even speculate as to the efficacy of the operations of a federal court of concurrent jurisdiction in another district. It follows that no order in any way based upon such reasoning can stand, even under the guise of an exercise of discretion.” The Court of Appeals, by way of footnote, then characterized the consideration of this factor by the trial judge as “the most important item” despite the trial judge’s statement in his answer to the rule to show cause that it “was but one of a number of factors . . . which led respondent to his conclusion.”
II.
The trial judge in his memorandum decision listed a number of items as pertinent in the determination of whether the case should be transferred to Minnesota “in the interest of justice” as required by Rule 21 (b). As Chief Judge Hastings pointed out in his dissent, these “factors were (1) location of corporate defendant; (2) location of possible witnesses; (3) location of events likely to be in issue; (4) location of documents and records likely to be involved; (5) disruption of defendant’s business unless the case is transferred; (6) expense to the parties; (7) location of counsel; (8) relative accessibility of place of trial; (9) docket condition of each district or division involved; and (10) any other special elements which might affect the transfer.”
It appears that both parties and the Court of Appeals agree that the first nine factors enumerated were appropriate. As we have noted, the Court of Appeals struck the fair and impartial jury finding as not being a proper factor and the Government does not challenge that action here. Nor has the Government challenged the use of the extraordinary writ of mandamus as an appropriate means to review the refusal to transfer. We shall, therefore, not consider those matters here, assuming, without deciding, their validity for the purposes of this case. This leaves before us the question of whether the Court of Appeals erred in considering the motion to transfer de novo on the record made in the District Court and ordering transfer to the District of Minnesota.
III.
We cannot say, as did the Court of Appeals, that “the most important item” in the trial judge’s mind when he ruled against transfer was the finding of difficulty in the selection of a fair and impartial jury in Minnesota. The weight that Judge Platt gave this factor is a matter so peculiarly within his own knowledge that it seems more appropriate to have him resolve it. He has represented in his answer that this “was but one of a number of factors.” The District Court’s use of an inappropriate factor did not empower the Court of Appeals to order the transfer. The function of the Court of Appeals in this case was to determine the appropriate criteria and then leave their application to the trial judge on remand. Extraordinary-writs are “reserved for really extraordinary causes,” Ex parte Fahey, 332 U. S. 258, 260 (1947), and then only “to confine an inferior court to a lawful exercise of its prescribed jurisdiction or to compel it to exercise its authority when it is its duty to do so.” Roche v. Evaporated Milk Assn., 319 U. S. 21, 26 (1943). Here, however, the Court of Appeals undertook a de novo examination of the record and itself exercised the discretionary function which the rule commits to the trial judge. This the court should not have done since the writ cannot be used “to actually control the decision of the trial court.” Bankers Life & Casualty Co. v. Holland, 346 U. S. 379, 383 (1953).
IV.
Since the trial court must reconsider the motion, effective judicial administration requires that we comment upon the erroneous holding of the Court of Appeals that criminal defendants have a constitutionally based right to a trial in their home districts. Art. Ill, § 2, of the Constitution provides that “The Trial of all Crimes . . . shall be held in the State where the said Crimes shall have been committed . . . .” The Sixth Amendment carries a like command. As we said in United States v. Cores, 356 U. S. 405, 407 (1958): “The Constitution makes it clear that determination of proper venue in a criminal case requires determination of where the crime was committed. . . . The provision for trial in the vicinity of the crime is a safeguard against the unfairness and hardship involved when an accused is prosecuted in a remote place.” The fact that Minnesota is the main office or “home” of the respondent has no independent significance in determining whether transfer to that district would be “in the interest of justice,” although it may be considered with reference to such factors as the convenience of records, officers, personnel and counsel.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed and the cause is remanded to that court with instructions to vacate the judgment of the District Court and to remand the case for reconsideration of the motion for transfer, without reference to the ability of the United States to receive a fair and impartial trial in Minnesota.
It is so ordered.
The All Writs Act grants to the federal courts the power to issue “all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law.” 28 U. S. C. §1651 (a).
314 F. 2d 369, 371, n. 1.
Id,., at 375.
Id., at 375, n. 3.
Id., at 375.
Id., at 373.
Id., at 375.
Id., at 371, n. 1.
Id., at 376-377.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 case is here on appeal from the Supreme Court of California which sustained a California tax against the claim that it was repugnant to Article I, Section 10, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States. Judicial Code § 237, 28 U. S. C. §§ 344 (a), 861a.
Appellant is engaged in producing and selling oil and oil products in California. It entered into a contract with the New Zealand Government for the sale of oil. The price was f. o. b. Los Angeles, payment in London. Delivery was “to the order of the Naval Secretary, Navy Office, Wellington, into N. Z. Naval tank steamer R. F. A. ‘Nucula’ at Los Angeles, California.” The oil was to be consigned to the Naval-Officer-In-Charge, Auckland, New Zealand. Appellant carried the oil by pipe line from its refinery in California to storage tanks at the harbor where the Nucula appeared to receive the oil. When the Nucula had docked and was ready to receive the oil, appellant pumped it from the storage tanks into the vessel. Customary shipping documents were given the master, including a bill of lading which designated appellant as shipper and consigned the oil to the designated naval officer in Auckland. Payment of the price was made in London. The oil was transported to Auckland, no portion of it being used or consumed in the United States. Appellant filed with the Collector of Customs a shipper’s export declaration. It did not collect, nor attempt to do so, any sales tax from the purchaser. Appellee assessed a retail sales tax against appellant measured by the gross receipts from the transaction. The tax was paid under protest, a claim for refund was filed asserting that the levy of the tax violated the provisions of Article I, Section 10, Clause 2 of the Constitution of the United States, and this suit was brought to obtain a refund. The California Supreme Court, one justice dissenting, first allowed a recovery on that ground. 155 P. 2d 1. After a rehearing it reversed its position and held the tax constitutional, two justices dissenting. 27 Cal. 2d 150, 163 P. 2d 1.
I. We are met at the outset with the question whether the judgment of the California Supreme Court is a “final judgment” within the meaning of the Judicial Code § 237, 28 U. S. C. § 344 (a). The case was tried on the pleadings and stipulated facts, a jury having been waived. The trial court found for appellant. The Supreme Court ordered that the judgment “be and the same is hereby reversed.” The argument is that under California law where a judgment has been reversed without directions, there is a new trial; that on a new trial appellant might amend its complaint and produce other evidence; and that if a new trial were had, new or different findings of fact might be made. See Erlin v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 7 Cal. 2d 547, 61 P. 2d 756.
The designation given the judgment by state practice is not controlling. Department of Banking v. Pink, 317 U. S. 264, 268. The question is whether it can be said that “there is nothing more to be decided” (Clark v. Williard, 292 U. S. 112, 118), that there has been “an effective determination of the litigation.” Market Street Ry. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 324 U. S. 548, 551; see Radio Station WOW v. Johnson, 326 U. S. 120, 123-24. That question will be resolved not only by an examination of the entire record (Clark v. Williard, supra) but, where necessary, by resort to the local law to determine what effect the judgment has under the state rules of practice. Brady v. Terminal Railroad Assn., 302 U. S. 678; Brady v. Southern Ry. Co., 319 U. S. 777. See Boskey, Finality of State Court Judgments under the Federal Judicial Code, 43 Col. L. Rev. 1002, 1005.
This suit is brought under the California Retail Sales Tax Act, § 23 and § 31, which prescribes the sole remedy for challenging the tax. The procedure prescribed is payment of the tax, the filing of a claim for refund which sets forth “the specific grounds upon which the claim is founded,” Cal. Stats. 1941, pp. 1328,1329, and, in case the claim is denied, the institution of a suit within ninety days “on the grounds set forth in such claim.” Cal. Stats. 1939, pp. 2184, 2185. The claim thus frames and restricts the issues for the litigation. Although the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court without direction, its decision controls the disposition of the case. See Estate of Baird, 193 Cal. 225, 223 P. 974; Bank of America v. Superior Court, 20 Cal. 2d 697, 128 P. 2d 357. Since the facts have been stipulated and the Supreme Court of California has passed on the issues which control the litigation, we take it that there is nothing more to be decided. The jurisdictional objection is thus without merit. See Gulf Refining Co. v. United States, 269 U. S. 125, 136.
II. We turn then to the merits. Article I, Section 10, Clause 2 of the Constitution provides that “No State shall, without the Consent of the Congress, lay any Imposts or Duties on Imports or Exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws: and the net Produce of all Duties and Imposts, laid by any State on Imports or Exports, shall be for the Use of the Treasury of the United States; and all such Laws shall be subject to the Revision and Controul of the Congress.”
The Supreme Court of California held that this provision did not bar the tax because the delivery of the oil which resulted in the passage of title occurred prior to the commencement of the exportation. The court suggested, and the appellee concedes, that a different result might follow if the oil had been delivered to a common carrier; “for then it would have been placed in the hands of an instrumentality whose sole purpose is to export goods, thus indelibly characterizing the process as a part of exportation.” 27 Cal. 2d p. 153, 163 P. 2d p. 3. The court, in reaching the conclusion that the tax was constitutional, rested in part on our recent decisions (particularly McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co., 309 U. S. 33; Department of Treasury v. Wood Preserving Corp., 313 U. S. 62; International Harvester Co. v. Department of Treasury, 322 U. S. 340) which sustained the levy of certain state taxes against the claim that they violated the Commerce Clause. The court concluded that if this had been an interstate transaction, it would have been subject to the tax. It saw no greater limitation on the power of the States under Article I, Section 10, Clause 2, than this Court has found to exist under the Commerce Clause.
We do not pursue the inquiry as to the validity of the tax under the Commerce Clause. For we are of the view that whatever might be the result of that inquiry, the tax is unconstitutional under Article I, Section 10, Clause 2. ,
The two constitutional provisions, while related, are not coterminous. To be sure, a state tax has at times been held unconstitutional both under the Import-Export Clause and under the Commerce Clause. Brown v. Maryland, 12 Wheat. 419; Crew Levick Co. v. Pennsylvania, 245 U. S. 292. But there are important differences between the two. The invalidity of one derives from the prohibition of taxation on the import or export; the validity of the other turns nowise on whether the article was, or had ever been, an import or export. See Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U. S. 652, 665-66, and cases cited. Moreover, the Commerce Clause is cast, not in terms of a prohibition against taxes, but in terms of a power on the part of Congress to regulate commerce. It is well established that the Commerce Clause is a limitation upon the power of the States, even in absence of action by Congress. Southern Pacific Co. v. Arizona, 325 U. S. 761; Morgan v. Virginia, 328 U. S. 373. But the scope of the limitation has been determined by the Court in an effort to maintain an area of trade free from state interference and at the same time to make interstate commerce pay its way. As recently stated in McGoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co., supra, p. 48, the law under the Commerce Clause has been fashioned by the Court in an effort “to reconcile competing constitutional demands, that commerce between the states shall not be unduly impeded by state action, and that the power to lay taxes for the support of state government shall not be unduly curtailed.” That accommodation has been made by upholding taxes designed to make interstate commerce bear a fair share of the cost of the local government from which it receives benefits (see e. g. Western Live Stock v. Bureau of Reve nue, 303 U. S. 250, 254-55, and cases cited; McOoldrick v. Berwind-White Coal Mining Co., supra) and by invalidating those which discriminate against interstate commerce, which impose a levy for the privilege of doing it, which place an undue burden on it. Adams Mfg. Co. v. Storen, 304 U. S. 307; Gwin, White & Prince, Inc. v. Henneford, 305 U. S. 434; Best & Co. v. Maxwell, 311 U. S. 454; Nippert v. Richmond, 327 U. S. 416.
It seems clear that we cannot write any such qualifications into the Import-Export Clause. It prohibits every State from laying “any” tax on imports or exports without the consent of Congress. Only one exception is created— “except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it’s inspection Laws.” The fact of a single exception suggests that no other qualification of the absolute prohibition was intended. It would entail a substantial revision of the Import-Export Clause to substitute for the prohibition against “any” tax a prohibition against “any discriminatory” tax. As we shall see, the question as to what is exportation is somewhat entwined with the question as to what is interstate commerce. But the two clauses, though complementary, serve different ends. And the limitations of one cannot be read into the other.
It is suggested, however, that the history of the Import-Export Clause shows that it was designed to prevent discriminatory taxes and not to preclude the levy of general taxes applicable alike to all goods. Support for that is found in the fact that this provision was defended in the Convention and later in the debates on the ground that it protected the inland States from levies by the coastal States through the taxation of exports. Yet that function was only a phase of a larger design. The Import-Export Clause was considered in connection with Article I, Section 9, Clause 5, which provides that “No Tax or Duty shall be laid on Articles exported from any State.” The purpose was to withhold from Congress the power to tax exports, and to deprive any State of the power except with the consent of Congress and even then, it seems, to require the net proceeds to be paid into the federal treasury. A proposal was made to prohibit the States “from taxing the produce of other States exported from their har-bours.” But that suggestion was not followed. The language adopted was supported by Madison “as preventing all State imposts.” The qualified interpretation urged upon us has therefore no substantial support in the history of the Import-Export Clause. Moreover, to infer qualifications does not comport with the standards for expounding the Constitution. As stated by Chief Justice Marshall in Sturges v. Crowninshield, 4 Wheat. 122, 202, “it would be dangerous in the extreme to infer from extrinsic circumstances, that a case for which the words of an instrument expressly provide, shall be exempted from its operation.” For, as Chief Justice Taney said in Holmes v. Jennison, 14 Pet. 540, 570-71:
“In expounding the Constitution of the United States, every word must have its due force, and appropriate meaning; for it is evident from the whole instrument, that no word was unnecessarily used, or needlessly added. The many discussions which have taken place upon the construction of the Constitution, have proved the correctness of this proposition; and shown the high talent, the caution, and the foresight of the illustrious men who framed it. Every word appears to have been weighed with the utmost deliberation, and its force and effect to have been fully understood. No word in the instrument, therefore, can be rejected as superfluous or unmeaning . . .”
We cannot, therefore, read the prohibition against “any” tax on exports as containing an implied qualification.
The questions remain whether we have here an export within the meaning of the constitutional provision and, if so, whether this tax was a prohibited impost upon it.
The requirement that foreign commerce be involved (Woodruff v. Parham, 8 Wall. 123, 136) is met, for con-cededly the oil was sold for shipment abroad. The question whether at the time the tax accrued the oil was an export presents a different problem. There are few decisions of the Court under Article I, Section 10, Clause 2, which illuminate the problem. In Brown v. Houston, 114 U. S. 622, Louisiana taxed coal held in that State for sale. After the tax was assessed some of the coal was sold for export. The Court held that the coal when taxed was not an export, saying, pp. 629-30:
“When taxed it was not held with the intent or for the purpose of exportation, but with the intent and for the purpose of sale there, in New Orleans. A duty on exports must either be a duty levied on goods as a condition, or by reason of their exportation, or, at least, a direct tax or duty on goods which are intended for exportation. Whether the last would be a duty on exports, it is not necessary to determine. But certainly, where a general tax is laid on all property alike, it cannot be construed as a duty on exports when falling upon goods not then intended for exportation, though they should happen to be exported after-wards.”
In Coe v. Errol, 116 U. S. 517, the Court had before it a case under the Commerce Clause. Logs, cut in New Hampshire, were being held on a river there for transportation to Maine. New Hampshire’s non-discriminatory tax on them was sustained. What the Court said concerning commerce is what we deem to be the correct principle governing exports: “. . . goods do not cease to be part of the general mass of property in the State, subject, as such, to its jurisdiction, and to taxation in the usual way, until they have been shipped, or entered with a common carrier for transportation to another State, or have been started upon such transportation in a continuous route or journey.” P. 527.
That view has been followed in cases involving Article I, Section 9, Clause 5 of the Constitution, which, as we have noted, prohibits Congress from laying any tax on “Articles exported from any State.” In Turpin v. Burgess, 117 U. S. 504, the Court sustained a federal excise tax on manufactured tobacco. The tax was laid upon the goods before they left the factory. The Court said, p. 507, “They were not in course of exportation; they might never be exported; whether they would be or not would depend altogether on the will of the manufacturer.” The same result was reached in Cornell v. Coyne, 192 U. S. 418, where a federal manufacturing tax on filled cheese was sustained against the claim that it was a tax levied by Congress on exports. The cheese was manufactured under contract for export. The Court said, “The true construction of the constitutional provision is that no burden by way of tax or duty can be cast upon the exportation of articles, and does not mean that articles exported are relieved from the prior ordinary burdens of taxation which rest upon all property similarly situated. The exemption attaches to the export and not to the article before its exportation.” P. 427.
That line has been marked by other decisions under Article I, Section 9, Clause 5 of the Constitution. Thus a federal stamp tax on a foreign bill of lading is a tax on exports, since it is the equivalent of a direct tax on the articles included in the bill of lading. Fairbank v. United States, 181 U. S. 283. The same is true of federal stamp taxes on charter parties made exclusively for the carriage of cargo in foreign commerce, United States v. Hvoslef, 237 U. S. 1, 17, for a tax on those charter parties is “in substance a tax on the exportation; and a tax on the exportation is a tax on the exports.” The same is likewise true of federal stamp taxes on policies insuring exports against maritime risks. Thames & Mersey Ins. Co. v. United States, 237 U. S. 19. The Court stated, p. 27:
“The rise in rates for insurance as immediately affects exporting as an increase in freight rates, and the taxation of policies insuring cargoes during their transit to foreign ports is as much a burden on exporting as if it were laid on the charter parties, the bills of lading, or the goods themselves. Such taxation does not deal with preliminaries, or with distinct or separable subjects; the tax falls upon the exporting process.”
Closer in point is Spalding & Bros. v. Edwards, 262 U. S. 66. It involved a federal tax on baseball bats and balls sold by the manufacturer. A Venezuelan firm ordered a New York commission house to buy a quantity of bats and balls for their account. The New York commission house' placed the order with the manufacturer instructing it to deliver the packages to an exporting carrier in New York for shipment to Venezuela. The goods were delivered to the carrier and an export bill of lading was issued. In due course the goods were transported to Venezuela. The issue, as stated by the Court, p. 68, was “whether the sale was a step in exportation.” The Court pointed out that the goods would not have been exempt from tax while they were “in process of manufacture” though they were intended for export but that they would be exempt “after they had been loaded upon the vessel for Venezuela and the bill of lading issued.” The question was whether the “export had begun.” After noting that title passed when the goods were delivered into the carrier’s hands, the Court stated, pp. 69-70:
“The very act that passed the title and that would have incurred the tax had the transaction been domestic, committed the goods to the carrier that was to take them across the sea, for the purpose of export and with the direction to the foreign port upon the goods. The expected and accomplished effect of the act was to start them for that port. The fact that further acts were to be done before the goods would get to sea does not matter so long as they were only the regular steps to the contemplated result.”
The circumstance that title was in the New York commission house and that it might change its mind and retain the goods for its own use was dismissed by the statement that “Theoretical possibilities may be left out of account.” P. 70. The Court concluded that if exportation was put at a later point, exports would not receive “the liberal protection that hitherto they have received.” P. 70.
This line of cases was summarized in Willcuts v. Bunn, 282 U. S. 216, 228, as construing the constitutional prohibition against federal taxation of exports so as to give “immunity to the process of exportation and to the transactions and documents embraced in that process. . . . Only on that construction can the constitutional safeguard be maintained.”
The fact that delivery to a common carrier for export gave the sale immunity in Spalding & Bros. v. Edwards, supra, is seized upon as stating a rule that the process of exportation has not started until such delivery has been made. And cases like Superior Oil Co. v. Mississippi, 280 U. S. 390, are relied upon as indicating that delivery to the purchaser is not sufficient. That case arose under the Commerce Clause. Mississippi was upheld in its effort to tax a distributor or wholesaler who purchased gasoline and later took it to Louisiana for sale. The Court said, p. 395, that although the course of business indicated the likely destination of the oil, it was “in the hands of the purchaser to do with as it liked, and there was nothing that in any way committed it to sending the oil to Louisiana except its own wishes.” The Court held, therefore, that the tax was not on goods moving in interstate commerce. But it added, p. 396, “Dramatic circumstances, such as a great universal stream of grain from the State of purchase to a market elsewhere, may affect the legal conclusion by showing the manifest certainty of the destination and exhibiting grounds of policy that are absent here.”
The certainty that the goods are headed to sea and that the process of exportation has started may normally be best evidenced by the fact that they have been delivered to a common carrier for that purpose. But the same degree of certainty may exist though no common carrier is involved. The present case is an excellent illustration. The foreign purchaser furnished the ship to carry the oil abroad. Delivery was made into the hold of the vessel from the vendor’s tanks located at the dock. That delivery marked the commencement of the movement of the oil abroad. It is true, as the Supreme Court of California observed, that at the time of the delivery the vessel was in California waters and was not bound for its destination until it started to move from the port. But when the oil was pumped into the hold of the vessel, it passed into the control of a foreign purchaser and there was nothing equivocal in the transaction which created even a probability that the oil would be diverted to domestic use. It would not be clearer that the oil had started upon its export journey had it been delivered to a common carrier at an inland point. The means of shipment are unimportant so long as the certainty of the foreign destination is plain.
It seems clear under the decisions which we have reviewed involving Article I, Section 9, Clause 5 of the Constitution that the commencement of the export would occur no later than the delivery of the oil into the vessel. As the meaning of “export” is the same under that Clause and the Import-Export Clause (see Brown v. Maryland, supra, p. 445; Turpin v. Burgess, supra, p. 506), the same result follows here.
It is argued, however, that the present tax is not an impost within the meaning of the Import-Export Clause. The tax is measured by the gross receipts of retail sales and is levied on retailers “For the privilege of selling tangible personal property at retail.” Cal. Stats. 1935, p. 1253. The retailers are authorized to collect the tax from the consumers. Cal. Stats. 1933, p. 2602. And a sale is “any transfer of title or possession . . . in any manner or by any means whatsoever, of tangible personal property, for a consideration.” Cal. Stats. 1935, p. 1256. The California Supreme Court held that the tax is an excise tax for the privilege of conducting a retail business measured by the gross receipts from sales; that it is not laid upon the consumer and does not become a tax on the sale or because of the sale. 27 Cal. 2d p. 152,163 P. 2d p. 2.
That construction, being a matter of state law, is binding on us. But it is not determinative of the question whether the tax deprives the taxpayer of a federal right. That issue turns not on the characterization which the state has given the tax, but on its operation and effect. See St. Louis Southwestern Ry. Co. v. Arkansas, 235 U. S. 350, 362; Kansas City, Ft. S. & M. R. Co. v. Kansas, 240 U. S. 227, 231.
Appellee concedes that the prohibition of the Import-Export Clause would be violated if the goods were taxed as exports or because of their exportation, or if the process of exportation were itself taxed. We perceive, however, no difference in substance between any tax so labeled and the present tax. The California Supreme Court conceded that the delivery of the oil “resulted in the passage of title, and the completion of the sale, and the taxable incident.” 27 Cal. 2d p. 153, 163 P. 2d pp. 2-3. The incident which gave rise to the accrual of the tax was a step in the export process.
Moreover, Brown v. Maryland, supra, rejected an argument that while a State could not tax imports, it could tax the privilege of selling imports. Chief Justice Marshall stated, p. 444:
“All must perceive, that a tax on the sale of an article, imported only for sale, is a tax on the article itself. It is true, the State may tax occupations generally, but this tax must be paid by those who employ the individual, or is a tax on his business. The lawyer, the physician, or the mechanic, must either charge more on the article in which he deals, or the thing itself is taxed through his person. This the State has a right to do, because no constitutional prohibition extends to it. So, a tax on the occupation of an importer is, in like manner, a tax on importation. It must add to the price of the article, and be paid by the consumer, or by the importer himself, in like manner as a direct duty on the article itself would be made. This the State has not a right to do, because it is prohibited by the constitution.”
The same reasoning was applied to exports, p. 445:
“The States are forbidden to lay a duty on exports, and the United States are forbidden to lay a tax or duty on articles exported from any State. There is some diversity in language, but none is perceivable in the act which is prohibited. The United States have the same right to tax occupations which is possessed by the States. Now, suppose the United States should require every exporter to take out a license, for which he should pay such tax as Congress might think proper to impose; would government be permitted to shield itself from the just censure to which this attempt to evade the prohibitions of the constitution would expose it, by saying, that this was a tax on the person, not on the article, and that the legislature had a right to tax occupations?”
The prohibition contained in the Import-Export Clause against taxation on exports clearly involves more than a mere exemption from taxes laid specifically upon the exported goods themselves. That is true of the constitutional prohibition against federal taxes on exports. United States v. Hvoslef, supra. What was said there (p. 13) is equally applicable here: “If it meant no more than that, the obstructions to exportation which it was the purpose to prevent could readily be set up by legislation nominally conforming to the constitutional restriction but in effect overriding it.” And see Anglo-Chilean Nitrate Sales Corp. v. Alabama, 288 U. S. 218.
We conclude that the tax which California has exacted from appellant is an impost upon an export within the meaning of Article I, Section 10, Clause 2, and is therefore unconstitutional.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Murphy took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
In California a valid stipulation is binding upon the parties. McGuire v. Baird, 9 Cal. 2d 353, 70 P. 2d 915; Webster v. Webster, 216 Cal. 485, 14 P. 2d 522; see 23 Cal. Juris. 826. It is available at a second trial unless in terms otherwise limited, Nathan v. Dierssen, 146 Cal. 63, 79 P. 739; Crenshaw v. Smith, 74 A. C. A. 295, 168 P. 2d 752; see 100 A. L. R. 775, and will be controlling at the second trial unless the trial court relieves a party from the stipulation. First National Bank v. Stansbury, 118 Cal. App. 80, 5 P. 2d 13. Relief from a stipulation may be granted in the sound discretion of the trial court in cases where the facts stipulated have changed, there is fraud, mistake of fact, or other special circumstance rendering it unjust to enforce the stipulation. Sacre v. Chalupnik, 188 Cal. 386, 205 P. 449; Back v. Farnsworth, 25 Cal. App. 2d 212, 77 P. 2d 295; Sinnock v. Young, 61 Cal. App. 2d 130, 142 P. 2d 85; see 161 A. L. R. 1163. In the present case there is no intimation in the record or briefs of fraud, excusable neglect, or other ground for relief. Indeed the parties both accept the stipulation as accurate and complete.
See 2 Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention (1911), pp. 307, 359-62,442.
See particularly Madison’s statement, 3 Elliot’s Debates (2d ed.) p. 483. And see The Federalist No. 42.
See 2 Farrand, op. cit., supra, note 2, pp. 305-08, 358-63, 441-42.
The consensus of opinion was expressed by Gerry — that “the legislature could not be trusted with such a power. It might ruin the Country. It might be exercised partially, raising one and depressing another part of it.” See 2 Farrand, op. cit., supra, note 2, p. 307. Or as stated by Sherman, “A power to tax exports would shipwreck the whole.” Id., p. 308.
This was suggested by Langdon. See 2 Farrand, op. cit., supra, note 2, p. 361.
See 2 Farrand, op. cit., supra, note 2, p. 442.
See Carson Petroleum Co. v. Vial, 279 U. S. 95.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 BREYERdelivered the opinion of the Court.
The Pregnancy Discrimination Act makes clear that Title VII's prohibition against sex discrimination applies to discrimination based on pregnancy. It also says that employers must treat "women affected by pregnancy... the same for all employment-related purposes... as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k). We must decide how this latter provision applies in the context of an employer's policy that accommodates many, but not all, workers with nonpregnancy-related disabilities.
In our view, the Act requires courts to consider the extent to which an employer's policy treats pregnant workers less favorably than it treats nonpregnant workers similar in their ability or inability to work. And here-as in all cases in which an individual plaintiff seeks to show disparate treatment through indirect evidence-it requires courts to consider any legitimate, nondiscriminatory, nonpretextual justification for these differences in treatment. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green,411 U.S. 792, 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817, 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973). Ultimately the court must determine whether the nature of the employer's policy and the way in which it burdens pregnant women shows that the employer has engaged in intentional discrimination. The Court of Appeals here affirmed a grant of summary judgment in favor of the employer. Given our view of the law, we must vacate that court's judgment.
I
A
We begin with a summary of the facts. The petitioner, Peggy Young, worked as a part-time driver for the respondent, United Parcel Service (UPS). Her responsibilities included pickup and delivery of packages that had arrived by air carrier the previous night. In 2006, after suffering several miscarriages, she became pregnant. Her doctor told her that she should not lift more than 20 pounds during the first 20 weeks of her pregnancy or more than 10 pounds thereafter. App. 580. UPS required drivers like Young to be able to lift parcels weighing up to 70 pounds (and up to 150 pounds with assistance). Id.,at 578. UPS told Young she could not work while under a lifting restriction. Young consequently stayed home without pay during most of the time she was pregnant and eventually lost her employee medical coverage.
Young subsequently brought this federal lawsuit. We focus here on her claim that UPS acted unlawfully in refusing to accommodate her pregnancy-related lifting restriction. Young said that her co-workers were willing to help her with heavy packages. She also said that UPS accommodated other drivers who were "similar in their... inability to work." She accordingly concluded that UPS must accommodate her as well. See Brief for Petitioner 30-31.
UPS responded that the "other persons" whom it had accommodated were (1) drivers who had become disabled on the job, (2) those who had lost their Department of Transportation (DOT) certifications, and (3) those who suffered from a disability covered by the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), 104 Stat. 327, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq.UPS said that, since Young did not fall within any of those categories, it had not discriminated against Young on the basis of pregnancy but had treated her just as it treated all "other" relevant "persons." See Brief for Respondent 34.
B
Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 forbids a covered employer to "discriminate against any individual with respect to... terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's... sex." 78 Stat. 253, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(a)(1). In 1978, Congress enacted the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, 92 Stat. 2076, which added new language to Title VII's definitions subsection. The first clause of the 1978 Act specifies that Title VII's "ter[m] 'because of sex'... include[s]... because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions." § 2000e(k). The second clause says that
"women affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes... as other persons not so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work...." Ibid.
This case requires us to consider the application of the second clause to a "disparate-treatment" claim-a claim that an employer intentionally treated a complainant less favorably than employees with the "complainant's qualifications" but outside the complainant's protected class. McDonnell Douglas, supra,at 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817. We have said that "[l]iability in a disparate-treatment case depends on whether the protected trait actually motivated the employer's decision." Raytheon Co. v. Hernandez,540 U.S. 44, 52, 124 S.Ct. 513, 157 L.Ed.2d 357 (2003)(ellipsis and internal quotation marks omitted). We have also made clear that a plaintiff can prove disparate treatment either (1) by direct evidence that a workplace policy, practice, or decision relies expressly on a protected characteristic, or (2) by using the burden-shifting framework set forth in McDonnell Douglas. See Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Thurston,469 U.S. 111, 121, 105 S.Ct. 613, 83 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985).
In McDonnell Douglas, we considered a claim of discriminatory hiring. We said that, to prove disparate treatment, an individual plaintiff must "carry the initial burden" of "establishing a prima facie case" of discrimination by showing
"(i) that he belongs to a... minority; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; (iii) that, despite his qualifications, he was rejected; and (iv) that, after his rejection, the position remained open and the employer continued to seek applicants from persons of complainant's qualifications." 411 U.S., at 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817.
If a plaintiff makes this showing, then the employer must have an opportunity "to articulate some legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for" treating employees outside the protected class better than employees within the protected class. Ibid.If the employer articulates such a reason, the plaintiff then has "an opportunity to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the legitimate reasons offered by the defendant [i.e.,the employer] were not its true reasons, but were a pretext for discrimination." Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine,450 U.S. 248, 253, 101 S.Ct. 1089, 67 L.Ed.2d 207 (1981).
We note that employment discrimination law also creates what is called a "disparate-impact" claim. In evaluating a disparate-impact claim, courts focus on the effectsof an employment practice, determining whether they are unlawful irrespective of motivation or intent. See Raytheon, supra,at 52-53, 124 S.Ct. 513; see also Ricci v. DeStefano,557 U.S. 557, 578, 129 S.Ct. 2658, 174 L.Ed.2d 490 (2009). But Young has not alleged a disparate-impact claim.
Nor has she asserted what we have called a "pattern-or-practice" claim. See Teamsters v. United States,431 U.S. 324, 359, 97 S.Ct. 1843, 52 L.Ed.2d 396 (1977)(explaining that Title VII plaintiffs who allege a "pattern or practice" of discrimination may establish a prima facie case by "another means"); see also id.,at 357, 97 S.Ct. 1843(rejecting contention that the "burden of proof in a pattern-or-practice case must be equivalent to that outlined in McDonnell Douglas").
C
In July 2007, Young filed a pregnancy discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). In September 2008, the EEOC provided her with a right-to-sue letter. See 29 CFR § 1601.28 (2014). Young then filed this complaint in Federal District Court. She argued, among other things, that she could show by direct evidence that UPS had intended to discriminate against her because of her pregnancy and that, in any event, she could establish a prima facie case of disparate treatment under the McDonnell Douglasframework. See App. 60-62.
After discovery, UPS filed a motion for summary judgment. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56(a). In reply, Young pointed to favorable facts that she believed were either undisputed or that, while disputed, she could prove. They include the following:
1. Young worked as a UPS driver, picking up and delivering packages carried by air. Plaintiff's Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment in No. 08-cv-02586 (D Md.), pp. 3-4 (hereinafter Memorandum).
2. Young was pregnant in the fall of 2006. Id.,at 15-16.
3. Young's doctor recommended that she "not be required to lift greater than 20 pounds for the first 20 weeks of pregnancy and no greater than 10 pounds thereafter." App. 580; see also Memorandum 17.
4. UPS required drivers such as Young to be able to "[l]ift, lower, push, pull, leverage and manipulate... packages weighing up to 70 pounds" and to "[a]ssist in moving packages weighing up to 150 pounds." App. 578; see also Memorandum 5.
5. UPS' occupational health manager, the official "responsible for most issues relating to employee health and ability to work" at Young's UPS facility, App. 568-569, told Young that she could not return to work during her pregnancy because she could not satisfy UPS' lifting requirements, see Memorandum 17-18; 2011 WL 665321, *5 (D.Md., Feb. 14, 2011).
6. The manager also determined that Young did not qualify for a temporary alternative work assignment. Ibid.; see also Memorandum 19-20.
7. UPS, in a collective-bargaining agreement, had promised to provide temporary alternative work assignments to employees "unable to perform their normal work assignments due to an on-the-jobinjury." App. 547 (emphasis added); see also Memorandum 8, 45-46.
8. The collective-bargaining agreement also provided that UPS would "make a good faith effort to comply... with requests for a reasonable accommodation because of a permanent disability" under the ADA. App. 548; see also Memorandum 7.
9. The agreement further stated that UPS would give "inside" jobs to drivers who had lost their DOT certifications because of a failed medical exam, a lost driver's license, or involvement in a motor vehicle accident. See App. 563-565; Memorandum 8.
10. When Young later asked UPS' Capital Division Manager to accommodate her disability, he replied that, while she was pregnant, she was "too much of a liability" and could "not come back" until she " 'was no longer pregnant.' " Id.,at 20.
11. Young remained on a leave of absence (without pay) for much of her pregnancy. Id.,at 49.
12. Young returned to work as a driver in June 2007, about two months after her baby was born. Id.,at 21, 61.
As direct evidence of intentional discrimination, Young relied, in significant part, on the statement of the Capital Division Manager (10 above). As evidence that she had made out a prima facie case under McDonnell Douglas,Young relied, in significant part, on evidence showing that UPS would accommodate workers injured on the job (7), those suffering from ADA disabilities (8), and those who had lost their DOT certifications (9). That evidence, she said, showed that UPS had a light-duty-for-injury policy with respect to numerous "other persons," but not with respect to pregnant workers. See Memorandum 29.
Young introduced further evidence indicating that UPS had accommodated several individuals when they suffered disabilities that created work restrictions similar to hers. UPS contests the correctness of some of these facts and the relevance of others. See Brief for Respondent 5, 6, 57. But because we are at the summary judgment stage, and because there is a genuine dispute as to these facts, we view this evidence in the light most favorable to Young, the nonmoving party, see Scott v. Harris,550 U.S. 372, 380, 127 S.Ct. 1769, 167 L.Ed.2d 686 (2007):
13. Several employees received accommodations while suffering various similar or more serious disabilities incurred on the job. See App. 400-401 (10-pound lifting limitation); id.,at 635 (foot injury); id.,at 637 (arm injury).
14. Several employees received accommodations following injury, where the record is unclear as to whether the injury was incurred on or off the job. See id.,at 381(recurring knee injury); id.,at 655 (ankle injury); id.,at 655 (knee injury); id.,at 394& minus;398 (stroke); id.,at 425, 636-637 (leg injury).
15. Several employees received "inside" jobs after losing their DOT certifications. See id.,at 372 (DOT certification suspended after conviction for driving under the influence); id.,at 636, 647 (failed DOT test due to high blood pressure); id.,at 640-641 (DOT certification lost due to sleep apneadiagnosis).
16. Some employees were accommodated despite the fact that their disabilities had been incurred off the job. See id.,at 446 (ankle injury); id.,at 433, 635-636 (cancer).
17. According to a deposition of a UPS shop steward who had worked for UPS for roughly a decade, id.,at 461, 463, "the only light duty requested [due to physical] restrictions that became an issue" at UPS "were with women who were pregnant," id.,at 504.
The District Court granted UPS' motion for summary judgment. It concluded that Young could not show intentional discrimination through direct evidence. 2011 WL 665321, *10-*12. Nor could she make out a prima facie case of discrimination under McDonnell Douglas. The court wrote that those with whom Young compared herself-those falling within the on-the-job, DOT, or ADA categories-were too different to qualify as "similarly situated comparator [s]." 2011 WL 665321, *14. The court added that, in any event, UPS had offered a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for failing to accommodate pregnant women, and Young had not created a genuine issue of material fact as to whether that reason was pretextual. Id.,at *15.
On appeal, the Fourth Circuit affirmed. It wrote that "UPS has crafted a pregnancy-blind policy" that is "at least facially a 'neutral and legitimate business practice,' and not evidence of UPS's discriminatory animus toward pregnant workers." 707 F.3d 437, 446 (2013). It also agreed with the District Court that Young could not show that "similarly-situated employees outside the protected class received more favorable treatment than Young." Id.,at 450. Specifically, it believed that Young was different from those workers who were "disabled under the ADA" (which then protected only those with permanent disabilities) because Young was "not disabled"; her lifting limitation was only "temporary and not a significant restriction on her ability to perform major life activities." Ibid.Young was also different from those workers who had lost their DOT certifications because "no legal obstacle stands between her and her work" and because many with lost DOT certifications retained physical (i.e., lifting) capacity that Young lacked. Ibid.And Young was different from those "injured on the job because, quite simply, her inability to work [did] not arise from an on-the-job injury." Id.,at 450-451. Rather, Young more closely resembled "an employee who injured his back while picking up his infant child or... an employee whose lifting limitation arose from her off-the-job work as a volunteer firefighter," neither of whom would have been eligible for accommodation under UPS' policies. Id.,at 448.
Young filed a petition for certiorari essentially asking us to review the Fourth Circuit's interpretation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. In light of lower-court uncertainty about the interpretation of the Act, we granted the petition. Compare Ensley-Gaines v. Runyon,100 F.3d 1220, 1226 (C.A.6 1996), with Urbano v. Continental Airlines, Inc.,138 F.3d 204, 206-208 (C.A.5 1998); Reeves v. Swift Transp. Co.,446 F.3d 637, 640-643 (C.A.6 2006); Serednyj v. Beverly Healthcare, LLC,656 F.3d 540, 547-552 (C.A.7 2011); Spivey v. Beverly Enterprises, Inc.,196 F.3d 1309, 1312-1314 (C.A.11 1999).
D
We note that statutory changes made after the time of Young's pregnancy may limit the future significance of our interpretation of the Act. In 2008, Congress expanded the definition of "disability" under the ADA to make clear that "physical or mental impairment[s] that substantially limi[t]" an individual's ability to lift, stand, or bend are ADA-covered disabilities. ADA Amendments Act of 2008, 122 Stat. 3555, codified at 42 U.S.C. §§ 12102(1)-(2). As interpreted by the EEOC, the new statutory definition requires employers to accommodate employees whose temporary lifting restrictions originate off the job. See 29 CFR pt. 1630, App., § 1630.2(j)(1)(ix). We express no view on these statutory and regulatory changes.
II
The parties disagree about the interpretation of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act's second clause. As we have said, see Part I-B, supra, the Act's first clause specifies that discrimination " 'because of sex' " includes discrimination "because of... pregnancy." But the meaning of the second clause is less clear; it adds: "[W]omen affected by pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions shall be treated the same for all employment-related purposes... as other personsnot so affected but similar in their ability or inability to work." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k)(emphasis added). Does this clause mean that courts must compare workers only in respect to the work limitations that they suffer? Does it mean that courts must ignore all other similarities or differences between pregnant and nonpregnant workers? Or does it mean that courts, when deciding who the relevant "other persons"
are, may consider other similarities and differences as well? If so, which ones?
The differences between these possible interpretations come to the fore when a court, as here, must consider a workplace policy that distinguishes between pregnant and nonpregnant workers in light of characteristics not related to pregnancy. Young poses the problem directly in her reply brief when she says that the Act requires giving "the same accommodations to an employee with a pregnancy-related work limitation as it would give that employeeif her work limitation stemmed from a different cause but had a similar effect on her inability to work." Reply Brief 15. Suppose the employer would not give "that [pregnant] employee" the "same accommodations" as another employee, but the employer's reason for the difference in treatment is that the pregnant worker falls within a facially neutral category (for example, individuals with off-the-job injuries). What is a court then to do?
The parties propose very different answers to this question. Young and the United States believe that the second clause of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act "requires an employer to provide the same accommodations to workplace disabilities caused by pregnancy that it provides to workplace disabilities that have other causes but have a similar effect on the ability to work." Brief for Petitioner 23. In other words, Young contends that the second clause means that whenever "an employer accommodates only a subset of workers with disabling conditions," a court should find a Title VII violation if "pregnant workers who are similar in the ability to work" do not "receive the same [accommodation] even if still other non-pregnant workers do not receive accommodations."Id.,at 28.
UPS takes an almost polar opposite view. It contends that the second clause does no more than define sex discrimination to include pregnancy discrimination. See Brief for Respondent 25. Under this view, courts would compare the accommodations an employer provides to pregnant women with the accommodations it provides to others withina facially neutral category (such as those with off-the-job injuries) to determine whether the employer has violated Title VII. Cf. post,at 1362 - 1363 (SCALIA, J., dissenting) (hereinafter the dissent) (the clause "does not prohibit denying pregnant women accommodations... on the basis of an evenhanded policy").
A
We cannot accept either of these interpretations. Young asks us to interpret the second clause broadly and, in her view, literally. As just noted, she argues that, as long as "an employer accommodates only a subset of workers with disabling conditions," "pregnant workers who are similar in the ability to work [must] receive the same treatment even if still other nonpregnant workers do not receive accommodations." Brief for Petitioner 28. She adds that, because the record here contains "evidence that pregnant and nonpregnant workers were not treated the same," that is the end of the matter, she must win; there is no need to refer to McDonnell Douglas. Brief for Petitioner 47.
The problem with Young's approach is that it proves too much. It seems to say that the statute grants pregnant workers a "most-favored-nation" status. As long as an employer provides one or two workers with an accommodation-say, those with particularly hazardous jobs, or those whose workplace presence is particularly needed, or those who have worked at the company for many years, or those who are over the age of 55-then it must provide similar accommodations to allpregnant workers (with comparable physical limitations), irrespective of the nature of their jobs, the employer's need to keep them working, their ages, or any other criteria.
Lower courts have concluded that this could not have been Congress' intent in passing the Pregnancy Discrimination Act. See, e.g.,Urbano,138 F.3d, at 206-208; Reeves,446 F.3d, at 641; Serednyj,656 F.3d, at 548-549; Spivey,196 F.3d, at 1312-1313. And Young partially agrees, for she writes that "the statute does not require employers to give" to "pregnant workers all of the benefits and privileges it extends to other" similarly disabled "employees when those benefits and privileges are... based on the employee's tenure or position within the company." Reply Brief 15-16; see also Tr. of Oral Arg. 22 ("[S]eniority, full-time work, different job classifications, all of those things would be permissible distinctions for an employer to make to differentiate among who gets benefits").
Young's last-mentioned concession works well with respect to seniority, for Title VII itself contains a seniority defense, see 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2(h). Hence, seniority is not part of the problem. But otherwise the most-favored-nation problem remains, and Young's concession does not solve it. How, for example, should a court treat special benefits attached to injuries arising out of, say, extra-hazardous duty? If Congress intended to allow differences in treatment arising out of special duties, special service, or special needs, why would it not also have wanted courts to take account of differences arising out of special "causes"-for example, benefits for those who drive (and are injured) in extrahazardous conditions?
We agree with UPS to this extent: We doubt that Congress intended to grant pregnant workers an unconditional most-favored-nation status. The language of the statute does not require that unqualified reading. The second clause, when referring to nonpregnant persons with similar disabilities, uses the open-ended term "other persons." It does not say that the employer must treat pregnant employees the "same" as "any other persons" (who are similar in their ability or inability to work), nor does it otherwise specify which other persons Congress had in mind.
Moreover, disparate-treatment law normally permits an employer to implement policies that are not intended to harm members of a protected class, even if their implementation sometimes harms those members, as long as the employer has a legitimate, nondiscriminatory, nonpretextual reason for doing so. See, e.g., Raytheon,540 U.S., at 51-55, 124 S.Ct. 513;Burdine,450 U.S., at 252-258, 101 S.Ct. 1089; McDonnell Douglas,411 U.S., at 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817. There is no reason to believe Congress intended its language in the Pregnancy Discrimination Act to embody a significant deviation from this approach. Indeed, the relevant House Report specifies that the Act "reflect[s] no new legislative mandate." H.R.Rep. No. 95-948, pp. 3-4(1978), 1978 U.S.C.C.A.N. 4749, 4751 (hereinafter H.R. Rep.). And the Senate Report states that the Act was designed to "reestablis[h] the law as it was understood prior to" this Court's decision in General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U.S. 125, 97 S.Ct. 401, 50 L.Ed.2d 343 (1976). S.Rep. No. 95-331, p. 8(1978) (hereinafter S. Rep.). See Gilbert, supra,at 147, 97 S.Ct. 401(Brennan, J., dissenting) (lower courts had held that a disability plan that compensates employees for temporary disabilities but not pregnancy violates Title VII); see also AT & T Corp. v. Hulteen,556 U.S. 701, 717, n. 2, 129 S.Ct. 1962, 173 L.Ed.2d 898 (2009)(GINSBURG, J., dissenting).
B
Before Congress passed the Pregnancy Discrimination Act, the EEOC issued guidance stating that "[d]isabilities caused or contributed to by pregnancy... are, for all job-related purposes, temporary disabilities" and that "the availability of... benefits and privileges... shall be applied to disability due to pregnancy or childbirth on the same terms and conditions as they are applied to other temporary disabilities." 29 CFR § 1604.10(b) (1975). Indeed, as early as 1972, EEOC guidelines provided: "Disabilities caused or contributed to by pregnancy... are, for all job-related purposes, temporary disabilities and should be treated as such under any health or temporary disability insurance or sick leave plan available in connection with employment." 37 Fed. Reg. 6837 (1972)(codified in 29 CFR § 1604.10(b) (1973)).
Soon after the Act was passed, the EEOC issued guidance consistent with its pre-Act statements. The EEOC explained: "Disabilities caused or contributed to by pregnancy... for all job-related purposes, shall be treated the same as disabilities caused or contributed to by other medical conditions." See § 1604.10(b) (1979). Moreover, the EEOC stated that "[i]f other employees temporarily unable to lift are relieved of these functions, pregnant employees also unable to lift must be temporarily relieved of the function." 29 CFR pt. 1604, App., p. 918.
This post-Act guidance, however, does not resolve the ambiguity of the term "other persons" in the Act's second clause. Rather, it simply tells employers to treat pregnancy-related disabilities like nonpregnancy-related disabilities, without clarifying how that instruction should be implemented when an employer does not treat all nonpregnancy-related disabilities alike.
More recently-in July 2014-the EEOC promulgated an additional guideline apparently designed to address this ambiguity. That guideline says that "[a]n employer may not refuse to treat a pregnant worker the same as other employees who are similar in their ability or inability to work by relying on a policy that makes distinctions based on the source of an employee's limitations (e.g., a policy of providing light duty only to workers injured on the job)." 2 EEOC Compliance Manual § 626-I(A)(5), p. 626:0009 (July 2014). The EEOC also provided an example of disparate treatment that would violate the Act:
"An employer has a policy or practice of providing light duty, subject to availability, for any employee who cannot perform one or more job duties for up to 90 days due to injury, illness, or a condition that would be a disability under the ADA. An employee requests a light duty assignment for a 20-pound lifting restriction related to her pregnancy. The employer denies the light duty request." Id.,at 626:0013, Example 10.
The EEOC further added that "an employer may not deny light duty to a pregnant employee based on a policy that limits light duty to employees with on-the-job injuries." Id.,at 626:0028.
The Solicitor General argues that we should give special, if not controlling, weight to this guideline. He points out that we have long held that "the rulings, interpretations and opinions" of an agency charged with the mission of enforcing a particular statute, "while not controlling upon the courts by reason of their authority, do constitute a body of experience and informed judgment to which courts and litigants may properly resort for guidance." Skidmore v. Swift & Co.,323 U.S. 134, 140, 65 S.Ct. 161, 89 L.Ed. 124 (1944).
See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae26.
But we have also held that the "weight of such a judgment in a particular case will depend upon the thoroughness evident in its consideration, the validity of its reasoning, its consistency with earlier and later pronouncements, and all those factors that give it power to persuade, if lacking power to control." Skidmore, supra,at 140, 65 S.Ct. 161. These qualifications are relevant here and severely limit the EEOC's July 2014 guidance's special power to persuade.
We come to this conclusion not because of any agency lack of "experience" or "informed judgment." Rather, the difficulties are those of timing, "consistency," and "thoroughness" of "consideration." The EEOC promulgated its 2014 guidelines only recently, after this Court had granted certiorari in this case. In these circumstances, it is fair to say that the EEOC's current guidelines take a position about which the EEOC's previous guidelines were silent. And that position is inconsistent with positions for which the Government has long advocated. See Brief for Defendant-Appellee in Ensley-Gaines v. Runyon,No. 95-1038 (CA6 1996), pp. 26-27 (explaining that a reading of the Act like Young's was "simply incorrect" and "runs counter" to this Court's precedents). See also Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae16, n. 2 ("The Department of Justice, on behalf of the United States Postal Service, has previously taken the position that pregnant employees with work limitations are not similarly situated to employees with similar limitations caused by on-the-job injuries"). Nor does the EEOC explain the basis of its latest guidance. Does it read the statute, for example, as embodying a most-favored-nation status? Why has it now taken a position contrary to the litigation position the Government previously took? Without further explanation, we cannot rely significantly on the EEOC's determination.
C
We find it similarly difficult to accept the opposite interpretation of the Act's second clause. UPS says that the second clause simply defines sex discrimination to include pregnancy discrimination. See Brief for Respondent 25. But that cannot be so.
The first clause accomplishes that objective when it expressly amends Title VII's definitional provision to make clear that Title VII's words "because of sex" and "on the basis of sex" "include, but are not limited to, because of or on the basis of pregnancy, childbirth, or related medical conditions." 42 U.S.C. § 2000e(k). We have long held that " 'a statute ought, upon the whole, to be so construed that, if it can be prevented, no clause' " is rendered "'superfluous, void, or insignificant.' " TRW Inc. v. Andrews,534 U.S. 19, 31, 122 S.Ct. 441, 151 L.Ed.2d 339 (2001)(quoting Duncan v. Walker,533 U.S. 167, 174, 121 S.Ct. 2120, 150 L.Ed.2d 251 (2001)). But that is what UPS' interpretation of the second clause would do.
The dissent, basically accepting UPS' interpretation, says that the second clause is not "superfluous" because it adds "clarity." Post, at 1362 - 1363 (internal quotation marks omitted). It makes "plain," the dissent adds, that unlawful discrimination "includes disfavoring pregnant women relative to other workers of similar inability to work." Post,at 1363. Perhaps we fail to understand. McDonnell Douglasitself makes clear that courts normally consider how a plaintiff was treated relative to other "persons of [the plaintiff's] qualifications" (which here include disabilities). 411 U.S., at 802, 93 S.Ct. 1817. If the second clause of the Act did not exist, we would still say that an employer who disfavored pregnant women relative to other workers of similar ability or inability to work had engaged in pregnancy discrimination. In a word, there is no need for the "clarification" that the dissent suggests the second sentence provides.
Moreover, the interpretation espoused by UPS and the dissent would fail to carry out an important congressional objective. As we have noted, Congress' "unambiguou[s]" intent in passing the Act was to overturn "both the holding and the reasoning of the Court in the Gilbertdecision." Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v. EEOC,462 U.S. 669, 678, 103 S.Ct. 2622, 77 L.Ed.2d 89 (1983); see also post,at 1364 (recognizing that "the object of the Pregnancy Discrimination Act is to displace this Court's conclusion in [Gilbert]"). In Gilbert,the Court considered a company plan that provided "nonoccupational sickness and accident benefits to all employees" without providing "disability-benefit payments for any absence due to pregnancy." 429 U.S., at 128, 129, 97 S.Ct. 401. The Court held that the plan did not violate Title VII; it did not discriminate on the basis of sex because there was "no risk from which men are protected and women are not." Id.,at 138, 97 S.Ct. 401(internal quotation marks omitted). Although pregnancy is "confined to women," the majority believed it was not "comparable in all other respects to [the] diseases or disabilities" that the plan covered. Id.,at 136, 97 S.Ct.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A construction accident in the Gulf of Mexico gave rise to this admiralty case. In advance of trial, petitioner, the plaintiff, settled with three of the defendants for $1 million. Respondents, however, did not settle, and the case went to trial. A jury assessed petitioner’s loss at $2.1 million and allocated 32% of the damages to respondent AmClyde and 38% to respondent River Don Castings, Ltd. (River Don). The question presented is whether the liability of the nonsettling defendants should be calculated with reference to the jury’s allocation of proportionate responsibility, or by giving the nonsettling defendants a credit for the dollar amount of the settlement. We hold that the proportionate approach is the correct one.
I
Petitioner McDermott, Inc., purchased a specially designed, 5,000-ton crane from AmClyde. When petitioner first used the crane in an attempt to move an oil and gas production platform — the “Snapper deck” — from a barge to a structural steel base affixed to the floor of the Gulf of Mexico, a prong of the crane’s main hook broke, causing massive damage to the deck and to the crane itself. The malfunction may have been caused by petitioner’s negligent operation of the crane, by AmClyde’s faulty design or construction, by a defect in the hook supplied by River Don, or by one or more of the three companies (the “sling defendants”) that supplied the supporting steel slings.
Invoking the federal court’s jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. §§1332 and 1333(1), petitioner brought suit against Am-Clyde and River Don and the three sling defendants. The complaint sought a recovery for both deck damages and crane damages. On the eve of trial, petitioner entered into a settlement with the sling defendants. In exchange for $1 million, petitioner agreed to dismiss with prejudice its claims against the sling defendants, to release them from all liability for either deck or crane damages, and to indemnify them against any contribution action. The trial judge later ruled that petitioner’s claim for crane damages was barred by East River S. S. Corp. v. Transamerica Delaval Inc., 476 U. S. 858 (1986).
In its opening statement at trial, petitioner McDermott “accepted responsibility for any part the slings played in causing the damage.” McDermott, Inc. v. Clyde Iron, 979 F. 2d 1068, 1070 (CA5 1993). The jury found that the total damages to the deck amounted to $2.1 million and, in answer to special interrogatories, allocated responsibility among the respective parties: 32% to AmClyde, 38% to River Don, and 30% jointly to McDermott and the sling defendants. The court denied a motion by respondents to reduce the judgment pro tanto by the $1 million settlement, and entered judgment against AmClyde for $672,000 (32% of $2.1 million) and against River Don for $798,000 (38% of $2.1 million). Even though the sum of those judgments plus the settlement proceeds exceeded the total damages found by the jury, the District Court concluded that petitioner had not received a double recovery because the settlement had covered both crane damages and deck damages.
The Court of Appeals held that a contractual provision precluded any recovery against AmClyde and that the trial judge had improperly denied a pro tanto settlement credit. It reversed the judgment against AmClyde entirely and reduced the judgment against River Don to $470,000. It arrived at that figure by making two calculations. First, it determined that petitioner’s “full damage[s] award is $1.47 million ($2.1 million jury verdict less 30% attributed to McDermott/sling defendants).” 979 F. 2d, at 1081. Next, it deducted the “$1 million received in settlement to reach $470,000.” Ibid. It treated this figure as the maximum that could be recovered from the nonsettling defendants. Because it was less than River Don’s liability as found by the jury (38% of $2.1 million or $798,000), it directed the entry of judgment against River Don in that amount. Ibid.
Because we have not previously considered how a settlement with less than all of the defendants in an admiralty ease should affect the liability of nonsettling defendants, and because the Courts of Appeals have adopted different approaches to this important question, we granted certiorari. 509 U. S. 921 (1993).
II
Although Congress has enacted significant legislation in the field of admiralty law, none of those statutes provides us with any “policy guidance” or imposes any limit on our authority to fashion the rule that will best answer the question presented by this case. See Miles v. Apex Marine Corp., 498 U. S. 19, 27 (1990). We are, nevertheless, in familiar waters because “the Judiciary has traditionally taken the lead in formulating flexible and fair remedies in the law maritime.” United States v. Reliable Transfer Co., 421 U. S. 397, 409 (1975).
In the Reliable Transfer case we decided to abandon a rule that had been followed for over a century in assessing damages when both parties to a collision are at fault. We replaced the divided damages rule, which required an equal division of property damage whatever the relative degree of fault may have been, with a rule requiring that damages be assessed on the basis of proportionate fault when such an allocation can reasonably be made. Although the old rule avoided the difficulty of determining comparative degrees of negligence, we concluded that it was “unnecessarily crude and inequitable” and that “[pjotential problems of proof in some cases hardly require adherence to an archaic and unfair rule in all cases.” Id., at 407. Thus the interest in certainty and simplicity served by the old rule was outweighed by the interest in fairness promoted by the proportionate fault rule.
Our decision in Reliable Transfer was supported by a consensus among the world’s maritime nations and the views of respected scholars and judges. See id., at 403-405. No comparable consensus has developed with respect to the issue in the case before us today. It is generally agreed that when a plaintiff settles with one of several joint tortfeasors, the nonsettling defendants are entitled to a credit for that settlement. There is, however, a divergence among respected scholars and judges about how that credit should be determined. Indeed, the American Law Institute (ALI) has identified three principal alternatives and, after noting that “[e]ach has its drawbacks and no one is satisfactory,” decided not to take a position on the issue. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 886A, pp. 343-344 (1977). The ALI describes the three alternatives as follows:
“(1) The money paid extinguishes any claim that the injured party has against the party released and the amount of his remaining claim against the other tortfeasor is reached by crediting the amount received; but the transaction does not affect a claim for contribution by another tortfeasor who has paid more than his equitable share of the obligation.” Id., at 343.
“(2) The money paid extinguishes both any claims on the part of the injured party and any claim for contribution by another tortfeasor who has paid more than his equitable share of the obligation and seeks contribution.” Ibid. (As in alternative (1), the amount of the injured party’s claim against the other tortfeasors is calculated by subtracting the amount of the settlement from the plaintiff’s damages.)
“(3) The money paid extinguishes any claim that the injured party has against the released tortfeasor and also diminishes the claim that the injured party has against the other tortfeasors by the amount of the equitable share of the obligation of the released tortfeasor.” Id., at 344.
The first two alternatives involve the kind of “pro tanto” credit that respondents urge us to adopt. The difference between the two versions of the pro tanto approach is the recognition of a right of contribution against a settling defendant in the first but not the second. The third alternative, supported by petitioner, involves a credit for the settling defendants’ “proportionate share” of responsibility for the total obligation. Under this approach, no suits for contribution from the settling defendants are permitted, nor are they necessary, because the nonsettling defendants pay no more than their share of the judgment.
The proportionate share approach would make River Don responsible for precisely its share of the damages, $798,000 (38% of $2.1 million). A simple application of the pro tanto approach would allocate River Don $1.1 million in damages ($2.1 million total damages minus the $1 million settlement). The Court of Appeals, however, made a different calculation. Because McDermott “accepted responsibility for any part the sling played in causing the damage,” 979 F. 2d, at 1070, the Court of Appeals treated the 30% of liability apportioned to “McDermott/sling defendants” as if that 30% had been caused solely by McDermott’s own negligence. Id., at 1081. The Court of Appeals, therefore, gave River Don a double credit, first reducing the total loss by the McDermott/sling defendants’ proportionate share and then applying the full pro tanto reduction to that amount. This double credit resulted in an award of only $470,000 ($2.1 million minus 30% of $2.1 million minus $1 million).
Ill
In choosing among the ALI’s three alternatives, three considerations are paramount: consistency with the proportionate fault approach of United States v. Reliable Transfer, 421 U. S. 397 (1975), promotion of settlement, and judicial economy. ALI Option 1, pro tanto setoff with right of contribution against the settling defendant, is clearly inferior to the other two, because it discourages settlement and leads to unnecessary ancillary litigation. It discourages settlement, because settlement can only disadvantage the settling defendant. If a defendant makes a favorable settlement, in which it pays less than the amount a court later determines is its share of liability, the other defendant (or defendants) can sue the settling defendant for contribution. The settling defendant thereby loses the benefit of its favorable settlement. In addition, the claim for contribution burdens the courts with additional litigation. The plaintiff can mitigate the adverse effect on settlement by promising to indemnify the settling defendant against contribution, as McDermott did here. This indemnity, while removing the disincentive to settlement, adds yet another potential burden on the courts, an indemnity action between the settling defendant and plaintiff.
The choice between ALI Options 2 and 3, between the pro tanto rule without contribution against the settling tortfeasor and the proportionate share approach, is less clear. The proportionate share rule is more consistent with Reliable Transfer, because a litigating defendant ordinarily pays only its proportionate share of the judgment. Under the pro tanto approach, however, a litigating defendant’s liability will frequently differ from its equitable share, because a settlement with one defendant for less than its equitable share requires the nonsettling defendant to pay more than its share. Such deviations from the equitable apportionment of damages will be common, because settlements seldom reflect an entirely accurate prediction of the outcome of a trial. Moreover, the settlement figure is likely to be significantly less than the settling defendant’s equitable share of the loss, because settlement reflects the uncertainty of trial and provides the plaintiff with a “war chest” with which to finance the litigation against the remaining defendants. Courts and legislatures have recognized this potential for unfairness and have required “good-faith hearings” as a remedy. When such hearings are required, the settling defendant is protected against contribution actions only if it shows that the settlement is a fair forecast of its equitable share of the judgment. Nevertheless, good-faith hearings cannot fully remove the potential for inequitable allocation of liability. First, to serve their protective function effectively, such hearings would have to be minitrials on the merits, but in practice they are often quite cursory. More fundamentally, even if the judge at a good-faith hearing were able to make a perfect forecast of the allocation of liability at trial, there might still be substantial unfairness when the plaintiff’s success at trial is uncertain. In sum, the pro tanto approach, even when supplemented with good-faith hearings, is likely to lead to inequitable apportionments of liability, contrary to Reliable Transfer.
The effect of the two rules on settlements is more ambiguous. Sometimes the pro tanto approach will better promote settlement. This beneficial effect, however, is a consequence of the inequity discussed above. The rule encourages settlements by giving the defendant that settles first an opportunity to pay less than its fair share of the damages, thereby threatening the nonsettling defendant with the prospect of paying more than its fair share of the loss. By disadvantaging the party that spurns settlement offers, the pro tanto rule puts pressure on all defendants to settle. While public policy wisely encourages settlements, such additional pressure to settle is unnecessary. The parties’ desire to avoid litigation costs, to reduce uncertainty, and to maintain ongoing commercial relationships is sufficient to ensure non-trial dispositions in the vast majority of cases. Under the proportionate share approach, such factors should ensure a similarly high settlement rate. The additional incentive to settlement provided by the pro tanto rule comes at too high a price in unfairness. Furthermore, any conclusion that the pro tanto rule generally encourages more settlements requires many simplifying assumptions, such as low litigation costs. Recognition of the reality that a host of practical considerations may be more significant than stark hypotheticals persuades us that the pro tanto rule has no clear advantage in promoting settlements.
The effect of the two rules on judicial economy is also ambiguous. The pro tanto rule, if adopted without the requirement of a good-faith hearing, would be easier to administer, because the relative fault of the settling defendant would not have to be adjudicated either at a preliminary hearing or at trial. Nevertheless, because of the large potential for unfairness, no party or amicus in this suit advocates the pro tanto rule untamed by good-faith hearings. Once the pro tanto rule is coupled with a good-faith hearing, however, it is difficult to determine whether the pro tanto or proportionate share approach best promotes judicial economy. Under either approach, the relative fault of the parties will have to be determined. Under the pro tanto approach, the settling defendant’s share of responsibility will have to be ascertained at a separate, pretrial hearing. Under the proportionate share approach, the allocation will take place at trial. The pro tanto approach will, therefore, save judicial time only if the good-faith hearing is quicker than the allocation of fault at trial. Given the cursory nature of most good-faith hearings, this may well be true. On the other hand, there is reason to believe that reserving the apportionment of liability for trial may save more time. First, the remaining defendant (or defendants) may settle before trial, thus making any determination of relative culpability unnecessary. In addition, the apportionment of damages required by the proportionate share rule may require little or no additional trial time. The parties will often need to describe the settling defendant’s role in order to provide context for the dispute. Furthermore, a defendant will often argue the “empty chair” in the hope of convincing the jury that the settling party was exclusively responsible for the damage. The pro tanto rule thus has ho clear advantage with respect to judicial economy.
In sum, although the arguments for the two approaches are closely matched, we are persuaded that the proportionate share approach is superior, especially in its consistency with Reliable Transfer.
IV
Respondents advance two additional arguments against the proportionate share approach: that it violates the “one satisfaction rule” and that it is inconsistent with Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 443 U. S. 256 (1979).
In the 19th and early 20th centuries, the “one satisfaction rule” barred a plaintiff from litigating against one joint tortfeasor, if he had settled with and released another. This version of the one satisfaction rule has been thoroughly repudiated. Respondents do not ask that the one satisfaction rule be applied with its original strictness, but rather in the milder form in which some courts still invoke it to reduce a plaintiff’s recovery against a nonsettling defendant in order to ensure that the plaintiff does not secure more than necessary to compensate him for his loss. As a preliminary matter, it is far from clear that there was any danger of super-compensatory damages here. First, there is the question of the crane damages, which were not covered by the judgment against River Don. In addition, even limiting consideration to deck damages, the jury fixed plaintiff’s losses at $2.1 million. Plaintiff received $1 million in settlement from the sling defendants. Under the proportionate share approach, plaintiff would receive an additional $798,000 from River Don. In total, plaintiff would recover only $1,798 million, over $300,000 less than its damages. The one satisfaction rule comes into play only if one assumes that the percent share of liability apportioned to McDermott and the sling defendants really represented McDermott’s contributory fault, and that it would be overcompensatory for McDermott to receive more than the percentage of the total loss allocated to the defendants, here $1.47 million (70% of $2.1 million).
Even if the Court of Appeals were correct in finding that the proportionate share approach would overcompensate Mc-Dermott, we would not apply the one satisfaction rule. The law contains no rigid rule against overcompensation. Several doctrines, such as the collateral benefits rule, recognize that making tortfeasors pay for the damage they cause can be more important than preventing overcompensation. In this case, any excess recovery is entirely attributable to the fact that the sling defendants may have made an unwise settlement. It seems probable that in most cases in which there is a partial settlement, the plaintiff is more apt to accept less than the proportionate share that the jury might later assess against the settling defendant, because of the uncertainty of recovery at the time of settlement negotiations and because the first settlement normally improves the plaintiff’s litigating posture against the nonsettlors. In such cases, the entire burden of applying a proportionate share rule would rest on the plaintiff, and the interest in avoiding overeompensation would be absent. More fundamentally, we must recognize that settlements frequently result in the plaintiff’s getting more than he would have been entitled to at trial. Because settlement amounts are based on rough estimates of liability, anticipated savings in litigation costs, and a host of other factors, they will rarely match exactly the amounts a trier of fact would have set. It seems to us that a plaintiff’s good fortune in striking a favorable bargain with one defendant gives other defendants no claim to pay less than their proportionate share of the total loss. In fact, one of the virtues of the proportionate share rule is that, unlike the pro tanto rule, it does not make a litigating defendant’s liability dependent on the amount of a settlement negotiated by others without regard to its interests.
Respondents also argue that the proportionate share rule is inconsistent with Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 443 U. S. 256 (1979). In that case, we refused to reduce the judgment against a shipowner by the proportionate fault attributed to a stevedore whose liability was limited by the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. Instead, the Court allowed the plaintiff to collect from the shipowner the entirety of his damages, after adjusting for the plaintiff’s own negligence. There is no inconsistency between that result and the rule announced in this opinion. Edmonds was primarily a statutory construction case and related to special interpretive questions posed by the 1972 amendments to the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act. Both parties acknowledge that this case must be resolved by judge-made rules of law. Moreover, Edmonds did not address the issue in this case, the effect of a settlement on nonsettling defendants. Indeed, there was no settlement in that case. Instead, one can read that opinion as merely reaffirming the well-established principle of joint and several liability. As the Court pointed out, that principle was in no way abrogated by Reliable Transfer’s proportionate fault approach. Edmonds, 443 U. S., at 271-272, n. 30. In addition, as the Commissioners on Uniform State Laws have noted, there is no tension between joint and several liability and a proportionate share approach to settlements. Joint and several liability applies when there has been a judgment against multiple defendants. It can result in one defendant’s paying more than its apportioned share of liability when the plaintiff’s recovery from other defendants is limited by factors beyond the plaintiff’s control, such as a defendant’s insolvency. When the limitations on the plaintiff’s recovery arise from outside forces, joint and several liability makes the other defendants, rather than an innocent plaintiff, responsible for the shortfall. Ibid Unlike the rule in Edmonds, the proportionate share rule announced in this opinion applies when there has been a settlement. In such cases, the plaintiff’s recovery against the settling defendant has been limited not by outside forces, but by its own agreement to settle. There is no reason to allocate any shortfall to the other defendants, who were not parties to the settlement. Just as the other defendants are not entitled to a reduction in liability when the plaintiff negotiates a generous settlement, see supra, at 219-220, so they are not required to shoulder disproportionate liability when the plaintiff negotiates a meager one.
V
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.
“AmClyde,” formerly known as “Clyde Iron,” is a division of AMCA International, Inc.
The three sling defendants, sometimes also described as the “settling defendants,” were International Southwest Slings, Inc.; British Ropes, Ltd.; and Hendrik Veder B. V.
Section 1333(1) provides: “The district courts shall have original jurisdiction, exclusive of the courts of the States, of: (1) Any civil case of admiralty or maritime jurisdiction, saving to suitors in all cases all other remedies to which they are otherwise entitled.”
McDermott’s motive in taking upon itself responsibility for the sling defendant’s fault is obscure. Perhaps it thought doing so would prevent a contribution action against the sling defendants and thus relieve McDermott of its indemnity obligation.
The special interrogatory treated McDermott and the sling defendants as a single entity and called for a percentage figure that covered them both. This combined treatment reflected McDermott’s acceptance of responsibility for the damages caused by the sling defendants.
The trial judge also noted that “[t]o hold as the defendants request would result in the settling defendants, who were at the most thirty percent (30%) responsible for the accident (no separate contributory negligence, if any, finding was made as to McDermott), paying One Million Dollars ($1,000,000.00) while the defendants who insisted on a trial and were found to be seventy percent (70%) liable would pay Four Hundred and Seventy Thousand Dollars ($470,000.00) between them. That is unjust....” App. to Pet. for Cert. A-52 to A-53.
See, e. g., Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 33 U. S. C. §§901-950; Death on the High Seas Act, 46 U. S. C. §§761-768; Public Vessels Act, 46 U. S. C. §§781-790.
The three alternatives sketched by the ALI correspond to three detailed model Acts proposed by the National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws. Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (1939 Act), 12 U. L. A. 57-59 (1975) (ALI Option 1); Revised Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act (1955 Revised Act), id., at 63-107 (ALI Option 2); Uniform Comparative Fault Act (1977 Act), 12 U. L. A. 45-61 (1993 Supp.) (ALI Option 3). Although the three ALI options are the most plausible, a number of others are possible. So, for example, in addition to arguing for the pro tanto rule, respondents suggest that we consider a rule that allows the nonsettling defendants to elect before trial either the pro tanto or the proportionate share rule. Although respondents claim support for their proposal in Texas and New York statutes, those statutes enact regimes quite different from that proposed by respondents. Texas Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Ann. § 33.012(b) (Supp. 1994) (nonsettling defendant can choose pro tanto rule or reduction of damages by fixed proportion of total damages without regard to relative fault); N. Y. Gen. Oblig. Law § 15-108 (McKinney 1989) (pro tanto rule or proportionate share rule, whichever favors nonsettling defendants). We are unwilling to consider a rule that has yet to be applied in any jurisdiction.
In this opinion, we use the phrase “proportionate share approach” to denote ALI Option 3. We have deliberately avoided use of the term “pro rata,” which is often used to describe this approach, see, e. g., T. Schoenbaum, Admiralty and Maritime Law §4-15, p. 153 (1987), because that term is also used to describe an equal allocation among all defendants without regard to their relative responsibility for the loss. See In re Masters Mates & Pilots Pension Plan and IRAP Litigation, 957 F. 2d 1020, 1028 (CA2 1992); Silver, Contribution Under the Securities Acts: The Pro Rata Method Revisited, 1992/1993 Ann. Survey Am. L. 273. Others have used different terms to describe the approach adopted here. Ibid, (“proportionate method”); Kornhauser & Revesz, Settlements Under Joint and Several Liability, 68 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 427, 438 (1993) (“apportioned share set-off rule”); Polinsky & Shavell, Contribution and Claim Reduction Among Antitrust Defendants: An Economic Analysis, 33 Stan. L. Rev. 447 (1981) (“claim reduction”).
It might be thought that, since AmClyde is immune from damages, River Don’s liability should be $1.47 million (McDermott’s $2.1 million loss minus 30% of $2.1 million, the share of liability attributed to the settling defendants and McDermott). This calculation would make River Don responsible not only for its own 38% share, but also for the 32% of the damages allocated by the jury to AmClyde. This result could be seen as mandated by principles of joint and several liability and by Edmonds v. Compagnie Generale Transatlantique, 443 U. S. 256 (1979). See infra, at 220-221. Nevertheless, McDermott has not requested that River Don pay any more than its 38% share of the damages. AmClyde is immune from damages because its contract with McDermott provided that free replacement of defective parts “shall constitute fulfillment of all liabilities... whether based upon Contract, tort, strict liability or otherwise.” 979 F. 2d 1068, 1075 (CA5 1993) (emphasis omitted). The best way of viewing this contractual provision is as a quasi settlement in advance of any tort claims. Viewed as such, the proportionate credit in this case properly takes into áccount both the 30% of liability apportioned to the settling defendants (and McDermott) and the 32% allocated to AmClyde. This leaves River Don with $798,000 or 38% of the damages.
For simplicity, we ignore AmClyde, which was found to be immune from damages by the Court of Appeals. Id., at 1075-1076. No party appeals that holding. Although AmClyde spent a considerable amount replacing the defective hook, River Don does not argue that that amount should be included in the calculation of its liability.
Whether the Court of Appeals correctly applied the pro tanto rule in the context of McDermott’s acceptance of responsibility for the sling damages is a difficult question. Fortunately, since we adopt the proportionate share approach, we need not answer it.
Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act §4 (1955 Revised Act), Commissioners’ Comment, 12 U. L. A. 99 (1975); Kornhauser & Revesz, 68 N. Y. U. L. Rev., at 474; Polinsky & Shavell, 33 Stan. L. Rev., at 458-459, 462, 463. This argument assumes, in accordance with the law of most jurisdictions, that a settling defendant ordinarily has no right of contribution against other defendants. See Uniform Contribution Against Tortfeasors Act § 1(d), 12 U. L. A. 63 (1975); Uniform Comparative Fault Act §4(b), 12 U. L. A. 54 (1993 Supp.); Restatement (Second) of Torts §886A(2) and Comment f, pp. 337, 339 (1977).
Suppose, for example, that a plaintiff sues two defendants, each equally responsible, and settles with one for $250,000. At trial, the non-settling defendant is found liable, and plaintiff’s damages are assessed at $1 million. Under the pro tanto rule, the nonsettling defendant would be liable for 75% of the damages ($750,000, which is $1 million minus $250,000). The litigating defendant is thus responsible for far more than its proportionate share of the damages. It is also possible for the pro tanto rule to result in the nonsettlor paying less than its apportioned share, if, as in this case, the settlement is greater than the amount later determined by the court to be the settlors’ equitable share. For a more complex example illustrating the potential for unfairness under the pro tanto rule when the parties are not equally at fault, see Kornhauser & Revesz, 68 N. Y. U. L. Rev., at 465-456 (pro tanto rule can lead to defendant responsible for 75% of damages paying only 37.5% of loss, while 26% responsible defendant pays 31.25%).
In re Masters Mates & Pilots Pension Plan and IRAP Litigation, 957 F. 2d 1020 (CA2 1992); Miller v. Christopher, 887 F. 2d 902, 906-907 (CA9 1989); Tech-Bilt, Inc. v. Woodward-Clyde & Assocs., 38 Cal. 3d 488, 698 P. 2d 159 (1985); Uniform Contribution Among Tortfeasors Act §4 (1955 Revised Act), 12 U. L. A. 98 (1975) (enacted as statute law in 19 States, 12 U. L. A. 81 (1993 Supp.)).
Tech-Bilt, Inc., 38 Cal. 3d, at 499, 698 P. 2d, at 166; Miller, 887 F. 2d, at 907; In re Masters, 957 F. 2d, at 1031; but see Noyes v. Raymond, 28 Mass. App. 186, 190, 548 N. E. 2d 196, 199 (1990) (judge in good-faith hearing should not scrutinize the settlement amount, but merely look for “collusion, fraud, dishonesty, and other wrongful conduct”).
Franklin v. Kaypro Corp., 884 F. 2d 1222, 1230 (CA9 1989).
Tech-Bilt, 38 Cal. 3d, at 500, 698 P. 2d, at 167 (“[T]he determination of good faith can be made by the court on the basis of affidavits”); TBG Inc. v. Bendis, 811 F. Supp. 596, 605, n. 17, 608 (Kan. 1992) (no “mini trial” required; settlement amount is “best available measure of liability”).
Suppose again, as in footnote 14, that plaintiff sues two equally culpable defendants for $1 million and settles with one for $250,000. At the good-fáith hearing, the settling defendant persuasively demonstrates that the settlement is in good faith, because it shows that its share of liability is 50% and that plaintiff has only a 50% chance of prevailing at trial. The settlement thus reflects exactly the settling defendant’s expected liability. If plaintiff prevails at trial, the nonsettling defendant will again be liable for 75% of the judgment even though its equitable share is only 50%. The only way to avoid this inequity is for the judge at the good-faith hearing to disallow any settlement for less than $500,000, that is, any settlement which takes into account the uncertainty of recovery at trial. Such a policy, however, carries a grave cost. It would make settlement extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible, in most cases. As a result, every jurisdiction that conducts a good-faith inquiry into the amount of the settlement takes into account the uncertainty of recovery at trial. Miller, 887 F. 2d, at 907-908; Tech-Éilt, 38 Cal. 3d, at 499, 698 P. 2d, at 166; TBG Inc., 811 F. Supp., at 600.
Illustration of the beneficial effects of the pro tanto rule requires substantial simplifying assumptions. Suppose, for example, that all parties are risk neutral, that litigation is costless, and that there are only two defendants. In addition, suppose everyone agrees that the damages are $100, that if one defendant is found liable, the other one will also be found liable, and that if the defendants are liable, each will be apportioned 50% of the damages. And suppose, as frequently happens, that the plaintiff is more optimistic about his chances of prevailing than the defendants: Plaintiff thinks his chances of winning are 60%, whereas the defendants think the plaintiff’s chances are only 50%. In this case, under the proportionate setoff rule, settlement is unlikely, because the plaintiff would be reluctant to accept less than $30 (60% times 50% of $100) from each defendant, whereas neither defendant would be disposed to offer more than $25 (50% times 50% of $100). On the other hand, under the pro tanto rule, the plaintiff would be willing to accept a $25 settlement offer, because he would believe he had a 60% chance of recovering $75 ($100 minus the $25 settlement) at trial from the other defendant. Accepting the $25 settlement offer would give the plaintiff an expected recovery of $70 ($25 plus 60% of $75), which is more than the $60 (60% of $100) the plaintiff would expect if he went to trial against both defendants. For a more thorough discussion of settlement under the pro tanto rule, see Kornhauser & Revesz, 68 N. Y. U. L. Rev., at 447-465.
See H. Hovenkamp, Economics and Federal Antitrust Law §14.6, p. 377 (1985), summarizing Easterbrook, Landes, & Posner, Contribution among Antitrust Defendants: A Legal and Economic Analysis, 23 J. Law & Econ. 331,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
In the District Court, petitioners challenged a New York City rule regarding the transport of firearms. Petitioners claimed that the rule violated the Second Amendment. Petitioners sought declaratory and injunctive relief against enforcement of the rule insofar as the rule prevented their transport of firearms to a second home or shooting range outside of the city. The District Court and the Court of Appeals rejected petitioners' claim. See 883 F.3d 45 (C.A.2 2018). We granted certiorari. 586 U.S. ----, 139 S.Ct. 939, 203 L.Ed.2d 130 (2019). After we granted certiorari, the State of New York amended its firearm licensing statute, and the City amended the rule so that petitioners may now transport firearms to a second home or shooting range outside of the city, which is the precise relief that petitioners requested in the prayer for relief in their complaint. App. 48. Petitioners' claim for declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to the City's old rule is therefore moot. Petitioners now argue, however, that the new rule may still infringe their rights. In particular, petitioners claim that they may not be allowed to stop for coffee, gas, food, or restroom breaks on the way to their second homes or shooting ranges outside of the city. The City responds that those routine stops are entirely permissible under the new rule. We do not here decide that dispute about the new rule; as we stated in Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp. , 494 U.S. 472, 482-483, 110 S.Ct. 1249, 108 L.Ed.2d 400 (1990) :
"Our ordinary practice in disposing of a case that has become moot on appeal is to vacate the judgment with directions to dismiss. See, e.g., Deakins v. Monaghan , 484 U.S. [193] at 204 [108 S.Ct. 523, 98 L.Ed.2d 529 (1988) ] ; United States v. Munsingwear, Inc. , 340 U.S. 36, 39-40 [71 S.Ct. 104, 95 L.Ed. 36] (1950). However, in instances where the mootness is attributable to a change in the legal framework governing the case, and where the plaintiff may have some residual claim under the new framework that was understandably not asserted previously, our practice is to vacate the judgment and remand for further proceedings in which the parties may, if necessary, amend their pleadings or develop the record more fully. See Diffenderfer v. Central Baptist Church of Miami, Inc. , 404 U.S. 412, 415 [92 S.Ct. 574, 30 L.Ed.2d 567] (1972)."
Petitioners also argue that, even though they have not previously asked for damages with respect to the City's old rule, they still could do so in this lawsuit. Petitioners did not seek damages in their complaint; indeed, the possibility of a damages claim was not raised until well into the litigation in this Court. The City argues that it is too late for petitioners to now add a claim for damages. On remand, the Court of Appeals and the District Court may consider whether petitioners may still add a claim for damages in this lawsuit with respect to New York City's old rule. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for such proceedings as are appropriate.
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.
Justice Scalia
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I, II, and III-A, and an opinion with respect to Parts III-B and IV, in which The Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Ginsburg join.
In these cases, we decide whether the District Court properly enjoined a Mississippi state court’s proposed congressional redistricting plan and whether it properly fashioned its own congressional reapportionment plan rather than order at-large elections.
I
The 2000 census caused Mississippi to lose one congressional seat, reducing its representation in the House of Representatives from five Members to four. The state legislature, however, failed to pass a new redistricting plan after the decennial census results were published in 2001. In anticipation of the March 1, 2002, state-law deadline for the qualification of candidates, see Miss. Code Ann. § 23-15-299 (Lexis 2001), appellant and cross-appellee Beatrice Branch and others (state plaintiffs) filed suit in a Mississippi State Chancery Court in October 2001, asking the state court to issue a redistricting plan for the 2002 congressional elections. In November 2001, appellee and cross-appellant John Smith and others (federal plaintiffs) filed a similar action under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi, claiming that the current districting plan, Miss. Code Aim. §23-15-1037 (Lexis 2001), dividing the State into five, rather than four, congressional districts, was unconstitutional and unenforceable. The federal plaintiffs asked the District Court to enjoin the current redistricting plan, and subsequently asked it to enjoin any plan developed by a state court (which they asserted would violate Article I, § 4, of the Constitution, and, in any event, could not be enforced until the state court’s assertion of redistricting authority was precleared under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, 79 Stat. 439, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c), and asked that it order at-large elections pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §23-15-1039 (2001) and 46 Stat. 26, 2 U. S. C. § 2a(c)(5), or, alternatively, devise its own redistricting plan.
A three-judge District Court was convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2284. Initially the District Court did not interfere with the State Chancery Court’s efforts to develop a redistricting plan. In an order filed on December 5, 2001, Smith v. Clark, 189 F. Supp. 2d 502 (SD Miss.), the District Court permitted the state plaintiffs to intervene and deferred ruling on the federal plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction. In staying its hand, the District Court recognized that “ ‘the Constitution leaves with the States primary responsibility for apportionment of their federal congressional... districts,’ ” id., at 503 (quoting Growe v. Emison, 507 U. S. 25, 34 (1993)), but concluded that “if it is not clear to this court by January 7, 2002 that the State authorities can have a redistricting plan in place by March 1, we will assert our jurisdiction... and if necessary, we will draft and implement a plan for reapportioning the state congressional districts,” 189 F. Supp. 2d, at 503; see also 189 F. Supp. 2d 503, 505-506 (SD Miss. 2002).
On the eve of the State Chancery Court trial, the Mississippi Supreme Court denied petitions for writs of prohibition and mandamus filed by a state defendant and others challenging the Chancery Court’s jurisdiction to engage in congressional redistricting. It held that the Chancery Court had jurisdiction to issue a redistricting plan. In re Mauldin, Civ. No. 2001-M-01891 (Dec. 13, 2001), App. to Juris. Statement 110a. Following trial, on December 21, 2001, the State Chancery Court adopted a redistricting plan submitted by the state plaintiffs. On December 26, the state attorney general submitted that plan, along with the Mississippi Supreme Court’s Mauldin decision (which arguably changed the process for drawing congressional districts by authorizing the Chancery Court to create a redistricting plan), to the Department of Justice (DOJ) for preclearance. On February 14, 2002, DOJ sent a letter to the state attorney general requesting additional information about the Mauldin decision, because “the information sent to date regarding this change in voting procedure is insufficient....” App. to Juris. Statement 193a. The letter advised that the “sixty-day review period will begin when we receive the information specified.” Id., at 196a. The state attorney general provided additional information on February 19 and 20, 2002.
Meanwhile, in January 2002, the District Court, expressing “serious doubts whether the Mississippi Supreme Court’s Order and the plan adopted by the Chancery Court pursuant to that order will be precleared prior to the March 1 candidate qualification deadline,” 189 F. Supp. 2d, at-508, had begun to develop its own redistricting plan, id., at 511. On February 4, 2002, it promulgated a redistricting plan to be used absent the timely preclearance of the Chancery Court plan. 189 F. Supp. 2d 512 (SD Miss.). On February 19, it ordered that, if the Chancery Court redistricting plan was not “precleared before the close of business on Monday, February 25, 2002,” then the District Court’s plan would fix the Mississippi congressional districts for the 2002 elections. 189 F. Supp. 2d 529, 548. February 25th came and went with no action by DOJ. On February 26, the District Court enjoined the State from using the Chancery Court plan and ordered use of the District Court’s own plan in the 2002 elections and all succeeding elections until the State produced a constitutional redistricting plan that was precleared. 189 F. Supp. 2d 548, 559. The court said that the basis for its injunction and order was “reflected in our opinion of February 19, that is, the failure of the timely preelearance under § 5 of the Voting Rights Act of the Hinds County Chancery Court’s plan.” Id., at 549. However, “in the event that on appeal it is determined that we erred in our February 19 ruling,” the court put forth as its “alternative holding” that Article I, §4, of the United States Constitution prohibited the State Chancery Court from issuing a redistricting plan without express authorization from the state legislature. Ibid.
The State did not file a notice of appeal. On April 1,2002, DOJ informed the State in a letter that “it would be inappropriate for the Attorney General to make a determination concerning [the State’s preclearance] submission now” because the District Court’s injunction rendered the state-court plan incapable of administration. App. 29.
The state plaintiffs — intervenors in the District Court— filed a timely notice of appeal from the District Court and a jurisdictional statement. The federal plaintiffs filed a jurisdictional statement on conditional cross-appeal. We noted probable jurisdiction in both appeals and consolidated them. 536 U. S. 903 (2002).
II
At the outset we should observe two critical distinctions between these cases and the one that was before us in Growe v. Emison, 507 U. S. 25 (1993). In Growe, the Federal District Court had refused to abstain or defer to state-court redistricting proceedings. Id., at 30-31. In reversing, we reminded the federal courts of “ ‘what has been said on many occasions: reapportionment is primarily the duty and responsibility of the State through its legislature or other body, rather than of a federal court.’” Id., at 34 (quoting Chapman v. Meier, 420 U. S. 1, 27 (1975)). We held that “[a]bsent evidence that these state branches will fail timely to perform that duty, a federal court must neither affirmatively obstruct state reapportionment nor permit federal litigation to be used to impede it.” 507 U. S., at 34 (emphasis added). In the present cases, unlike in Growe, there is no suggestion that the District Court failed to allow the state court adequate opportunity to develop a redistricting plan. The second distinction is that the state-court plan here, unlike that in Growe, was subject to §5 of the Voting Rights Act, 42 U. S. C. § 1973c. The District Court rested its injunction of the state-court plan on the ground that necessary preclearance had not been obtained. It is that challenged premise that we examine first.
Section 5 of the Voting Rights Act provides that whenever a covered jurisdiction, such as Mississippi, see 30 Fed. Reg. 9897 (1965), “shall enact or seek to administer” a change in “any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure,” the State must obtain preclearance from the District Court for the District of Columbia or the Attorney General before the change may be enforced. 42 U. S. C. § 1973c. The Act requires preclearance of all voting changes, ibid.; see Dougherty County Bd. of Ed. v. White, 439 U. S. 32, 38-39 (1978), and there is no dispute that this includes voting changes mandated by order of a state court, see, e. g., In re McMillin, 642 So. 2d 1336, 1339 (Miss. 1994). Rather, the controversy pertains to the proviso in § 1973c to the effect that, where the preclearance submission is made to the Attorney General, the voting change may be enforced if “the Attorney General has not interposed an objection within sixty days after such submission....”
Appellants in No. 01-1437 (originally the state plaintiffs) assert that the District Court erred in believing that the Chancery Court’s plan lacked preclearance. It was automatically rendered enforceable, they contend, by DOJ’s failure to object within the 60-day period running from the state attorney general’s initial submission on December 26,2001— or, in the alternative, it was subsequently rendered enforceable by DOJ’s failure to object within the 60-day period running from the state attorney general’s submission of additional information on February 20, 2002. We consider each of these contentions in turn.
A
Under § 5, a jurisdiction seeking administrative preclearance must prove that the change.is nondiscriminatory in purpose and effect. Reno v. Bossier Parish School Bd., 528 U. S. 320, 328 (2000). It bears the burden of providing the Attorney General information sufficient to make that proof, Georgia v. United States, 411 U. S. 526, 537-539 (1973), and failure to do so will cause the Attorney General to object, see ibid.; 28 CFR § 51.52(c) (2002). In DOJ’s view, however, incomplete state submissions do not start the 60-day clock for review. See §§51.27, 51.37. The regulations implementing §5 authorize a DOJ request for additional information from a jurisdiction that has initially “omitted information considered necessary for the evaluation of the submission.” § 51.37(a). If the jurisdiction responds by supplying the additional information (or stating that it is unavailable), the 60-day clock begins to run from the date the response is received. § 51.37(c). We have upheld these regulations as being “wholly reasonable and consistent with the Act.” Georgia v. United States, supra, at 541; accord, Morris v. Gressette, 432 U. S. 491, 504, n. 19 (1977).
DOJ’s February 14 request for additional information was within the Attorney General’s discretion under 28 CFR §51.37, thereby postponing the 60-day time period for objections until the requested information was received. The request was neither frivolous nor unwarranted. See Georgia v. United States, supra, at 541, n. 13. DOJ believed that the Mississippi Supreme Court’s Mauldin order, holding that the Chancery Court had jurisdiction to engage in redistricting, was a change in voting procedures, and it sought additional information demonstrating that this change would not have the purpose or effect of denying or abridging the right to vote on account of race, color, or membership in a language minority group, as required under §5. The fact that the District Court identified the same issue as posing a hurdle to preclearance further suggests that DOJ’s request was not frivolous. 189 F. Supp. 2d, at 508-509. The request for more information was not frivolous or unwarranted at the time it was made, regardless of whether it ultimately develops that Mauldin and the Chancery Court’s assertion of jurisdiction to redistrict are not voting changes that required preclearance.
B
Appellants contend that even if the State Chancery Court’s plan was not precleared by operation of law on February 25, 2002, it was precleared on April 22, 60 days after the state attorney general submitted the additional information requested. We think not.
Section 5 provides that “[w]henever a [covered jurisdiction] shall enact or seek to administer” a voting change, such a change may be enforced if it is submitted to the Attorney General and there is no objection by the Attorney General within 60 days. 42 U. S. C. § 1973c (emphasis added). Clearly the State Chancery Court’s redistricting plan was not “enacted” by the State of Mississippi. An “enactment” is the product of legislation, not adjudication. See Webster’s New International Dictionary 841 (2d ed. 1949) (defining “enact” as “[t]o make into an act or law; esp., to perform the legislative act with reference to (a bill) which gives it the validity of law”); Black’s Law Dictionary 910 (7th ed. 1999) (defining “legislate” as “[t]o make or enact laws”). The web of state and federal litigation before us is the consequence of the Mississippi Legislature’s failure to enact a plan. The Chancery Court’s redistricting plan, then, could be eligible for preclearance only if the State was “seeking] to administer” it.
There is no doubt that the State was “seeking] to administer” the changes for which preclearance was sought when the Mississippi attorney general made his initial submission to DOJ on December 26, 2001, and when he provided additional information regarding the state-court plan on February 20, 2002. On February 26, 2002, however, the District Court “enjoined [the State] from implementing the congressional redistricting plan adopted by the [state court],” 189 F. Supp. 2d, at 559, and the State never appealed that injunction. Uncontrovertibly, the State was no longer “seek[ing] to administer” the state-court plan, and thus the 60-day time period for DOJ review was no longer running. The passing of 60 days from the date of the State’s February 20, 2002, submission of the additional requested information had no legal significance, and the state-court plan was not rendered enforceable by operation of law.
Appellants’ argument — that their appeal, as intervenors, is sufficient to demonstrate that the State still “seek[s] to administer” the state-court plan — is invalid on its face. The actions of a private party are not the actions of a State and cannot satisfy the prerequisite to § 5 preclearance.
C
Since we affirm the injunction on the basis of the District Court’s principal stated ground that the state-court plan had not been precleared and had no prospect of being precleared in time for the 2002 election, we have no occasion to address the District Court’s alternative holding that the State Chancery Court’s redistricting plan was unconstitutional — a holding that the District Court specified was set forth to cover the eventuality of the principal stated ground’s being rejected on appeal — and therefore we vacate it as a basis for the injunction. The District Court’s alternative holding is not to be regarded as supporting the injunction we have affirmed on the principal ground, or as binding upon state and federal officials should Mississippi seek in the future to administer a redistricting plan adopted by the Chancery Court.
Ill
Having determined that the District Court properly enjoined enforcement of the state-court redistricting plan, we turn to the propriety of the redistricting plan that the District Court itself adopted. Cross-appellees in No. 01-1596 (originally the state plaintiffs) and the United States, as amicus curiae, argue that the District Court was required to draw (as it did) single-member congressional districts; cross-appellants in No. 01-1596 (originally the federal plaintiffs) contend that it was required to order at-large elections for the congressional seats. We must decide whether, as cross-appellees contend, the District Court was governed by the provisions of 2 U. S. C. § 2c; or, as cross-appellants contend, by the provisions of 2 U. S. C. § 2a(c)(5).
A
Article I, §4, cl. 1, of the Constitution provides that the “Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof...It reserves to Congress, however, the power “at any time by Law [to] make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” Ibid. Pursuant to this authority, Congress in 1929 enacted the current statutory scheme governing apportionment of the House of Representatives. 2 U. S. C. §§2a(a), (b). In 1941, Congress added to those provisions a subsection addressing what is to be done pending redistricting:
“Until a State is redistricted in the manner provided by the law thereof after any apportionment, the Representatives to which such State is entitled under such apportionment shall be elected in the following manner: (1) If there is no change in the number of Representatives, they shall be elected from the districts then prescribed by the law of such State, and if any of them are elected from the State at large they shall continue to be so elected; (2) if there is an increase in the number of Representatives, such additional Representative or Representatives shall be elected from the State at large and the other Representatives from the districts then prescribed by the law of such State; (3) if there is a decrease in the number of Representatives but the number of districts in such State is equal to such decreased number of Representatives, they shall be elected from the districts then prescribed by the law of such State; (4) if there is a decrease in the number of Representatives but the number of districts in such State is less than such number of Representatives, the number of Representatives by which such number of districts is exceeded shall be elected from the State at large and the other Representatives from the districts then prescribed by the law of such State; or (5) if there is a decrease in the number of Representatives and the number of districts in such State exceeds such decreased number of Representatives, they shall be elected from the State at large.” §2a(c).
In 1967,26 years after § 2a(c) was enacted, Congress adopted §2c, which provides, as relevant here:
“In each State entitled in the Ninety-first Congress or in any subsequent Congress thereafter to more than one Representative under an apportionment made pursuant to the provisions of section 2a(a) of this title, there shall be established by law a number of districts equal to the number of Representatives to which such State is so entitled, and Representatives shall be elected only from districts so established, no district to elect more than one Representative...
The tension between these two provisions is apparent: Section 2c requires States entitled to more than one Representative to elect their Representatives from single-member districts, rather than from multimember districts or the State at large. Section 2a(c), however, requires multimem-ber districts or at-large elections in certain situations; and with particular relevance to the present cases, in which Mississippi, by reason of the 2000 census, lost a congressional seat, §2a(c)(5) requires at-large elections. Cross-appellants' would reconcile the two provisions by interpreting the introductory phrase of § 2a(c) (“Until a State is redistricted in the manner provided by the law thereof after any apportionment”) and the phrase “established by law” in §2c to refer exclusively to legislative redistricting — so that §2c tells the legislatures what to do (single-member districting) and § 2a(c) provides what will happen absent legislative action— in the present cases, the mandating of at-large elections.
The problem with this reconciliation of the provisions is that the limited role it assigns to § 2c (governing legislative apportionment but not judicial apportionment) is contradicted both by the historical context of § 2c’s enactment and by the consistent understanding of all courts in the almost 40 years since that enactment. When Congress adopted § 2c in 1967, the immediate issue was precisely the involvement of the courts in fashioning electoral plans. The Voting Rights Act of 1965 had recently been enacted, assigning to the federal courts jurisdiction to involve themselves in elections. See 79 Stat. 439 (as amended and codified at 42 U. S. C. § 1973 et seq.). Even more significant, our decisions in Baker v. Carr, 369 U. S. 186 (1962), Wesberry v. Sanders, 376 U. S. 1 (1964), and Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U. S. 533 (1964), had ushered in a new era in which federal courts were overseeing efforts by badly malapportioned States to conform their congressional electoral districts to the constitutionally required one-person, one-vote standards. In a world in which the role of federal courts in redistricting disputes had been transformed from spectating, see Colegrove v. Green, 328 U. S. 549 (1946) (opinion of Frankfurter, J.), to directing, the risk arose that judges forced to fashion remedies would simply order at-large elections.
At the time Congress enacted §2c, at least six District Courts, two of them specifically invoking 2 U. S. C. §2a(c)(5), had suggested that if the state legislature was unable to redistrict to correct malapportioned congressional districts, they would order the State’s entire congressional delegation to be elected at large. On March 26, 1964, a three-judge District Court ordered that, pending enactment of a constitutional redistricting plan by the Michigan Legislature, all Michigan Representatives would be elected at large. Calkins v. Hare, 228 F. Supp. 824, 830 (ED Mich. 1964). On October 19, 1964, a three-judge District Court entered a similar order for the State of Texas. See Bush v. Martin, 251 F. Supp. 484, 489, and n. 11, 490, and n. 17 (SD Tex. 1966). On February 3,1965, a three-judge District Court in Arkansas, whose House delegation had decreased from six to four Members after the 1960 census, stated that under §2a(c)(5), “if the Legislature... had taken no action [after the 1960 apportionment] the congressmen would have been required to run at large,” and that the same reasoning would compel the court to require at-large elections if the legislature adopted malapportioned congressional districts. Park v. Faubus, 238 F. Supp. 62, 66 (ED Ark. 1965). On August 5, 1966, a three-judge District Court in Missouri, whose House delegation had decreased from 11 to 10 Members after the 1960 census, informed the State that if it was unable to redistrict in accordance with the Constitution, then pursuant to the “command of Section 2(a)(c) [sic],” “the congressional elections for Missouri will be ordered conducted at large until new and constitutional districts are created.” Preisler v. Secretary of State of Missouri, 257 F. Supp. 953, 981, 982 (WD Mo. 1966), aff’d, 385 U. S. 450 (1967) (per curiam,). In Meeks v. Anderson, 229 F. Supp. 271, 273-274 (Kan. 1964), and Baker v. Clement, 247 F. Supp. 886, 897-898 (MD Tenn. 1965), three-judge District Courts stayed their hands but held forth the possibility of requiring at-large elections. With all this threat of judicially imposed at-large elections, and (as far as we are aware) no threat of a legislatively imposed change to at-large elections, it is most unlikely that § 2c was directed solely at legislative reapportionment.
Nor have the courts ever thought so. To the contrary, every court that has addressed the issue has held that §2c requires courts, when they are remedying a failure to redistrict constitutionally, to draw single-member districts whenever possible. The first court to examine §2c, just two weeks after the statute was enacted, was the three-judge District Court in Missouri that had previously threatened to order at-large elections in accordance with § 2a(c)(5). In its decision on December 29, 1967, that court observed that the enactment of § 2c had “relieved [it] of the prior existing Congressional command to order that the 1968 and succeeding congressional elections in Missouri be held at large,” Preisler v. Secretary of State of Missouri, 279 F. Supp. 962, 969 (WD Mo. 1967), aff’d, 394 U. S. 626 (1969), and accordingly reversed its prior position and stated that it would fashion a districting plan if the State failed to fulfill its duty. Four years later, the Supreme Court of Virginia denied a writ of mandamus directing at-large elections to replace an allegedly unconstitutional Redistricting Act, on the ground that by reason of §2c “we cannot legally issue the writ.” Simpson v. Mahan, 212 Va. 416, 417, 186 S. E. 2d 47, 48 (1971). The next year the Supreme Court of California reached the same conclusion that §2c required it to establish single-member districts, see Legislature v. Reinecke, 6 Cal. 3d 595, 602-603, 492 P. 2d 385, 390 (1972), a conclusion that it reaffirmed in 1982, see Assembly of State of Cal. v. Deukmejian, 30 Cal. 3d 638, 664, 639 P. 2d 939, 955 (1982). In Shayer v. Kirkpatrick, 541 F. Supp. 922, 926 (WD Mo.), aff’d sub nom. Schatzle v. Kirkpatrick, 456 U. S. 966 (1982), the District Court concluded that “nothing in section 2c suggests any limitation on its applicability,” and declined to order at-large elections pursuant to §2a(c)(5) because §2c “appears to prohibit at-large elections.” And in Carstens v. Lamm, 543 F. Supp. 68 (Colo. 1982), the District Court reached a substantially identical result, although contemplating that §2a(c) provided a “stop-gap measure” in the “event that no constitutional redistricting plan exists on the eve of a congressional election, and there is not enough time for either the Legislature or the courts to develop an acceptable plan,” id., at 77, and n. 23.
It bears noting that this Court affirmed two of the District Court decisions described above, see Preisler, supra, and Shayer, supra, one without discussing §2c, and one summarily. And in 1971 we observed in dictum that “[i]n 1967, Congress reinstated the single-member district requirement” that had existed before the enactment of §2a(c). Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S. 124, 159, n. 39 (1971).
Of course the implausibility (given the circumstances of its enactment) that §2e was meant to apply only to legislative reapportionment, and the unbroken unanimity of state and federal courts in opposition to that interpretation, would be of no consequence if the text of §2c (and of §2a(c)) unmistakably demanded that interpretation. But it does not. Indeed, it is more readily susceptible of the opposite interpretation.
The clause “there shall be established by law a number of districts equal to the number of Representatives to which such State is so entitled” could, to be sure, be so interpreted that the phrase “by law” refers only to legislative action. Its more common meaning, however, encompasses judicial decisions as well. See, e. g., Hope v. Pelzer, 536 U. S. 730, 741 (2002) (referring to judicial decisions as “established law” in qualified immunity context); Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U. S. 399, 407 (1998) (referring to judicial decisions as “established law” in the attorney-client privilege context); United States v. Frady, 456 U. S. 152, 166 (1982) (referring to the judicially established standard of review for a 28 U. S. C. §2255 motion as “long-established law”); see also § 2254(d)(1) (“clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States”); Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 177 (1803) (it is “the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is”).
We think, therefore, that while §2c assuredly envisions legislative action, it also embraces action by state and federal courts when the prescribed legislative action has not been forthcoming. We might note that giving “by law” its less common meaning would cause the immediately following clause of §2c (“and Representatives shall be elected only from districts so established” (emphasis added)) to exclude all courts from redistricting, including even state courts acting pursuant to state legislative authorization in the event of legislative default. It is hard to see what plausible congressional purpose this would serve. When, as here, the situation (a decrease in the number of Representatives, all of whom were formerly elected from single-member districts) enables courts to prescribe at-large elections under paragraph (5) of §2a(c) (assuming that section subsists, see infra, at 273), it can be said that there is a constitutional fallback. But what would occur if the situation called for application of paragraphs (1) to (4) of §2a(c), none of which is constitutionally enforceable when (as is usual) the decennial census has shown a proscribed degree of disparity in the voting population of the established districts? The absolute prohibition of §2c (“Representatives shall be elected only from [single-member] districts [legislatively] established”) would be subject to no exception, and courts would (despite Baker v. Carr) be congressionally forbidden to act when the state legislature has not redistricted. Only when it is utterly unavoidable should we interpret a statute to require an unconstitutional result — and that is far from the situation here.
In sum, §2c is as readily enforced by courts as it is by state legislatures, and is just as binding on courts — federal or state — as it is on legislatures.
B
Having determined that in enacting 2 U. S. C. § 2c, Congress mandated that States are to provide for the election of their Representatives from single-member districts, and that this mandate applies equally to courts remedying a state legislature’s failure to redistrict constitutionally, we confront the remaining question: what to make of §2a(c)? As observed earlier, the texts of § 2c and § 2a(c)(5) are in tension. Representatives cannot be “elected only from districts,” § 2c, while being elected “at large,” §2a(c). Some of the courts confronted with this conflict have concluded that §2c repeals § 2a(c) by implication. See Shayer v. Kirkpatrick, 541 F. Supp., at 927; Assembly of State of Cal. v. Deukmejian, 30 Cal. 3d, at 663-664, 639 P. 2d, at 954. There is something to be said for that position — especially since paragraphs (1) through (4) of § 2a(c) have become (because of postenactment decisions of this Court) in virtually all situations plainly unconstitutional. (The unlikely exception is the situation in which the decennial census makes no districting change constitutionally necessary.) Eighty percent of the section being a dead letter, why would Congress adhere to the flotsam of paragraph (5)?
We have repeatedly stated, however, that absent “a clearly expressed congressional intention,” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535, 551 (1974), “repeals by implication are not favored,” Universal Interpretive Shuttle Corp. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Comm’n, 393 U. S. 186, 193 (1968). An implied repeal will only be found where provisions in two statutes are in “irreconcilable conflict,” or where the latter Act covers the whole subject of the earlier one and “is clearly intended as a substitute.” Posadas v. National City Bank, 296 U. S. 497, 503 (1936). So while there is a strong argument that §2c was a substitute for §2a(c), we think the better answer is that §2a(c) — where what it prescribes is constitutional (as it is with regard to paragraph (5)) — continues to apply.
Section 2a(e) is, of course, only provisionally applicable. It governs the manner of election for Representatives in any election held “[u]ntil a State is redistricted in the manner provided by the law thereof after any apportionment.” That language clashes with §2c only if it is interpreted to forbid judicial redistricting unless the state legislature has first acted. On that interpretation, whereas §2c categorically instructs courts to redistrict, §
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents a matter of first impression for this Court: Whether § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, which prohibits discrimination against an “otherwise qualified handicapped individual” in federally funded programs “solely by reason of his handicap,” forbids professional schools from imposing physical qualifications for admission to their clinical training programs.
I
Respondent, who suffers from a serious hearing disability, seeks to be trained as a registered nurse. During the 1973-1974 academic year she was enrolled in the College Parallel program of Southeastern Community College, a state institution that receives federal funds. Respondent hoped to progress to Southeastern’s Associate Degree Nursing program, completion of which would make her eligible for state certification as a registered nurse. In the course of her application to the nursing program, she was interviewed by a member of the nursing faculty. It became apparent that respondent had difficulty understanding questions asked, and on inquiry she acknowledged a history of hearing problems and dependence on a hearing aid. She was advised to consult an audiologist.
On the basis of an examination at Duke University Medical Center, respondent was diagnosed as having a “bilateral, sensori-neural hearing loss.” App. 127a. A change in her hearing aid was recommended, as a result of which it was expected that she would be able to detect sounds “almost as well as a person would who has normal hearing.” Id., at 127ar-128a. But this improvement would not mean that she could discriminate among sounds sufficiently to understand normal spoken speech. Her lipreading skills would remain necessary for effective communication: “While wearing the hearing aid, she is well aware of gross sounds occurring in the listening environment. However, she can only be responsible for speech spoken to her, when the talker gets her attention and allows her to look directly at the talker.” Id., at 128a.
Southeastern next consulted Mary McRee, Executive Director of the North Carolina Board of Nursing. On the basis of the audiologist’s report, McRee recommended that respondent not be admitted to the nursing program. In McRee’s view, respondent’s hearing disability made it unsafe for her to practice as a nurse. In addition, it would be impossible for respondent to participate safely in the normal clinical training program, and those modifications that would be necessary to enable safe participation would prevent her from realizing the benefits of the program: “To adjust patient learning experiences in keeping with [respondent’s] hearing limitations could, in fact, be the same as denying her full learning to meet the objectives of your nursing programs.” Id., at 132a-133a.
After respondent was notified that she was not qualified for nursing study because of her hearing disability, she requested reconsideration of the decision. The entire nursing staff of Southeastern was assembled, and McRee again was consulted. McRee repeated her conclusion that on the basis of the available evidence, respondent “has hearing limitations which could interfere with her safely caring for patients.” Id., at 139a. Upon further deliberation, the staff voted to deny respondent admission.
Respondent then filed suit in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, alleging both a violation of § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 87 Stat. 394, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 794 (1976 ed., Supp. Ill), and a denial of equal protection and due process. After a bench trial, the District Court entered judgment in favor of Southeastern. 424 F. Supp. 1341 (1976). It confirmed the findings of the audiologist that even with a hearing aid respondent cannot understand speech directed to her except through lipreading, and further found:
“[I]n many situations such as an operation room intensive care unit, or post-natal care unit, all doctors and nurses wear surgical masks which would make lipreading impossible. Additionally, in many situations a Registered Nurse would be required to instantly follow the physician’s instructions concerning procurement of various types of instruments and drugs where the physician would be unable to get the nurse’s attention by other than vocal means.” Id., at 1343.
Accordingly, the court concluded:
“[Respondent’s] handicap actually prevents her from safely performing in both her training program and her proposed profession. The trial testimony indicated numerous situations where [respondent’s] particular disability would render her unable to function properly. Of particular concern to the court in this case is the potential of danger to future patients in such situations.” Id., at 1345.
Based on these findings, the District Court concluded that respondent was not an “otherwise qualified handicapped individual” protected against discrimination by § 504. In its view, “[otherwise qualified, can only be read to mean otherwise able to function sufficiently in the position sought in spite of the handicap, if proper training and facilities are suitable and available.” 424 F. Supp., at 1345. Because respondent’s disability would prevent her from functioning “sufficiently” in Southeastern’s nursing program, the court held that the decision to exclude her was not discriminatory within the meaning of § 504.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed. 574 F. 2d 1158 (1978). It did not dispute the District Court's findings of fact, but held that the court had misconstrued § 504. In light of administrative regulations that had been promulgated while the appeal was pending, see 42 Fed. Reg. 22676 (1977), the appellate court believed that § 504 required Southeastern to “reconsider plaintiff’s application for admission to the nursing program without regard to her hearing ability.” 574 F. 2d, at 1160. It concluded that the District Court had erred in taking respondent’s handicap into account in determining whether she was “otherwise qualified” for the program, rather than confining its inquiry to her “academic and technical qualifications.” Id., at 1161. The Court of Appeals also suggested that § 504 required “affirmative conduct” on the part of Southeastern to modify its program to accommodate the disabilities of applicants, “even when such modifications become expensive.” 574 F. 2d, at 1162.
Because of the importance of this issue to the many institutions covered by § 504, we granted certiorari. 439 U. S. 1065 (1979). We now reverse.
II
As previously noted, this is the first case in which this Court has been called upon to interpret § 504. It is elementary that “[t]he starting point in every case involving construction of a statute is the language itself.” Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U. S. 723, 756 (1975) (Powell, J., concurring) ; see Greyhound Corp. v. Mt. Hood Stages, Inc., 437 U. S. 322, 330 (1978); Santa Fe Industries, Inc. v. Green, 430 U. S. 462, 472 (1977). Section 504 by its terms does not compel educational institutions to disregard the disabilities of handicapped individuals or to make substantial modifications in their programs to allow disabled persons to participate. Instead, it requires only that an “otherwise qualified handicapped individual” not be excluded from participation in a federally funded program “solely by reason of his handicap,” indicating only that mere possession of a handicap is not a permissible ground for assuming an inability to function in a particular context.
The court below, however, believed that the "otherwise qualified” persons protected by § 504 include those who would be able to meet the requirements of a particular program in every respect except as to limitations imposed by their handicap. See 574 F. 2d, at 1160. Taken literally, this holding would prevent an institution from taking into account any limitation resulting from the handicap, however disabling. It assumes, in effect, that a person need not meet legitimate physical requirements in order to be “otherwise qualified.” We think the understanding of the District Court is closer to the plain meaning of the statutory language. An otherwise qualified person is one who is able to meet all of a program’s requirements in spite of his handicap.
The regulations promulgated by the Department of HEW to interpret § 504 reinforce, rather than contradict, this conclusion. According to these regulations, a “[q]ualified handicapped person” is, “[w]ith respect to postsecondary and vocational education services, a handicapped person who meets the academic and technical standards requisite to admission or participation in the [school’s] education program or activity . . . .” 45 CFR § 84.3 (k)(3) (1978). An explanatory note states:
“The term 'technical standards’ refers to all nonacademic admissions criteria that are essential to participation in the program in question.” 45 CFR pt. 84, App. A, p. 405 (1978) (emphasis supplied).
A further note emphasizes that legitimate physical qualifications may be essential to participation in particular programs. We think it clear, therefore, that HEW interprets the “other” qualifications which a handicapped person may be required to meet as including necessary physical qualifications.
Ill
The remaining question is whether the physical qualifications Southeastern demanded of respondent might not be necessary for participation in its nursing program. It is not open to dispute that, as Southeastern’s Associate Degree Nursing program currently is constituted, the ability to understand speech without reliance on lipreading is necessary for patient safety during the clinical phase of the program. As the District Court found, this ability also is indispensable for many of the functions that a registered nurse performs.
Respondent contends nevertheless that § 504, properly interpreted, compels Southeastern to undertake affirmative action that would dispense with the need for effective oral communication. First, it is suggested that respondent can be given individual supervision by faculty members whenever she attends patients directly. Moreover, certain required courses might be dispensed with altogether for respondent. It is not necessary, she argues, that Southeastern train her to undertake all the tasks a registered nurse is licensed to perform. Rather, it is sufficient to make § 504 applicable if respondent might be able to perform satisfactorily some of the duties of a registered nurse or to hold some of the positions available to a registered nurse.
Respondent finds support for this argument in portions of the HEW regulations discussed above. In particular, a provision applicable to postsecondary educational programs requires covered institutions to make “modifications” in their programs to accommodate handicapped persons, and to provide “auxiliary aids” such as sign-language interpreters. Respondent argues that this regulation imposes an obligation to ensure full participation in covered programs by handicapped individuals and, in particular, requires Southeastern to make the kind of adjustments that would be necessary to permit her safe participation in the nursing program.
We note first that on the present record it appears unlikely respondent could benefit from any affirmative action that the regulation reasonably could be interpreted as requiring. Section 84.44 (d)(2), for example, explicitly excludes “devices or services of a personal nature” from the kinds of auxiliary aids a school must provide a handicapped individual. Yet the only evidence in the record indicates that nothing less than close, individual attention by a nursing instructor would be sufficient to ensure patient safety if respondent took part in the clinical phase of the nursing program. See 424 F. Supp., at 1346. Furthermore, it also is reasonably clear that § 84.44 (a) does not encompass the kind of curricular changes that would be necessary to accommodate respondent in the nursing program. In light of respondent’s inability to function in clinical courses without close supervision, Southeastern, with prudence, could allow her to take only academic classes. Whatever benefits respondent might realize from such a course of study, she would not receive even a rough equivalent of the training a nursing program normally gives. Such a fundamental alteration in the nature of a program is far more than the “modification” the regulation requires.
Moreover, an interpretation of the regulations that required the extensive modifications necessary to include respondent in the nursing program would raise grave doubts about their validity. If these regulations were to require substantial adjustments in existing programs beyond those necessary to eliminate discrimination against otherwise qualified individuals, they would do more than clarify the meaning of § 504. Instead, they would constitute an unauthorized extension of the obligations imposed by that statute.
The language and structure of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 reflect a recognition by Congress of the distinction between the evenhanded treatment of qualified handicapped persons and affirmative efforts to overcome the disabilities caused by handicaps. Section 501 (b), governing the employment of handicapped individuals by the Federal Government, requires each federal agency to submit “an affirmative action program plan for the hiring, placement, and advancement of handicapped individuals . . . .” These plans “shall include a description of the extent to which and methods whereby the special needs of handicapped employees are being met.” Similarly, § 503 (a), governing hiring by federal contractors, requires employers to “take affirmative action to employ and advance in employment qualified handicapped individuals . . . .” The President is required to promulgate regulations to enforce this section.
Under § 501 (c) of the Act, by contrast, state agencies such as Southeastern are only “encourage [d] ... to adopt and implement such policies and procedures.” Section 504 does not refer at all to affirmative action, and except as it applies to federal employers it does not provide for implementation by administrative action. A comparison of these provisions demonstrates that Congress understood accommodation of the needs of handicapped individuals may require affirmative action and knew how to provide for it in those instances where it wished to do so.
Although an agency’s interpretation of the statute under which it operates is entitled to some deference, “this deference is constrained by our obligation to honor the clear meaning of a statute, as revealed by its language, purpose, and history.” Teamsters v. Daniel, 439 U. S. 551, 566 n. 20 (1979). Here, neither the language, purpose, nor history of § 504 reveals an intent to impose an affirmative-action obligation on all recipients of federal funds. Accordingly, we hold that even if HEW has attempted to create such an obligation itself, it lacks the authority to do so.
IV
We do not suggest that the line between a lawful refusal to extend affirmative action and illegal discrimination against handicapped persons always will be clear. It is possible to envision situations where an insistence on continuing past requirements and practices might arbitrarily deprive genuinely qualified handicapped persons of the opportunity to participate in a covered program. Technological advances can be expected to enhance opportunities to rehabilitate the handicapped or otherwise to qualify them for some useful employment. Such advances also may enable attainment of these goals without imposing undue financial and administrative burdens upon a State. Thus, situations may arise where a refusal to modify an existing program might become unreasonable and discriminatory. Identification of those instances where a refusal to accommodate the needs of a disabled person amounts to discrimination against the handicapped continues to be an important responsibility of HEW.
In this case, however, it is clear that Southeastern’s unwillingness to make major adjustments in its nursing program does not constitute such discrimination. The uncontroverted testimony of several members of Southeastern’s staff and faculty established that the purpose of its program was to train persons who could serve the nursing profession in all customary ways. See, e. g., App. 35a, 52a, 53a, 71a, 74a. This type of purpose, far from reflecting any animus against handicapped individuals, is shared by many if not most of the institutions that train persons to render professional service. It is undisputed that respondent could not participate in Southeastern’s nursing program unless the standards were substantially lowered. Section 504 imposes no requirement upon an educational institution to lower or to effect substantial modifications of standards, to accommodate a handicapped person.
One may admire respondent’s desire and determination to overcome her handicap, and there well may be various other types of service for which she can qualify. In this case, however, we hold that there was no violation of § 504 when Southeastern concluded that respondent did not qualify for admission to its program. Nothing in the language or history .of § 504 reflects an intention to limit the freedom of an educational institution to require reasonable physical qualifications for admission to a clinical training program. Nor has there been any showing in this case that airy action short of a substantial change in Southeastern’s program would render unreasonable the qualifications it imposed.
V
Accordingly, we reverse the judgment of the court below, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
McRee also wrote that respondent’s hearing disability could preclude her practicing safely in “any setting” allowed by “a license as Licensed] P[raetieal] N[urse].” App. 132a. Respondent contends that inasmuch as she already was licensed as a practical nurse, McRee’s opinion was inherently incredible. But the record indicates that respondent had “not worked as a licensed practical nurse except to do a little bit of private duty,” id., at 32a, and had not done that for several years before applying to Southeastern. Accordingly, it is at least possible to infer that respondent in fact could not work safely as a practical nurse in spite of her license to do so. In any event, we note the finding of the District Court that “a Licensed Practical Nurse, unlike a Licensed Registered Nurse, operates under constant supervision and is not allowed to perform medical tasks which require a great degree of technical sophistication.” 424 F. Supp. 1341, 1342-1343 (EDNC 1976).
The statute, as set forth in 29 U. S. C. §794 (1976 ed., Supp. Ill), provides in full:
“No otherwise qualified handicapped individual in the United States, as defined in section 706 (7) of this title, shall, solely by reason of his handicap, be excluded from the participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance or under any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service. The head of each such agency shall promulgate such regulations as may be necessary to carry out the amendments to this section made by the Rehabilitar tion, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental Disabilities Act of 1978. Copies of any proposed regulation shall be submitted to appropriate aur thorizing committees of the Congress, and such regulation may take effect no earlier than the thirtieth day after the date on which such regulation is so submitted to such committees.”
The italicized portion of the section was added by § 119 of the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental Disabilities Amendments of 1978, 92 Stat. 2982. Respondent asserts no claim under this portion of the statute.
The District Court also dismissed respondent’s constitutional claims. The Court of Appeals affirmed that portion of the order, and respondent has not sought review of this ruling.
Relying on the plain language of the Act, the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare (HEW) at first did not promulgate any regulations to implement § 504. In a subsequent suit against HEW, however, the United States District Court for the District of Columbia held that Congress had intended regulations to be issued and ordered HEW to do so. Cherry v. Mathews, 419 F. Supp. 922 (1976). The ensuing regulations currently are embodied in 45 CFR pt. 84 (1978).
In addition to challenging the construction of § 504 by the Court of Appeals, Southeastern also contends that respondent cannot seek judicial relief for violations of that statute in view of the absence of any express private right of action. Respondent asserts that whether or not § 504 provides a private action, she may maintain her suit under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. In light of our disposition of this case on the merits, it is unnecessary to address these issues and we express no views on them. See Norton v. Mathews, 427 U. S. 524, 529-531 (1976); Moor v. County of Alameda, 411 U. S. 693, 715 (1973); United States v. Augenblick, 393 U. S. 348, 351-352 (1969).
The Act defines “handeapped individual” as follows:
“The term ‘handicapped individual’ means any individual who (A) has a physical or mental disability which for such individual constitutes or results in a substantial handicap to employment and (B) can reasonably be expected to benefit in terms of employability from vocational rehabilitation services provided pursuant to subchapters I and III of this chapter. For the purposes of subchapters IV and V of this chapter, such term means any person who (A) has a physical or mental impairment which substantially limits one or more of such person’s major life activities, (B) has a record of such an impairment, or (C) is regarded as having such an impairment.” § 7 (6) of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 87 Stat. 361, as amended, 88 Stat. 1619, 89 Stat. 2-5, 29 U. S. C. § 706 (6).
This definition comports with our understanding of § 504. A person who has a record of, or is regarded as having, an impairment may at present have no actual incapacity at all. Such a person would be exactly the kind of individual who' could be “otherwise qualified” to participate in covered programs. And a person who suffers from a limiting physical or mental impairment still may possess other abilities that permit him to meet the requirements of various programs. Thus, it is clear that Congress included among the class of “handicapped” persons covered by § 504 a range of individuals who could be “otherwise qualified.” See S. Rep. No. 93-1297, pp. 38-39 (1974).
The note states:
“Paragraph (k) of § 84.3 defines the term 'qualified handicapped person.’ Throughout the regulation, this term is used instead of the statutory term 'otherwise qualified handicapped person.’ The Department believes that the omission of the word 'otherwise’ is necessary in order to comport with the intent of the statute because, read literally, 'otherwise’ qualified handicapped persons include persons who are qualified except for their handicap, rather than in spite of their handicap. Under such a literal reading, a blind person possessing all the qualifications for driving a bus except sight could be said to be ‘otherwise qualified’ for the job of driving. Clearly, such a result was not intended by Congress. In all other respects, the terms ‘qualified’ and ‘otherwise qualified’ are intended to be interchangeable.” 45 CFR pt. 84, App. A, p. 405 (1978).
The court below adopted a portion of this argument:
“[Respondent’s] ability to read lips aids her in overcoming her hearing disability; however, it was argued that in certain situations such as in an operating room environment where surgical masks are used, this ability would be unavailing to her.
"Be that as it may, in the medical community, there does appear to be a number of settings in which the plaintiff could perform satisfactorily as an RN, such as in industry or perhaps a physician’s office. Certainly [respondent] could be viewed as possessing extraordinary insight into the medical and emotional needs of those with hearing disabilities.
"If [respondent] meets all the other criteria for admission in the pursuit of her RN career, under the relevant North Carolina statutes, N. C. Gen. Stat. §§ 90-158, et seq., it should not be foreclosed to her simply because she may not be able to function effectively in all the roles which registered nurses may choose for their careers.” 574 F. 2d 1158, 1161 n. 6 (1978).
This regulation provides:
“(a) Academic requirements. A recipient [of federal funds] to which this subpart applies shall make such modifications to its academic requirements as are necessary to ensure that such requirements do not discriminate or have the effect of discriminating, on the basis of handicap, against' a qualified handicapped applicant or student. Academic requirements that the recipient can demonstrate are essential to the program of instruction being pursued by such student or to any directly related licensing requirement will not be regarded as discriminatory within the meaning of this section. Modifications may include changes in the length of time permitted for the completion of degree requirements, substitution of specific courses required for the completion of degree requirements, and adaptation of the manner in which specific courses are conducted.
“(d) Auxiliary aids. (1) A recipient to which this subpart applies shall take such steps as are necessary to ensure that no handicapped student is denied the benefits of, excluded from participation in, or otherwise subjected to discrimination under the education program or activity operated by the recipient because of the absence of educational auxiliary aids for students with impaired sensory, manual, or speaking skills.
“(2) Auxiliary aids may include taped texts, interpreters or other effective methods of making orally delivered materials available to students with hearing impairments, readers in libraries for students with visual impairments, classroom equipment adapted for use by students with manual impairments, and other similar services and actions. Recipients need not provide attendants, individually prescribed devices, readers for personal use or study, or other devices or services of a personal nature.” 45 CFR § 84.44 (1978).
Section 115 (a) of the Rehabilitation, Comprehensive Services, and Developmental Disabilities Amendments of 1978 added to the 1973 Act a section authorizing grants to state units for the purpose of providing “such information and technical assistance (including support personnel such as interpreters for the deaf) as may be necessary to assist those entities in complying with this Act, particularly the requirements of section 504.” 92 Stat. 2971, 29 U. S. C. §775 (a) (1976 ed., Supp. III). This provision recognizes that on occasion the elimination of discrimination might involve some costs; it does not imply that the refusal to undertake substantial changes in a program by itself constitutes discrimination. Whatever effect the availability of these funds might have on ascertaining the existence of discrimination in some future case, no such funds were available to Southeastern at the time respondent sought admission to its nursing program.
The Government, in a brief amicus curiae in support of respondent, cites a Report of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare on the 1974 amendments to the 1973 Act and several statements by individual Members of Congress during debate on the 1978 amendments, some of which indicate a belief that § 504 requires affirmative action. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 44r-50. But these isolated statements by individual Members of Congress or its committees, all made after the enactment of the statute under consideration, cannot substitute for a clear expression of legislative intent at the time of enactment. Quern v. Mandley, 436 U. S. 725, 736 n. 10 (1978); Los Angeles Dept. of Water & Power v. Manhart, 435 U. S. 702, 714 (1978). Nor do these comments, none of which represents the will of Congress as a whole, constitute subsequent “legislation” such as this Court might weigh in construing the meaning of an earlier enactment. Cf. Bed Lion Broadcasting Co. v. FCC, 395 U. S. 367, 380-381 (1969).
The Government also argues that various amendments to the 1973 Act contained in the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1978 further reflect Congress’ approval of the affirmative-action obligation created by HEW’s regulations. But the amendment most directly on point undercuts this position. In amending § 504, Congress both extended that section’s prohibition of discrimination to “any program or activity conducted by any Executive agency or by the United States Postal Service” and authorized administrative regulations to implement only this amendment. See n. 2, supra. The fact that no other regulations were mentioned supports an inference that no others were approved.
Finally, we note that the assertion by HEW of the authority to promulgate any regulations under § 504 has been neither consistent nor longstanding. For the first three years after the section was enacted, HEW maintained the position that Congress had not intended any regulations to be issued. It altered its stand only after having been enjoined to do so. See n. 4, supra. This fact substantially diminishes the deference to be given to HEW’s present interpretation of the statute. See General Electric Co. v. Gilbert, 429 U. S. 125, 143 (1976).
Respondent contends that it is unclear whether North Carolina law requires a registered nurse to be capable of performing all functions open to that profession in order to obtain a license to practice, although McRee, the Executive Director of the State Board of Nursing, had informed Southeastern that the law did so require. See App. 138a-139a. Respondent further argues that even if she is not capable of meeting North Carolina’s present licensing requirements, she still might succeed in obtaining a license in another jurisdiction.
Respondent’s argument misses the point. Southeastern’s program, structured to train persons who will be able to perform all normal roles of a registered nurse, represents a legitimate academic policy, and is accepted by the State. In effect, it seeks to ensure that no graduate will pose a danger to the public in any professional role in which he or she might be cast. Even if the licensing requirements of North Carolina or some other State are less demanding, nothing in the Act requires an educational institution to lower its standards.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This appeal challenges the constitutional validity of two sections of an ordinance of the City of Madison, Wisconsin, regulating the sale of milk and milk products within the municipality’s jurisdiction. One section in issue makes it unlawful to sell any milk as pasteurized unless it has been processed and bottled at an approved pasteurization plant within a radius of five miles from the central square of Madison. Another section, which prohibits the sale of milk, or the importation, receipt or storage of milk for sale, in Madison unless from a source of supply possessing a permit issued after inspection by Madison officials, is attacked insofar as it expressly relieves municipal authorities from any duty to inspect farms located beyond twenty-five miles from the center of the city.
Appellant is an Illinois corporation engaged in distributing milk and milk products in Illinois and Wisconsin. It contended below, as it does here, that both the five-mile limit on pasteurization plants and the twenty-five-mile limit on sources of milk violate the Commerce Clause and the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. The Supreme Court of Wisconsin upheld the five-mile limit on pasteurization. As to the twenty-five-mile limitation the court ordered the complaint dismissed for want of a justiciable controversy. 257 Wis. 308, 43 N. W. 2d 480 (1950). This appeal, contesting both rulings, invokes the jurisdiction of this Court under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2).
The City of Madison is the county seat of Dane County. Within the county are some 5,600 dairy farms with total raw milk production in excess of 600,000,000 pounds annually and more than ten times the requirements of Madison. Aside from the milk supplied to Madison, fluid milk produced in the county moves in large quantities to Chicago and more distant consuming areas, and the remainder is used in making cheese, butter and other products. At the time of trial the Madison milkshed was not of “Grade A” quality by the standards recommended by the United States Public Health Service, and no milk labeled “Grade A” was distributed in Madison.
The area defined by the ordinance with respect to milk sources encompasses practically all of Dane County and includes some 500 farms which supply milk for Madison. Within the five-mile area for pasteurization are plants of five processors, only three of which are engaged in the general wholesale and retail trade in Madison. Inspection of these farms and plants is scheduled once every thirty days and is performed by two municipal inspectors, one of whom is full-time. The courts below found that the ordinance in question promotes convenient, economical and efficient plant inspection.
Appellant purchases and gathers milk from approximately 950 farms in northern Illinois and southern Wisconsin, none being within twenty-five miles of Madison. Its pasteurization plants are located at Chemung and Huntley, Illinois, about 65 and 85 miles respectively from Madison. Appellant was denied a license to sell its products within Madison solely because its pasteurization plants were more than five miles away.
It is conceded that the milk which appellant seeks to sell in Madison is supplied from farms and processed in plants licensed and inspected by public health authorities of Chicago, and is labeled “Grade A” under the Chicago ordinance which adopts the rating standards recommended by the United States Public Health Service. Both the Chicago and Madison ordinances, though not the sections of the latter here in issue, are largely patterned after the Model Milk Ordinance of the Public Health Service. However, Madison contends and we assume that in some particulars its ordinance is more rigorous than that of Chicago.
Upon these facts we find it necessary to determine only the issue raised under the Commerce Clause, for we agree with appellant that the ordinance imposes an undue burden on interstate commerce.
This is not an instance in which an enactment falls because of federal legislation which, as a proper exercise of paramount national power over commerce, excludes measures which might otherwise be within the police power of the states. See Currin v. Wallace, 306 U. S. 1, 12-13 (1939). There is no pertinent national regulation by the Congress, and statutes enacted for the District of Columbia indicate that Congress has recognized- the appropriateness of local regulation of the sale of fluid milk. D. C. Code, 1940, §§ 33-301 et seq. It is not contended, however, that Congress has authorized the regulation before us.
Nor can there be objection to the avowed purpose of this enactment. We assume that difficulties in sanitary regulation of milk and milk products originating in remote areas may present a situation in which “upon a consideration of all the relévant facts and circumstances it appears that the matter is one which may appropriately be regulated in the interest of the safety, health and well-being of local communities . . . Parker v. Brown, 317 U. S. 341, 362-363 (1943); see H. P. Hood & Sons v. Du Mond, 336 U. S. 525, 531-532 (1949). We also assume that since Congress has not spoken to the contrary, the subject matter of the ordinance lies within the sphere of state regulation even though interstate commerce may be affected. Milk Control Board v. Eisenberg Farm Products, 306 U. S. 346 (1939); see Baldwin v. Seelig, Inc., 294 U. S. 511, 524 (1935).
But this regulation, like the provision invalidated in Baldwin v. Seelig, Inc., supra, in practical effect excludes from distribution in Madison wholesome milk produced and pasteurized in Illinois. “The importer . . . may keep his milk or drink it, but sell it he may not.” Id., at 521. In thus erecting an economic barrier protecting a major local industry against competition from without the State, Madison plainly discriminates against interstate commerce. This it cannot do, even in the exercise of its unquestioned power to protect the health and safety of its people, if reasonable nondiscriminatory alternatives, adequate to conserve legitimate local interests, are available. Cf. Baldwin v. Seelig, Inc., supra, at 524; Minnesota v. Barber, 136 U. S. 313, 328 (1890). A different view, that the ordinance is valid simply because it professes to be a health measure, would mean that the Commerce Clause of itself imposes no limitations on state action other than those laid down by the Due Process Clause, save for the rare instance where a state artlessly discloses an avowed purpose to discriminate against interstate goods. Cf. H. P. Hood & Sons v. Du Mond, supra. Our issue then is whether the discrimination inherent, in the Madison ordinance can be justified in view of the character of the local interests and the available methods of protecting them. Cf. Union Brokerage Co. v. Jensen, 322 U. S. 202, 211 (1944).
It appears that reasonable and adequate alternatives are available. If the City of Madison prefers to rely upon its own officials for inspection of distant milk sources, such inspection is readily open to it without hardship for it could charge the actual and reasonable cost of such inspection to the importing producers and processors. Cf. Sprout v. City of South Bend, 277 U. S. 163, 169 (1928); see Miller v. Williams, 12 F. Supp. 236, 242, 244 (D. Md. 1935). Moreover, appellee Health Commissioner of Madison testified that as proponent of the local milk ordinance he had submitted the provisions here in controversy and an alternative proposal based on § 11 of the Model Milk Ordinance recommended by the United States Public Health Service. The model provision imposes no geographical limitation on location of milk sources and processing plants but excludes from the municipality milk not produced and pasteurized conformably to standards as high as those enforced by the receiving city. In implementing such an ordinance, the importing city obtains milk ratings based on uniform standards and established by health authorities in the jurisdiction where production and processing occur. The receiving city may determine the extent of enforcement of sanitary standards in the exporting area by verifying the accuracy of safety ratings of specific plants or of the milkshed in the distant jurisdiction through the United States Public Health Service, which routinely and on request spot checks the local ratings. The Commissioner testified that Madison consumers “would be safeguarded adequately” under either proposal and that he had expressed no preference. The milk sanitarian of the Wisconsin State Board of Health testified that the State Health Department recommends the adoption of a provision based on the Model Ordinance. Both officials agreed that a local health officer would be justified in relying upon the evaluation by the Public Health Service of enforcement conditions in remote producing areas.
To permit Madison to adopt a regulation not essential for the protection of local health interests and placing a discriminatory burden on interstate commerce would invite a multiplication of preferential trade areas destructive of the very purpose of the Commerce Clause. Under the circumstances here presented, the regulation must yield to the principle that “one state in its dealings with another may not place itself in a position of economic isolation.” Baldwin v. Seelig, Inc., supra, at 527.
For these reasons we conclude that the judgment below sustaining the five-mile provision as to pasteurization must be reversed.
The Supreme Court of Wisconsin thought it unnecessary to pass upon the validity of the twenty-five-mile limitation, apparently in part for the reason that this issue was made academic by its decision upholding the five-mile section. In view of our conclusion as to the latter provision, a determination of appellant's contention as to the other section is now necessary. As to this issue, therefore, we vacate the judgment below and remand for further proceedings not inconsistent with the principles announced in this opinion.
It is so ordered.
General Ordinances of the City of Madison, 1949, § 7.21 provides as follows:
“It shall be unlawful for any person, association or corporation to sell, offer for sale or have in his or its possession with intent to sell or deliver in the City of Madison, any milk, cream or milk products as pasteurized unless the same shall have been pasteurized and bottled in the manner herein provided within a radius of five miles from the central portion of the City of Madison otherwise known as the Capitol Square, at a plant housing the machinery, equipment and facilities, all of which shall have been approved by the Department of Public Health.”
Id., § 7.11, provides in pertinent part as follows:
“It shall be unlawful for any person to bring into or receive into the City of Madison, Wisconsin, or its police jurisdiction, for sale, or to sell, or offer for salé therein, or to have in storage where milk or milk products are sold or served, any milk or milk product as defined in this ordinance from a source not possessing a permit from the Health Commissioner of the City of Madison, Wisconsin.
“Only a person who complies with the requirements of this ordinance shall be entitled to receive and retain such a permit.
“On the filing of an application for a permit with the Health Commissioner, he shall cause the source of supply named therein to be inspected and shall cause all other necessary inspections and investigations to be made. The Department of Public Health shall not be obligated to inspect and issue permits to farms located beyond twenty-five (25) miles from the central portion of the City of Madison otherwise known as the Capitol Square. . . .”
In upholding § 7.21, note 1, supra, the court relied upon the principles announced by it in Dyer v. City Council of Beloit, 250 Wis. 613, 27 N. W. 2d 733 (1947), judgment vacated, 333 U. S. 825 (1948).
It is immaterial that Wisconsin milk from outside the Madison area is subjected to the same proscription as that moving in interstate commerce. Cf. Brimmer v. Rebman, 138 U. S. 78, 82-83 (1891).
Section 11 of the United States Public Health Service Milk Ordinance as recommended in 1939 provides:
“Milk and milk products from points beyond the limits of routine inspection of the city of.may not be sold in the city of ., or its police jurisdiction, unless produced and/or pasteurized under provisions equivalent to the requirements of this ordinance; provided that the health officer shall satisfy himself that the health officer having jurisdiction over the production and processing is properly enforcing such provisions.”
The following comment on this section is contained in the Public Health Service Milk Code:
“It is suggested that the health officer approve milk or milk products from distant points without his inspection if they are produced and processed under regulations equivalent to those of this ordinance, and if the milk or milk products have been awarded by the State control agency a rating of 90 percent or more on the basis of the Public Health Service rating method.” Federal Security Agency, Public Health Bulletin No. 220 (1939), 145.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
The question presented is whether a federal law enforcement officer who participates in a search that violates the Fourth Amendment may be held personally liable for money damages if a reasonable officer could have believed that the search comported with the Fourth Amendment.
I
Petitioner Russell Anderson is an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. On November 11, 1983, Anderson and other state and federal law enforcement officers conducted a warrantless search of the home of respondents, the Creighton family. The search was conducted because Anderson believed that Vadaain Dixon, a man suspected of a bank robbery committed earlier that day, might be found there. He was not.
The Creightons later filed suit against Anderson in a Minnesota state court, asserting among other things a claim for money damages under the Fourth Amendment, see Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971). After removing the suit to Federal District Court, Anderson filed a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment, arguing that the Bivens claim was barred by Anderson’s qualified immunity from civil damages liability. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800 (1982). Before any discovery took place, the District Court granted summary judgment on the ground that the search was lawful, holding that the undisputed facts revealed that Anderson had had probable cause to search the Creighton’s home and that his failure to obtain a warrant was justified by the presence of exigent circumstances. App. to Pet. for Cert. 23a-25a.
The Creightons appealed to the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit, which reversed. Creighton v. St. Paul, 766 F. 2d 1269 (1985). The Court of Appeals held that the issue of the lawfulness of the search could not properly be decided on summary judgment, because unresolved factual disputes made it impossible to determine as a matter of law that the warrantless search had been supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances. Id., at 1272-1276. The Court of Appeals also held that Anderson was not entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds, since the right Anderson was alleged to have violated — the right of persons to be protected from warrantless searches of their home unless the searching officers have probable cause and there are exigent circumstances — was clearly established. Ibid.
Anderson filed a petition for certiorari, arguing that the Court of Appeals erred by refusing to consider his argument that he was entitled to summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds if he could establish as a matter of law that a reasonable officer could have believed the search to be lawful. We granted the petition, 478 U. S. 1003 (1986), to consider that important question.
II
When government officials abuse their offices, “action[s] for damages may offer the only realistic avenue for vindication of constitutional guarantees.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S., at 814. On the other hand, permitting damages suits against government officials can entail substantial social costs, including the risk that fear of personal monetary liability and harassing litigation will unduly inhibit officials in the discharge of their duties. Ibid. Our cases have accommodated these conflicting concerns by generally providing government officials performing discretionary functions with a qualified immunity, shielding them from civil damages liability as long as their actions could reasonably have been thought consistent with the rights they are alleged to have violated. See, e. g., Malley v. Briggs, 475 U. S. 335, 341 (1986) (qualified immunity protects “all but the plainly incompetent or those who knowingly violate the law”); id., at 344-345 (police officers applying for warrants are immune if a reasonable officer could have believed that there was probable cause to support the application); Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511, 528 (1985) (officials are immune unless “the law clearly proscribed the actions” they took); Davis v. Scherer, 468 U. S. 183, 191 (1984); id., at 198 (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part); Harlow v. Fitzgerald, supra, at 819. Cf., e. g., Procunier v. Navarette, 434 U. S. 555, 562 (1978). Somewhat more concretely, whether an official protected by qualified immunity may be held personally liable for an allegedly unlawful official action generally turns on the “objective legal reasonableness” of the action, Harlow, 457 U. S., at 819, assessed in light of the legal rules that were “clearly established” at the time it was taken, id., at 818.
The operation of this standard, however, depends substantially upon the level of generality at which the relevant “legal rule” is to be identified. For example, the right to due process of law is quite clearly established by the Due Process Clause, and thus there is a sense in which any action that violates that Clause (no matter how unclear it may be that the particular action is a violation) violates a clearly established right. Much the same could be said of any other constitutional or statutory violation. But if the test of “clearly established law” were to be applied at this level of generality, it would bear no relationship to the “objective legal reasonableness” that is the touchstone of Harlow. Plaintiffs would be able to convert the rule of qualified immunity that our cases plainly establish into a rule of virtually unqualified liability simply by alleging violation of extremely abstract rights. Harlow would be transformed from a guarantee of immunity into a rule of pleading. Such an approach, in sum, would destroy “the balance that our cases strike between the interests in vindication of citizens’ constitutional rights and in public officials’ effective performance of their.duties,” by making it impossible for officials “reasonably [to] anticipate when their conduct may give rise to liability for damages.” Davis, swpra at 195. It should not be surprising, therefore, that our cases establish that the right the official is alleged to have violated must have been “clearly established” in a more particularized, and hence more relevant, sense: The contours of the right must be sufficiently clear that a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right. This is not to say that an official action is protected by qualified immunity unless the very action in question has previously been held unlawful, see Mitchell, supra, at 535, n. 12; but it is to say that in the light of pre-existing law the unlawfulness must be apparent. See, e. g., Malley, supra, at 344-345; Mitchell, supra, at 528; Davis, supra, at 191, 195.
Anderson contends that the Court of Appeals misapplied these principles. We agree. The Court of Appeals’ brief discussion of qualified immunity consisted of little more than an assertion that a general right Anderson was alleged to have violated — the right to be free from warrantless searches of one’s home unless the searching officers have probable cause and there are exigent circumstances — was clearly established. The Court of Appeals specifically refused to consider the argument that it was not clearly established that the circumstances with which Anderson was confronted did not constitute probable cause and exigent circumstances. The previous discussion should make clear that this refusal was erroneous. It simply does not follow immediately from the conclusion that it was firmly established that warrantless searches not supported by probable cause and exigent circumstances violate the Fourth Amendment that Anderson’s search was objectively legally unreasonable. We have recognized that it is inevitable that law enforcement officials will in some cases reasonably but mistakenly conclude that probable cause is present, and we have indicated that in such cases those officials — like other officials who act in ways they reasonably believe to be lawful — should not be held personally liable. See Malley, supra, at 344-345. The same is true of their conclusions regarding exigent circumstances.
It follows from what we have said that the determination whether it was objectively legally reasonable to conclude that a given search was supported by probable cause or exigent circumstances will often require examination of the information possessed by the searching officials. But contrary to the Creightons’ assertion, this does not reintroduce into qualified immunity analysis the inquiry into officials’ subjective intent that Harlow sought to minimize. See Harlow, 457 U. S., at 815-820. The relevant question in this case, for example, is the objective (albeit fact-specific) question whether a reasonable officer could have believed Anderson’s warrantless search to be lawful, in light of clearly established law and the information the searching officers possessed. Anderson’s subjective beliefs about the search are irrelevant.
The principles of qualified immunity that we reaffirm today require that Anderson be permitted to argue that he is entitled to summary judgment on the ground that, in light of the clearly established principles governing warrantless searches, he could, as a matter of law, reasonably have believed that the search of the Creightons’ home was lawful.
Ill
In addition to relying on the reasoning of the Court of Appeals, the Creightons advance three alternative grounds for affirmance. All of these take the same form, i. e., that even if Anderson is entitled to qualified immunity under the usual principles of qualified immunity law we have just described, an exception should be made to those principles in the circumstances of this case. We note at the outset the heavy burden this argument must sustain to be successful. We have emphasized that the doctrine of qualified immunity reflects a balance that has been struck “across the board,” Harlow, supra, at 821 (Brennan, J., concurring). See also Malley, 475 U. S., at 340 (“ ‘For executive officers in general, . . . qualified immunity represents the norm’ ” (quoting Harlow, supra, at 807)). Although we have in narrow circumstances provided officials with an absolute immunity, see, e. g., Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731 (1982), we have been unwilling to complicate qualified immunity analysis by making the scope or extent of immunity turn on the precise nature of various officials’ duties or the precise character of the particular rights alleged to have been violated. An immunity that has as many variants as there are modes of official action and types of rights would not give conscientious officials that assurance of protection that it is the object of the doctrine to provide. With that observation in mind, we turn to the particular arguments advanced by the Creightons.
First, and most broadly, the Creightons argue that it is inappropriate to give officials alleged to have violated the Fourth Amendment — and thus necessarily to have unreasonably searched or seized — the protection of a qualified immunity intended only to protect reasonable official action. It is not possible, that is, to say that one “reasonably” acted unreasonably. The short answer to this argument is that it is foreclosed by the fact that we have previously extended qualified immunity to officials who were alleged to have violated the Fourth Amendment. See Malley, supra (police officers alleged to have caused an unconstitutional arrest); Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511 (1985) (officials alleged to have conducted warrantless wiretaps). Even if that were not so, however, we would still find the argument unpersuasive. Its surface appeal is attributable to the circumstance that the Fourth Amendment’s guarantees have been expressed in terms of “unreasonable” searches and seizures. Had an equally serviceable term, such as “undue” searches and seizures been employed, what might be termed the “reasonably unreasonable” argument against application of Harlow to the Fourth Amendment would not be available — just as it would be available against application of Harlow to the Fifth Amendment if the term “reasonable process of law” had been employed there. The fact is that, regardless of the terminology used, the precise content of most of the Constitution’s civil-liberties guarantees rests upon an assessment of what accommodation between governmental need and individual freedom is reasonable, so that the Creightons’ objection, if it has any substance, applies to the application of Harlow generally. We have frequently observed, and our many cases on the point amply demonstrate, the difficulty of determining whether particular searches or seizures comport with the Fourth Amendment. See, e. g., Malley, supra, at 341. Law enforcement officers whose judgments in making these difficult determinations are objectively legally reasonable should no more be held personally liable in damages than should officials making analogous determinations in other areas of law.
For the same reasons, we also reject the Creightons’ narrower suggestion that we overrule Mitchell, supra (extending qualified immunity to officials who conducted warrantless wiretaps), by holding that qualified immunity may never be extended to officials who conduct unlawful warrant-less searches.
Finally, we reject the Creightons’ narrowest and most Procrustean proposal: that no immunity should be provided to police officers who conduct unlawful warrantless searches of innocent third parties’ homes in search of fugitives. They rest this proposal on the assertion that officers conducting such searches were strictly liable at English common law if the fugitive was not present. See, e. g., Entick v. Carrington, 19 How. St. Tr. 1029, 95 Eng. Rep. 807 (K. B. 1765). Although it is true that we have observed that our determinations as to the scope of official immunity are made in the light of the “common-law tradition,” Malley, supra, at 342, we have never suggested that the precise contours of official immunity can and should be slavishly derived from the often arcane rules of the common law. That notion is plainly contradicted by Harlow, where the Court completely reformulated qualified immunity along principles not at all embodied in the common law, replacing the inquiry into subjective malice so frequently required at common law with an objective inquiry into the legal reasonableness of the official action. See Harlow, 457 U. S., at 815-820. As we noted before, Harlow clearly expressed the understanding that the general principle of qualified immunity it established would be applied “across the board.”
The approach suggested by the Creightons would introduce into qualified immunity analysis a complexity rivaling that which we found sufficiently daunting to deter us from tailoring the doctrine to the nature of officials’ duties or of the rights allegedly violated. See supra, at 642-643. Just in the field of unlawful arrests, for example, a cursory examination of the Restatement (Second) of Torts (1965) suggests that special exceptions from the general rule of qualified immunity would have to be made for arrests pursuant to a warrant but outside the jurisdiction of the issuing authority, §§ 122, 129(a), arrests after the warrant had lapsed, §§ 122, 130(a), and arrests without a warrant, § 121. Both the complexity and the unsuitability of this approach are betrayed by the fact that the Creightons’ proposal itself does not actually apply the musty rule that is purportedly its justification but instead suggests an exception to qualified immunity for all fugitive searches of third parties’ dwellings, and not merely (as the English rule appears to have provided) for all unsuccessful fugitive searches of third parties’ dwellings. Moreover, from the sources cited by the Creightons it appears to have been a corollary of the English rule that where the search was successful, no civil action would lie, whether or not probable cause for the search existed. That also is (quite prudently but quite illogically) not urged upon us in the Creightons’ selective use of the common law.
The general rule of qualified immunity is intended to provide government officials with the ability “reasonably [to] anticipate when their conduct may give rise to liability for damages.” Davis, 468 U. S., at 195. Where that rule is applicable, officials can know that they will not be held personally liable as long as their actions are reasonable in light of current American law. That security would be utterly defeated if officials were unable to determine whether they were protected by the rule without entangling themselves in the vagaries of the English and American common law. We are unwilling to Balkanize the rule of qualified immunity by carving exceptions at the level of detail the Creightons propose. We therefore decline to make an exception to the general rule of qualified immunity for cases involving allegedly unlawful warrantless searches of innocent third parties’ homes in search of fugitives.
For the reasons stated, we vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The Creightons also named other defendants and advanced various other claims against both Anderson and the other defendants. Only the Bivens claim against Anderson remains at issue in this case, however.
The dissent, which seemingly would adopt this approach, seeks to avoid the unqualified liability that would follow by advancing the suggestion that officials generally (though not law enforcement officials, see post, at 654, 661-662, and officials accused of violating the Fourth Amendment, see post, at 659-667) be permitted to raise a defense of reasonable good faith, which apparently could be asserted and proved only at trial. See post, at 653. But even when so modified (and even for the fortunate officials to whom the modification applies) the approach would totally abandon the concern — which was the driving force behind Harlow’s substantial reformulation of qualified-immunity principles — that “insubstantial claims” against government officials be resolved prior to discovery and on summary judgment if possible. Harlow, 457 U. S., at 818-819. A passably clever plaintiff would always be able to identify an abstract clearly established right that the defendant could be alleged to have violated, and the good-faith defense envisioned by the dissent would be available only at trial.
The Creightons argue that the qualified immunity doctrine need not be expanded to apply to the circumstances of this case, because the Federal Government and various state governments have established programs through which they reimburse officials for expenses and liability incurred in suits challenging actions they have taken in their official capacities. Because our holding today does not extend official qualified immunity beyond the bounds articulated in Harlow and our subsequent cases, an argument as to why we should not do so is beside the point. Moreover, even assuming that conscientious officials care only about their personal liability and not the liability of the government they serve, the Creightons do not and could not reasonably contend that the programs to which they refer make reimbursement sufficiently certain and generally available to justify reconsideration of the balance struck in Harlow and subsequent cases. See 28 CFR § 50.15(c) (1987) (permitting reimbursement of Department of Justice employees when the Attorney General finds reimbursement appropriate); 5 F. Harper, F. James, & O. Gray, Law of Torts § 29.9, n. 20 (2d ed. 1986) (listing various state programs).
These decisions demonstrate the emptiness of the dissent’s assertion that “[tjoday this Court makes the fundamental error of simply assuming that Harlow immunity is just as appropriate for federal law enforcement officers ... as it is for high government officials.” Post, at 654 (footnote omitted). Just last Term the Court unanimously held that state and federal law enforcement officers were protected by the qualified immunity described in Harlow. Malley v. Briggs, 475 U. S. 335 (1986). We see no reason to overrule that holding.
Of course, it is the American rather than the English common-law tradition that is relevant, cf. Malley, supra, at 340-342; and the American rule appears to have been considerably less draconian than the English. See Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 204, 206 (1965) (officers with an arrest warrant are privileged to enter a third party’s house to effect arrest if they reasonably believe the fugitive to be there).
Noting that no discovery has yet taken place, the Creightons renew their argument that, whatever the appropriate qualified immunity standard, some discovery would be required before Anderson’s summary judgment motion could be granted. We think the matter somewhat more complicated. One of the purposes of the Harlow qualified immunity standard is to protect public officials from the “broad-ranging discovery” that can be “peculiarly disruptive of effective government.” 457 U. S., at 817 (footnote omitted). For this reason, we have emphasized that qualified immunity questions should be resolved at the earliest possible stage of a litigation. Id., at 818. See also Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511, 526 (1986). Thus, on remand, it should first be determined whether the actions the Creightons allege Anderson to have taken are actions that a reasonable officer could have believed lawful. If they are, then Anderson is entitled to dismissal prior to discovery. Cf. ibid. If they are not, and if the actions Anderson claims he took are different from those the Creightons allege (and are actions that a reasonable officer could have believed lawful), then discovery may be necessary before Anderson’s motion for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds can be resolved. Of course, any such discovery should be tailored specifically to the question of Anderson’s qualified immunity.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case raises the question of whether benefits paid by the United States Veterans’ Administration retain their exempt status under 38 U. S. C. § 3101 (a) after being deposited in an account in a federal savings and loan association. Petitioner, an incompetent Air Force veteran, had suffered a judgment at the hands of respondent. The latter in an effort to satisfy its judgment attached a checking account and two accounts in local federal savings and loan associations, all of which had been established by petitioner's Committee with funds received from the Veterans’ Administration as disability compensation due the petitioner. The District Court, on motion, held all three of the accounts exempt under the statute. 185 F. Supp. 302. Respondent appealed as to the savings and loan association accounts, and the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia reversed in a divided opinion. 111 U. S. App. D. C. 267, 296 F. 2d 389. Certiorari was granted in view of the importance of the question in the administration of the Act. 368 U. S. 937. We agree with the District Court that the funds involved here are exempt under the statute; therefore we reverse the judgment below.
Since 1873 it has been the policy of the Congress to exempt veterans’ benefits from creditor actions as well as from taxation. In 1933 in Trotter v. Tennessee, 290 U. S. 354, the Court had occasion to pass upon the exemp-tive provision of the World War Veterans’ Act of 1924, 43 Stat. 6.07, 613. It held that the exemption spent its force when the benefit funds "lost the quality of moneys” and were converted into “permanent investments.” This distinction was adopted by the Congress when the Act was amended in 1935, 49 Stat. 607, 609, to provide, inter alia, that such payments shall be exempt “either before or after receipt by the beneficiary” but that the exemption shall not “extend to any property purchased in part or wholly out of such payments.” Thereafter in Lawrence v. Shaw, 300 U. S. 245 (1937), the Court held that bank credits derived from veterans’ benefits were within the exemption, the test being whether as so deposited the benefits remained subject to demand and use as the needs of the veteran for support and maintenance required. It was noted that the allowance of interest on such deposits would not destroy the exemption. Two years later the Court held that negotiable notes and United States bonds purchased with veterans’ benefits and “held as investments” had no federal statutory immunity. Carrier v. Bryant, 306 U. S. 545 (1939). The Act was again amended in 1958, but no significant changes were made in the exemption provision. As so written it is here at issue.
It appears that the practices and procedures vary as to withdrawal of funds from federal savings and loan associations. Under the law the depositor is a shareholder rather than a creditor, and his deposits are subject to withdrawal only after a 30-day demand. However, the District Court found that a withdrawal from the accounts here involved could be made “as quickly as a withdrawal from a checking account . . . .” In addition, the integrity of the deposits was assured by federal supervision of the associations plus federal insurance of the accounts. Under such conditions the funds were subject to immediate and certain access and thus plainly had “the quality of moneys.” As to whether the deposits were “permanent investments,” we note they were not of a speculative character nor were they time deposits at interest. Moreover, it affirmatively appears that at times petitioner drew moneys from the savings and loan fund for his support and maintenance requirements and that no other funds whatever are now available to him, his disability payments having been cut off. It therefore appears clear to us that the savings and loan deposits here, rather than being investments, are the only funds presently available to meet petitioner’s needs.
Since legislation of this type should be liberally construed, see Trotter v. Tennessee, supra, at 356, to protect funds granted by the Congress for the maintenance and support of the beneficiaries thereof, Lawrence v. Shaw, supra, at 250, we feel that deposits such as are involved here should remain inviolate. The Congress, we believe, intended that veterans in the safekeeping of their benefits should be able to utilize those normal modes adopted by the community for that purpose — provided the benefit funds, regardless of the technicalities of title and other formalities, are readily available as needed for support and maintenance, actually retain the qualities of moneys, and have not been converted into permanent investments.
Reversed.
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice Douglas.
Heretofore the test of exemption under this Act has been whether the funds had taken the form of “permanent investments,” on the one hand (Trotter v. Tennessee, 290 U. S. 354, 357), or on the other were “subject to draft upon demand,” as in the case of checking accounts. Lawrence v. Shaw, 300 U. S. 245, 250. Negotiable notes and United States bonds were held to be nonexempt in Carrier v. Bryant, 306 U. S. 545. Yet so far as we know, those notes and bonds may have had the same or a comparable degree of liquidity as the present share account in the federal savings and loan association enjoys. Today, however, we hold these accounts exempt. Stocks and bonds cannot, of course, be fractionalized and converted into cash in small amounts, such as may be done with savings accounts and checking accounts. But stocks and bonds may be so liquid as to be tantamount to cash in hand and therefore serve, as well as any bank deposit, the needs of the veteran.
By the standards announced in the earlier decisions share accounts in federal savings and loan associations are “investments.” See Wisconsin Bankers Assn. v. Robertson, 111 U. S. App. D. C. 85, 294 F. 2d 714. They can be withdrawn only after 30 days’ notice. The owner of a share account is a voting member of the association which, as the Court of Appeals noted, makes him “more nearly comparable to a stockholder of a bank than one of its depositors.” 111 U. S. App. D. C. 267, 270, 296 F. 2d 389, 392. Moreover, the Home Owners’ Loan Act, under which this federal association was created, makes clear that its purpose is “to provide local mutual thrift institutions in which people may invest their funds.” 12 U. S. C. § 1464 (a). (Italics added.) Its capital is in “shares” (12 U. S. C. § 1464 (b)) such as are involved here. The holders of savings accounts who apply for a withdrawal of funds do not thereby become “creditors.”
In some States these share accounts may not be as liquid as checking accounts or even as liquid as stocks and bonds listed on an exchange or actively traded over-the-counter. The true test seems to me to be liquidity— that is to say, whether or not the moneys are kept in a form in which they are usable, if need be, “for the maintenance and support of the veteran,” as Chief Justice Hughes said in Lawrence v. Shaw, supra, at 250.
“(a) Payments of benefits due or to become due under any law administered by the Veterans’ Administration shall not be assignable except to the extent specifically authorized by law, and such payments made to, or on account of, a beneficiary shall be exempt from taxation, shall be exempt from the claim of creditors, and shall not be liable to attachment, levy, or seizure by or under any legal or equitable process whatever, either before or after receipt by the beneficiary. The preceding sentence shall not apply to claims of the United States arising under such laws nor shall the exemption therein contained as to taxation extend to any property purchased in part or wholly out of such payments. The provisions of this section shall not be construed to prohibit the assignment of insurance otherwise authorized under chapter 19 of this title, or of servicemen’s indemnity.”
Act of Mar. 3, 1873, R. S. §4747 (1878); World War Veterans’ Act of 1924, c. 320, § 22, 43 Stat. 607, 613; Act of Aug. 12, 1935, c. 510, §3, 49 Stat. .607, 609.
The statutory language reads only that the exemption "as to taxation” shall not extend to property purchased with benefits. However, in Carrier v. Bryant, 306 U. S. 545 (1939), the Court held that benefits invested in property were also nonexempt from creditor actions, since they were not “payments of benefits due or to become due” and thus did not fall within the initial immunizing language.
“Capital” means “the aggregate of the payments on savings accounts,” plus earnings, less deductions. See 12 CFR § 541.3. “Savings account,” such as we have here, is “the monetary interest of the holder” in the “capital” of the association. Id., § 541.4. The account book evidences “the ownership of the account and the interest of the holder thereof in the capital” of the association. 12 CFR § 545.2 (b).
“Holders of savings accounts for which application for withdrawal has been made shall remain holders of savings accounts until paid and shall not become creditors.” 12 CFR § 544.1 (a) par. 6.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These two federal estate tax cases present a common issue for our determination; Whether a federal court or agency in a federal estate tax controversy is conclusively bound by a state trial court adjudication of property rights or characterization of property interests when the United States is not made a party to such proceeding.
In No. 673, Commissioner of Internal Revenue v. Estate of Bosch, 363 F. 2d 1009, the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit held that since the state trial court had “authoritatively determined” the rights of the parties, it was not required to delve into the correctness of that state court decree. In No. 240, Second National Bank of New Haven, Executor v. United States, 351 F. 2d 489, another panel of the same Circuit held that the “decrees of the Connecticut Probate Court . . . under no circumstances can be construed as binding” on a federal court in subsequent litigation involving federal revenue laws. Whether these cases conflict in principle or not, which is disputed here, there does exist a widespread conflict among the circuits over the question and we granted certiorari to resolve it. 385 U. S. 966, 968. We hold that where the federal estate tax liability turns upon the character of a property interest held and transferred by the decedent under state law, federal authorities are not bound by the determination made of such property interest by a state trial court.
I.
(a) No. 673, Commissioner v. Estate of Bosch.
In 1930, decedent, a resident of New York, created a revocable trust which, as amended in 1931, provided that the income from the corpus was to be paid to his wife during her lifetime. The instrument also gave her a general power of appointment, in default of which it provided that half of the corpus was to go to his heirs and the remaining half was to go to those of his wife. In 1951 the wife executed an instrument purporting to release the general power of appointment and convert it into a special power. Upon decedent’s death in 1957, respondent, in paying federal estate taxes, claimed a marital deduction for the value of the widow’s trust. The Commissioner determined, however, that the trust corpus did not qualify for the deduction under § 2056 (b)(5) of the 1954 Internal Revenue Code and levied a deficiency. Respondent then filed a petition for redetermination in the Tax Court. The ultimate outcome of the controversy hinged on whether the release executed by Mrs. Bosch in 1951 was invalid — as she claimed it to be — in which case she would have enjoyed a general power of appointment at her husband’s death and the trust would therefore qualify for the marital deduction. While the Tax Court proceeding was pending, the respondent filed a petition in the Supreme Court of New York for settlement of the trustee’s account; it also sought a determination as to the validity of the release under state law. The Tax Court, with the Commissioner’s consent, abstained from making its decision pending the outcome of the state court action. The state court found the release to be a nullity; the Tax Court then accepted the state court judgment as being an “authoritative exposition of New York law and adjudication of the property rights involved,” 43 T. C. 120, 124, and permitted the deduction. On appeal, a divided Court of Appeals affirmed. It held that “[t]he issue is . . . not whether the federal court is ‘bound by’ the decision of the state tribunal, but whether or not a state tribunal has authoritatively determined the rights under state law of a party to the federal action.” 363 F. 2d, at 1013. The court concluded that the “New York judgment, rendered by a court which had jurisdiction over parties and subject matter, authoritatively settled the rights of the parties, not only for New York, but also for purposes of the application to those rights of the relevant provisions of federal tax law.” Id., at 1014. It declared that since the state court had held the wife to have a general power of appointment under its law, the corpus of the trust qualified for the marital deduction. We do not agree and reverse.
(b) No. 240, Second National Bank of New Haven, Executor v. United States.
Petitioner in this case is the executor of the will of one Brewster, a resident of Connecticut who died in September of 1958. The decedent’s will, together with a codicil thereto, was admitted to probate by the Probate Court for the District of Hamden, Connecticut. The will was executed in 1958 and directed the payment “out of my estate my just debts and funeral expenses and any death taxes which may be legally assessed . . . .” It further directed that the '‘provisions of any statute requiring the apportionment or proration of such taxes among the beneficiaries of this will or the transferees of such property, or the ultimate payment of such taxes by them, shall be without effect in the settlement of my estate.” The will also provided for certain bequests and left the residue in trust; one-third of the income from such trust was to be given to decedent’s wife for life, and the other two-thirds for the benefit of his grandchildren that were living at the time of his death. In July of 1958, the decedent executed a codicil to his will, the pertinent part of which gave his wife a general testamentary power of appointment over the corpus of the trust provided for her. This qualified it for the marital deduction as provided by the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, § 2056 (b)(5). In the federal estate tax return filed in 1959, the widow’s trust was claimed as part of the marital deduction and that was computed as one-third of the residue of the estate before the payment of federal estate taxes. It was then deducted, along with other deductions not involved here, from the total value of the estate and the estate tax was then computed on the basis of the balance. The Commissioner disallowed the claimed deduction and levied a deficiency which was based on the denial of the widow’s allowance as part of the marital deduction and the reduction of the marital deduction for the widow’s, trust, by requiring that the estate tax be charged to the full estate prior to the deduction of the widow’s trust. After receipt of the deficiency notice, the petitioner filed an application in the state probate court to determine, under state law, the proration of the federal estate taxes paid. Notice of such proceeding was given all interested parties and the District Director of Internal Revenue. The guardian ad litem for the minor grandchildren filed a verified report stating that there was no legal objection to the proration of the federal estate tax as set out in the application of the executor. Neither the adult grandchildren nor the District Director of Internal Revenue filed or appeared in the Probate Court. The court then approved the application, found that the decedent’s will did not negate the application of the state proration statute and ordered that the entire federal tax be prorated and charged against the grandchildren’s trusts. This interpretation allowed the widow a marital deduction of some $3,600,000 clear of all federal estate tax. The Commissioner, however, subsequently concluded that the ruling of the Probate Court was erroneous and not binding on him, and he assessed a deficiency. After payment of the deficiency, petitioner brought this suit in the United States District Court for a refund. On petitioner’s motion for summary judgment, the Government claimed that there was a genuine issue of material fact, i. e., whether the probate proceedings had been adversary in nature. The District Court held that the “decrees of the Connecticut Probate Court . . . under no circumstances can be construed as binding and conclusive upon a federal court in construing and applying the federal revenue laws.” 222 F. Supp. 446, 457. The court went on to hold that under the standard applied by the state courts, there was no “clear and unambiguous direction against proration,” and that therefore the state proration statute applied. Id., at 454. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the decedent’s will “would seem to be clear and unambiguous to the effect that taxes were to come out of his residual estate and that despite any contrary statute the testator specifically wished to avoid any proration.” 35,1 F. 2d, at 491. It agreed with the District Court that, in any event, the judgment of the State Probate Court was not binding on the federal court.
II.
Petitioner in No. 240 raises the additional point that the Court of Appeals was incorrect in holding that decedent’s will clearly negated the application of the state proration statute. While we did not limit the grant of certiorari, we affirm without discussion the holding of the Court of Appeals on the point. The issue presents solely a question of state law and “[w]e ordinarily accept the determination of local law by the Court of Appeals . . . and we will not disturb it here.” Ragan v. Merchants Transfer Co., 337 U. S. 530, 534 (1949); General Box Co. v. United States, 351 U. S. 159, 165 (1956); The Tungus v. Skovgaard, 358 U. S. 588, 596 (1959). The Court of Appeals did not pass on the correctness of the resolution of the state law problem involved in Bosch, No. 673, and it is remanded for that purpose.
III.
The problem of what effect must be given a state trial court decree where the matter decided there is determinative of federal estate tax consequences has long burdened the Bar and the courts. This Court has not addressed itself to the problem for nearly a third of a century. In Freuler v. Helvering, 291 U. S. 35 (1934), this Court, declining to find collusion between the parties on the record as presented there, held that a prior in personam judgment in the state court to which the United States was not made a party, “[o]bviously . . . had not the effect of res judicata, and could not furnish the basis for invocation of the full faith and credit clause At 43. In Freuler’s wake, at least three positions have emerged among the circuits. The first of these holds that
“. . . if the question at issue is fairly presented to the state court for its independent decision and is so decided by the court the resulting judgment if binding upon the parties under the state law is conclusive as to their property rights in the federal tax case . . . .” Gallagher v. Smith, 223 F. 2d 218, 225.
The opposite view is expressed in Faulkerson’s Estate v. United States, 301 F. 2d 231. This view seems to approach that of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64 (1938), in that the federal court will consider itself bound by the state court decree only after independent examination of the state law as determined by the highest court of the State. The Government urges that an intermediate position be adopted; it suggests that a state trial court adjudication is binding in such cases only when the judgment is the result of an adversary proceeding in the state court. Pierpont v. C. I. R., 336 F. 2d 277. Also see the dissent of Friendly, J., in Bosch, No. 673.
We look at the problem differently. First, the Commissioner was not made a party to either of the state proceedings here and neither had the effect of res judicata, Freuler v. Helvering, supra; nor did the principle of collateral estoppel apply. It can hardly be denied that both state proceedings were brought for the purpose of directly affecting federal estate tax liability. Next, it must be remembered that it was a federal taxing statute that the Congress enacted and upon which we are here passing. Therefore, in construing it, we must look to the legislative history surrounding it. We find that the report of the Senate Finance Committee recommending enactment of the marital deduction used very guarded language in referring to the very question involved here. It said that “proper regard,” not finality, “should be given to interpretations of the will” by state courts and then only when entered by a court “in a bona fide adversary proceeding.” S. Rep. No. 1013, Pt. 2, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., 4. We cannot say that the authors of this directive intended that the decrees of state trial courts were to be conclusive and binding on the computation of the federal estate tax as levied by the Congress. If the Congress had intended state trial court determinations to have that effect on the federal actions, it certainly would have said so — which it did not do. On the contrary, we believe it intended the marital deduction to be strictly construed and applied. Not only did it indicate that only “proper regard” was to be accorded state decrees but it placed specific limitations on the allowance of the deduction as set out in §§ 2056 (b), (c), and (d). These restrictive limitations clearly indicate the great care that Congress exercised in the drawing of the Act and indicate also a definite concern with the elimination of loopholes and escape hatches that might jeopardize the federal revenue. This also is in keeping with the long-established policy of the Congress, as expressed in the Rules of Decision Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1652. There it is provided that in the absence of federal requirements such as the Constitution or Acts of Congress, the “laws of the several states . . . shall be regarded as rules of decision in civil actions in the courts of the United States, in cases where they apply.” This Court has held that judicial decisions are “laws of the . . . state” within the section. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, supra; Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541 (1949); King v. Order of Travelers, 333 U. S. 153 (1948). Moreover, even in diversity cases this Court has further held that while the decrees of “lower state courts” should be “attributed some weight . . . the decision [is] not controlling . . where the highest court of the State has not spoken on the point. King v. Order of Travelers, supra, at 160-161. And in West v. A. T. & T. Co., 311 U. S. 223 (1940), this Court further held that “an intermediate appellate state court ... is a datum for ascertaining state law which is not to be disregarded by a federal court unless it is convinced by other persuasive data that the highest court of the state would decide otherwise.” At 237. (Emphasis supplied.) Thus, under some conditions, federal authority may not be bound even by an intermediate state appellate court ruling. It follows here then, that when the application of a federal statute is involved, the decision of a state trial court as to an underlying issue of state law should a fortiori not be controlling. This is but an application of the rule of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, supra, where state law as announced by the highest court of the State is to be followed. This is not a diversity case but the same principle may be applied for the same reasons, viz., the underlying substantive rule involved is based on state law and the State’s highest court is the best authority on its own law. If there be no decision by that court then federal authorities must apply what they find to be the state law after giving “proper regard” to relevant rulings of other courts of the State. In this respect, it may be said to be, in effect, sitting as a state court. Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co., 350 U. S. 198 (1956).
We believe that this would avoid much of the uncertainty that would result from the “non-adversary” approach and at the same time would be fair to the taxpayer and protect the federal revenue as well.
The judgment in No. 240 is therefore affirmed while that in No. 673 is reversed and remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Illustrative of the conflict among the circuits are: Gallagher v. Smith, 223 F. 2d 218 (C. A. 3d Cir., 1955); Faulkerson’s Estate v. United States, 301 F. 2d 231 (C. A. 7th Cir.), cert. denied, 371 U. S. 887 (1962); Pierpont v. C. I. R., 336 F. 2d 277 (C. A. 4th Cir., 1964), cert. denied, 380 U. S. 908 (1965).
Section. 2056 (b)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U. S. C. §2056 (b)(5), provides:
“(5) Life estate with power of appointment in surviving spouse.— In the case of an interest in property passing from the decedent, if his surviving spouse is entitled for life to all the income from the entire interest, . . . with power in the surviving spouse to appoint the entire interest, . . . (exercisable in favor of such surviving spouse, or of the estate of such surviving spouse, or in favor of either, whether or not in each case the power is exercisable in favor of others), and with no power in any other person to appoint any part of the interest, or such specific portion, to any person other than the surviving spouse—
“(A) the interest . . . thereof so passing shall, for purposes of subsection (a), be considered as passing to the surviving spouse, and
“(B) no part of the interest so passing shall, for purposes of paragraph (1)(A), be considered as passing to any person other than the surviving spouse.
“This paragraph shall apply only if such power in the surviving spouse to appoint the entire interest, or such specific portion thereof, whether exercisable by will or during life, is exercisable by such spouse alone and in all events.”
It may be claimed that Blair v. Commissioner, 300 U. S. 5 (1937), dealt with the problem presently before us but that case involved the question of the effect of a property right determination by a state appellate 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:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this ease is whether a police officer violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of substantive due process by causing death through deliberate or reckless indifference to life in a high-speed automobile chase aimed at apprehending a suspected offender. We answer no, and hold that in such circumstances only a purpose to cause harm unrelated to the legitimate object of arrest will satisfy the element of arbitrary conduct shocking to the conscience, necessary for a due process violation.
I
On May 22, 1990, at approximately 8:30 p.m., petitioner James Everett Smith, a Sacramento County sheriff’s deputy, along with another officer, Murray Stapp, responded to a call to break up a fight. Upon returning to his patrol car, Stapp saw a motorcycle approaching at high speed. It was operated by 18-year-old Brian Willard and carried Philip Lewis, respondents’ 16-year-old decedent, as a passenger. Neither boy had anything to do with the fight that prompted the call to the police.
Stapp turned on his overhead rotating lights, yelled to the boys to stop, and pulled his patrol car closer to Smith’s, attempting to pen the motorcycle in. Instead of pulling over in response to Stapp’s warning lights and commands, Willard slowly maneuvered the motorcycle between the two police cars and sped off. Smith immediately switched on his own emergency lights and siren, made a quick turn, and began pursuit at high speed. For 75 seconds over a course of 1:3 miles in a residential neighborhood, the motorcycle wove in and out of oncoming traffic, forcing two ears and a bicycle to swerve off the road. The motorcycle and patrol car reached speeds up to 100 miles an hour, with Smith following at a distance as short as 100 feet; at that speed, his car would have required 650 feet to stop.
The chase ended after the motorcycle tipped over as Willard tried a sharp left turn. By the time Smith slammed on his brakes, Willard was out of the way, but Lewis was not. The patrol car skidded into him at 40 miles an hour, propelling him some 70 feet down the road and inflicting massive injuries. Lewis was pronounced dead at the scene.
Respondents, Philip Lewis’s parents and the representatives of his estate, brought this action under Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1983, against petitioners Sacramento County, the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department, and Deputy Smith, alleging a deprivation of Philip Lewis’s Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right to life. The District Court granted summary judgment for Smith, reasoning that even if he violated the Constitution, he was entitled to qualified immunity, because respondents could point to no “state or federal opinion published before May, 1990, when the alleged misconduct took place, that supports [their] view that [the decedent had] a Fourteenth Amendment substantive due process right in the context of high speed police pursuits.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 52.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, holding that “the appropriate degree of fault to be applied to high-speed police pursuits is deliberate indifference to, or reckless disregard for, a person’s right to life and personal security,” 98 F. 3d 434, 441 (1996), and concluding that “the law regarding police liability for death or injury caused by an officer during the course of a high-speed chase was clearly established” at the time of Philip Lewis’s death, id., at 445. Since Smith apparently disregarded the Sacramento County Sheriff’s Department’s General Order on police pursuits, the Ninth Circuit found a genuine issue of material fact that might be resolved by a finding that Smith’s conduct amounted to deliberate indifference:
“The General Order requires an officer to communicate his intention to pursue a vehicle to the sheriff’s department dispatch center. But defendants concede that Smith did not contact the dispatch center. The General Order requires an officer to consider whether the seriousness of the offense warrants a chase at speeds in excess of the posted limit. But here, the only apparent ‘offense’ was the boys’ refusal to stop when another officer told them to do so. The General Order requires an officer to consider whether the need for apprehension justifies the pursuit under existing conditions. Yet Smith apparently only ‘needed’ to apprehend the boys because they refused to stop. The General Order requires an officer to consider whether the pursuit presents unreasonable hazards to life and property. But taking the facts here in the light most favorable to plaintiffs, there existed an unreasonable hazard to Lewis’s and Willard’s lives. The General Order also directs an officer to discontinue a pursuit when the hazards of continuing outweigh the benefits of immediate apprehension. But here, there was no apparent danger involved in permitting the boys to escape. There certainly was risk of harm to others in continuing the pursuit.” Id., at 442.
Accordingly, the Court of Appeals reversed the summary judgment in favor of Smith and remanded for trial.
We granted certiorari, 520 U. S. 1250 (1997), to resolve a conflict among the Circuits over the standard of culpability on the part of a law enforcement officer for violating substantive due process in a pursuit ease. Compare 98 F. 3d, at 441 (“deliberate indifference” or “reckless disregard”), with Evans v. Avery, 100 P. 3d 1033, 1038 (CA11996) (“shocks the conscience”), cert. denied, 520 U. S. 1210 (1997); Williams v. Denver, 99 P. 3d 1009, 1014-1015 (CA10 1996) (same); Fagan v. Vineland, 22 P. 3d 1296, 1306-1307 (CA3 1994) (en banc) (same); Temkin v. Frederick County Commissioners, 945 F. 2d 716, 720 (CA4 1991) (same), cert. denied, 502 U. S. 1095 (1992); and Checki v. Webb, 785 F. 2d 534, 538 (CA5 1986) (same). We now reverse.
II
Our prior cases have held the provision that “[n]o State shall... deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law,” U. S. Const., Amdt. 14, § 1, to “guarantee more than fair process,” Washington v. Glucksberg, 521 U. S. 702, 719 (1997), and to cover a substantive sphere as well, “barring certain government actions regardless of the fairness of the procedures used to implement them,” Daniels v. Williams, 474 U. S. 327, 331 (1986); see also Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U. S. 113, 125 (1990) (noting that substantive due process violations are actionable under § 1983). The allegation here that Lewis was deprived of his right to life in violation of substantive due process amounts to such a claim, that under the circumstances described earlier, Smith’s actions in causing Lewis’s death were an abuse of executive power so clearly unjustified by any legitimate objective of law enforcement as to be barred by the Fourteenth Amendment, Cf. Collins v. Darker Heights, 503 U. S. 115, 126 (1992) (noting that the Due Process Clause was intended to prevent government officials “£ “from abusing [their] power, or employing it as an instrument of oppression” ’ ”) (quoting DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U. S. 189, 196 (1989), in turn quoting Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U. S. 344, 348 (1986)).
Leaving aside the question of qualified immunity, which formed the basis for the District Court’s dismissal of their ease, respondents face two principal objections to their claim. The first is that its subject is necessarily governed by a more definite provision of the Constitution (to the exclusion of any possible application of substantive due process); the second, that in any event the allegations are insufficient to state a substantive due process violation through executive abuse of power. Respondents can meet the first objection, but not the second.
A
Because we have “always been reluctant to expand the concept of substantive due process,” Collins v. Barker Heights, supra, at 125, we held in Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386 (1989), that “[wjhere a particular Amendment provides an explicit textual source of constitutional protection against a particular sort of government behavior, that Amendment, not the more generalized notion of substantive due process, must be the guide for analyzing these claims.” Albright v. Oliver, 510 U. S. 266, 273 (1994) (plurality opinion of Rehnquist, C. J.) (quoting Graham v. Connor, supra, at 395) (internal quotation marks omitted). Given the rule in Graham, we were presented at oral argument with the threshold issue raised in several amicus briefs, whether facts involving a police chase aimed at apprehending suspects can ever support a due process claim. The argument runs that in chasing the motorcycle, Smith was attempting to make a seizure within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment, and, perhaps, even that he succeeded when Lewis was stopped by the fatal collision. Hence, any liability must turn on an application of the reasonableness standard governing searches and seizures, not the due process standard of liability for constitutionally arbitrary executive action. See Graham v. Connor, supra, at 395 (“[A] 11 claims that law enforcement officers have used excessive force— deadly or not — in the course of an arrest, investigatory stop, or other ‘seizure’ of a free citizen should be analyzed under the Fourth Amendment and its ‘reasonableness’ standard, rather than under a ‘substantive due process’ approach” (emphasis in original)); Albright v. Oliver, 510 U. S., at 276 (Ginsburg, J., concurring); id., at 288, n. 2 (Souter, J., concurring in judgment). One Court of Appeals has indeed applied the rule of Graham to preclude the application of principles of generalized substantive due process to a motor vehicle passenger’s claims for injury resulting from reckless police pursuit. See Mays v. East St. Louis, 123 F. 3d 999, 1002-1003 (CA7 1997).
The argument is unsound. Just last Term, we explained that Graham
“does not hold that all constitutional claims relating to physically abusive government conduct must arise under either the Fourth or Eighth Amendments; rather, Graham simply requires that if a constitutional claim is covered by a specific constitutional provision, such as the Fourth or Eighth Amendment, the claim must be analyzed under the standard appropriate to that specific provision, not under the rubric of substantive due process.” United States v. Lanier, 520 U. S. 259, 272, n. 7 (1997).
Substantive due process analysis is therefore inappropriate in this case only if respondents’ claim is “covered by” the Fourth Amendment. It is not.
The Fourth Amendment covers only “searches and seizures,” neither of which took place here. No one suggests that there was a search, and our cases foreclose finding a seizure. We held in California v. Hodari D., 499 U. S. 621, 626 (1991), that a police pursuit in attempting to seize a person does not amount to a “seizure” within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment. And in Brower v. County of Inyo, 489 U. S. 593, 596-597 (1989), we explained that “a Fourth Amendment seizure does not occur whenever there is a governmentally caused termination of an individual’s freedom of movement (the innocent passerby), nor even whenever there is a governmentally caused and governmentally desired termination of an individual’s freedom of movement (the fleeing felon), but only when there is a governmental termination of freedom of movement through means intentionally applied” We illustrated the point by saying that no Fourth Amendment seizure would take place where a “pursuing police ear sought to stop the suspect only by the show of authority represented by flashing lights and continuing pursuit,” but accidentally stopped the suspect by crashing into him. Id., at 597. That is exactly this case. See, c. g., Campbell v. White, 916 F. 2d 421, 423 (CA7 1990) (following Brower and finding no seizure where a police officer accidentally struck and killed a fleeing motorcyclist during a high-speed pursuit), cert. denied, 499 U. S. 922 (1991). Graham's more-speeific-provision rule is therefore no bar to respondents’ suit. See, e. g., Frye v. Akron, 759 F. Supp. 1320, 1324 (ND Ind. 1991) (parents of a motorcyclist who was struck and killed by a police car during a high-speed pursuit could sue under substantive due process because no Fourth Amendment seizure took place); Evans v. Avery, 100 F. 3d, at 1036 (noting that “outside the context of a seizure,... a person injured as a result of police misconduct may prosecute a substantive due process claim under section 1983”); Pleasant v. Zamieski, 895 F. 2d 272, 276, n. 2 (CA6) (noting that Graham “preserve^] fourteenth amendment substantive due process analysis for those instances in which a free citizen is denied his or her constitutional right to life through means other than a law enforcement official’s arrest, investí-gatory stop or other seizure”), cert. denied, 498 U. S. 851 (1990).
B
Since the time of our early explanations of due process, we have understood the core of the concept to be protection against arbitrary action:
“The principal and true meaning of the phrase has never been more tersely or accurately stated than by Mr. Justice Johnson, in Bank of Columbia v. Okely, 4 Wheat. 235-244 [(1819)]: ‘As to the words from Magna Charta, incorporated into the Constitution of Maryland, after volumes spoken and written with a view to their exposition, the good sense of mankind has at last settled down to this: that they were intended to secure the individual from the arbitrary exercise of the powers of government, unrestrained by the established principles of private right and distributive justice.’” Hurtado v. California, 110 U. S. 516, 527 (1884).
We have emphasized time and again that “[t]he touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government,” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539, 558 (1974), whether the fault lies in a denial of fundamental procedural fairness, see, e. g., Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U. S. 67, 82 (1972) (the procedural due process guarantee protects against “arbitrary takings”), or in the exercise of power without any reasonable justification in the service of a legitimate governmental objective, see, e. g., Daniels v. Williams, 474 U. S., at 331 (the substantive due process guarantee protects against government power arbitrarily and oppressively exercised). While due process protection in the substantive sense limits what the government may do in both its legislative, see, e. g., Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U. S. 479 (1966), and its executive capacities, see, e. g., Rochin v. California, 342 U. S. 165 (1952), criteria to identify what is fatally arbitrary differ depending on whether it is legislation or a specific act of a governmental officer that is at issue.
Our cases dealing with abusive executive action have repeatedly emphasized that only the most egregious official conduct can be said to be “arbitrary in the constitutional sense,” Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U. S., at 129, thereby recognizing the point made in different circumstances by Chief Justice Marshall, “ 'that it is a constitution we are expounding,’ ” Daniels v. Williams, supra, at 332 (quoting McCulloch v. Maryland, 4 Wheat. 316, 407 (1819) (emphasis in original)). Thus, in Collins v. Harker Heights, for example, we said that the Due Process Clause was intended to prevent government officials “‘“from abusing [their] power, or employing it as an instrument of oppression.” ’ ” 503 U. S., at 126 (quoting DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U. S., at 196, in turn quoting Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U. S., at 348).
To this end, for half a century now we have spoken of the cognizable level of executive abuse of power as that which shocks the conscience. We first put the test this way in Rochin v. California, supra, at 172-173, where we found the forced pumping of a suspect’s stomach enough to offend due process as conduct “that shocks the conscience” and violates the “decencies of civilized conduct.” In the intervening years we have repeatedly adhered to Rochin’s benchmark. See, e. g., Breithaupt v. Abram, 352 U. S. 432, 435 (1957) (reiterating that conduct that “‘shocked the conscience’ and was so ‘brutal’ and ‘offensive’ that it did not comport with traditional ideas of fair play and decency” would violate substantive due process); Whitley v. Albers, 475 U. S. 312, 327 (1986) (same); United States v. Salerno, 481 U. S. 739, 746 (1987) (“So-called ‘substantive due process’ prevents the government from engaging in conduct that ‘shocks the conscience,’... or interferes with rights ‘implicit in the concept of ordered liberty’ ”) (quoting Rochin v. California, supra, at 172, and Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 325-326 (1937)). Most recently, in Collins v. Harker Heights, supra, at 128, we said again that the substantive component of the Due Process Clause is violated by executive action only when it “can properly be characterized as arbitrary, or conscience shocking, in a constitutional sense.” While the measure of what is conscience shocking is no calibrated yard stick, it does, as Judge Friendly put it, “poin[t] the way.” Johnson v. Glick, 481 F. 2d 1028, 1033 (CA2), cert. denied, 414 U. S. 1033 (1973).
It should not be surprising that the constitutional concept of conscience shocking duplicates no traditional category of common-law fault, but rather points clearly away from liability, or clearly toward it, only at the ends of the tort law’s spectrum of culpability. Thus, we have made it clear that the due process guarantee does not entail a body of constitutional law imposing liability whenever someone cloaked with state authority causes harm. In Paul v. Davis, 424 U. S. 693, 701 (1976), for example, we explained that the Fourteenth Amendment is not a “font of tort law to be superimposed upon whatever systems may already be administered by the States,” and in Daniels v. Williams, 474 U. S., at 332, we reaffirmed the point that “[o]ur Constitution deals with the large concerns of the governors and the governed, but it does not purport to supplant traditional tort law in laying down rules of conduct to regulate liability for injuries that attend living together in society.” We have accordingly rejected the lowest common denominator of customary tort liability as any mark of sufficiently shocking conduct, and have held that the Constitution does not guarantee due care on the part of state officials; liability for negligently inflicted harm is categorically beneath the threshold of constitutional due process. See id., at 328; see also Davidson v. Cannon, 474 U. S., at 348 (clarifying that Daniels applies to substantive, as well as procedural, due process). It is, on the contrary, behavior at the other end of the culpability spectrum that would most probably support a substantive due process claim; conduct intended to injure in some way unjustifiable by any government interest is the sort of official action most likely to rise to the conscience-shocking level. See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U. S., at 331 (“Historically, this guarantee of due process has been applied to deliberate decisions of government officials to deprive a person of life, liberty, or property” (emphasis in original)).
Whether the point of the conscience shocking is reached when injuries are produced with culpability falling within the middle range, following from something more than negligence but “less than intentional conduct, such as recklessness or ‘gross negligence,’ ” id., at 334, n. 3, is a matter for closer calls. To be sure, we have expressly recognized the possibility that some official acts in this range may be actionable under the Fourteenth Amendment, ibid., and our cases have compelled recognition that such conduct is egregious enough to state a substantive due process claim in at least one instance. We held in City of Revere v. Massachusetts Gen. Hospital, 463 U. S. 239 (1983), that “the due process rights of a [pretrial detainee] are at least as great as the Eighth Amendment protections available to a convicted prisoner.” Id., at 244 (citing Bell v. Wolfish, 441 U. S. 520, 535, n. 16, 545 (1979)). Since it may suffice for Eighth Amendment liability that prison officials were deliberately indifferent to the medical needs of their prisoners, see Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U. S. 97, 104 (1976), it follows that such deliberately indifferent conduct must also be enough to satisfy the fault requirement for due process claims based on the medical needs of someone jailed while awaiting trial, see, e. g., Barrie v. Grand County, Utah, 119 F. 3d 862, 867 (CA10 1997); Weyant v. Okst, 101 F. 3d 845, 856 (CA2 1996).
Rules of due process are not, however, subject to mechanical application in unfamiliar territory. Deliberate indifference that shocks in one environment may not be so patently egregious in another, and our concern with preserving the constitutional proportions of substantive due process demands an exact analysis of circumstances before any abuse of power is condemned as conscience shocking. What we have said of due process in the procedural sense is just as true here:
“The phrase [due process of law] formulates a concept less rigid and more fluid than those envisaged in other specific and particular provisions of the Bill of Rights. Its application is less a matter of rule. Asserted denial 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.” Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455, 462 (1942).
Thus, attention to the markedly different circumstances of normal pretrial custody and high-speed law enforcement chases shows why the deliberate indifference that shocks in the one case is less egregious in the other (even assuming that it makes sense to speak of indifference as deliberate in the case of sudden pursuit). As the very term “deliberate indifference” implies, the standard is sensibly employed only when actual deliberation is practical, see Whitley v. Albers, 475 U. S., at 320, and in the custodial situation of a prison, forethought about an inmate’s welfare is not only feasible but obligatory under a. regime that incapacitates a prisoner to exercise ordinary responsibility for his own welfare.
“[W]hen the State takes a person into its custody and holds him there against his will, the Constitution imposes upon it a corresponding duty to assume some responsibility for his safety and general well-being. The rationale for this principle is simple enough: when the State by the affirmative exercise of its power so restrains an individual’s liberty that it renders him unable to care for himself, and at the same time fails to provide for his basic human needs — e. g., food, clothing, shelter, medical care, and reasonable safety — it transgresses the substantive limits on state action set by the... Due Process Clause.” DeShaney v. Winnebago County Dept. of Social Servs., 489 U. S., at 199-200 (citation and footnote omitted).
Nor does any substantial countervailing interest excuse the State from making provision for the decent care and protection of those it locks up; “the State’s responsibility to attend to the medical needs of prisoners [or detainees] does not ordinarily clash with other equally important governmental responsibilities.” Whitley v. Albers, supra, at 320.
But just as the description of the custodial prison situation shows how deliberate indifference can rise to a constitutionally shocking level, so too does it suggest why indifference may well not be enough for liability in the different circumstances of a case like this one. We have, indeed, found that deliberate indifference does not suffice for constitutional liability (albeit under the Eighth Amendment) even in prison circumstances when a prisoner’s claim arises not from normal custody but from response to a violent disturbance. Our analysis is instructive here:
“[I]n making and carrying out decisions involving the use of force to restore order in the face of a prison disturbance, prison officials undoubtedly must take into account the very real threats the unrest presents to inmates and prison officials alike, in addition to the possible harms to inmates against whom force might bused_In this setting, a deliberate indifference standard does not adequately capture the importance of such competing obligations, or convey the appropriate hesitancy to critique in hindsight decisions necessarily made in haste, under pressure, and frequently without the luxury of a second chance.” Whitley v. Albers, 475 U. S., at 320.
We accordingly held that a much higher standard of fault than deliberate indifference has to be shown for officer liability in a prison riot. In those circumstances, liability should turn on “whether force was applied in a good faith effort to maintain or restore discipline or maliciously and sadistically for the very purpose of causing harm.” Id., at 320-321 (internal quotation marks omitted). The analogy to sudden police chases (under the Due Process Clause) would be hard to avoid.
Like prison officials facing a riot, the police on an occasion calling for fast action have obligations that tend to tug against each other. Their duty is to restore and maintain lawful order, while not exacerbating disorder more than necessary to do their jobs. They are supposed to act decisively and to show restraint at the same moment, and their decisions have to be made “in haste, under pressure, and frequently without the luxury of a second chance.” Id., at 320; cf. Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S., at 397 (“[Pjolice officers are often forced to make split-second judgments — in circumstances that are tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving”). A police officer deciding whether to give chase must balance on one hand the need to stop a suspect and show that flight from the law is no way to freedom, and, on the other, the high-speed threat to all those within stopping range, be they suspects, their passengers, other drivers, or bystanders.
To recognize a substantive due process violation in these circumstances when only midlevel fault has been shown would be to forget that liability for deliberate indifference to inmate welfare rests upon the luxury enjoyed by prison officials of having time to make unhurried judgments, upon the chance for repeated reflection, largely uncomplicated by the pulls of competing obligations. When such extended opportunities to do better are teamed with protracted failure even to care, indifference is truly shocking. But when unforeseen circumstances demand an officer’s instant judgment, even precipitate recklessness fails to inch close enough to harmful purpose to spark the shock that implicates “the large concerns of the governors and the governed.” Daniels v. Wil liams, 474 U. S., at 332. Just as a purpose to cause harm is needed for Eighth Amendment liability in a riot ease, so it ought to be needed for due process liability in a pursuit case. Accordingly, we hold that high-speed chases with no intent to harm suspects physically or to worsen their legal plight do not give rise to liability under the Fourteenth Amendment, redressible by an action under § 1983.
The fault claimed on Smith’s part in this case accordingly fails to meet the shocks-the-conscience test. In the count charging him with liability under § 1983, respondents’ complaint alleges a variety of culpable states of mind: “negligently responsible in some manner,” App. 11, Count one, ¶ 8, “reckless and careless,” id., at 12, ¶ 15, “recklessness, gross negligence and conscious disregard for [Lewis’s] safety,” id., at 13, ¶ 18, and “oppression, fraud and malice,” ibid. The subsequent summary judgment proceedings revealed that the height of the fault actually claimed was “conscious disregard,” the malice allegation having been made in aid of a request for punitive damages, but unsupported either in allegations of specific conduct or in any affidavit of fact offered on the motions for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals understood the claim to be one of deliberate indifference to Lewis’s survival, which it treated as equivalent to one of reckless disregard for life. We agree with this reading of respondents’ allegations, but consequently part company from the Court of Appeals, which found them sufficient to state a substantive due process claim, and from the District Court, which made the same assumption arguendo.
Smith was faced with a course of lawless behavior for which the police were not to blame. They had done nothing to cause Willard’s high-speed driving in the first place, nothing to excuse his flouting of the commonly understood law enforcement authority to control traffic, and nothing (beyond a refusal to call off the chase) to encourage him to race through traffic at breakneck speed forcing other drivers out of their travel lanes. Willard’s outrageous behavior was practically instantaneous, and so was Smith’s instinctive response. While prudence would have repressed the reaction, the officer’s instinct was to do his job as a law enforcement officer, not to induce Willard’s lawlessness, or to terrorize, cause harm, or kill. Prudence, that is, was subject to countervailing enforcement considerations, and while Smith exaggerated their demands, there is no reason to believe that they were tainted by an improper or malicious motive on his part.
Regardless whether Smith’s behavior offended the reasonableness held up by tort law or the balance struck in law enforcement’s own codes of sound practice, it does not shock the conscience, and petitioners are not called upon to answer for it under §1988. The judgment below is accordingly reversed.
It is so ordered.
Respondents also brought claims under state law. The District Court found that Smith was immune from state tort liability by operation of California Vehicle Code § 17004, which provides that “[a] public employee is not liable for civil damages on account of personal injury to or death of any person or damage to property resulting from the operation, in the line of duty, of an authorized emergency vehicle... when in the immediate pursuit of an actual or suspected violator of the law.” Cal. Veh. Code Ann. § 17004 (West 1971). The court declined to rule on the potential liability of the county under state law, instead dismissing the tort claims against the county without prejudice to refiling in state court.
The District Court also granted summary judgment in favor of the county and the Sheriff’s Department on the § 1983 claim, concluding that municipal liability would not lie under Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs., 436 U. S. 658 (1978), after finding no genuine factual dispute as to whether the county adequately trains its officers in the conduct of vehicular pursuits or whether the pursuit policy of the Sheriff’s Department evinces deliberate indifference to the constitutional rights of the public. The Ninth Circuit affirmed the District Court on these points, 98 F. 3d 434, 446-447 (1996), and the issue of municipal liability is not before us.
In Jones v. Sherrill, 827 F. 2d 1102, 1106 (1987), the Sixth Circuit adopted a "gross negligence” standard for imposing liability for harm caused by police pursuit. Subsequently, in Foy v. Berea, 58 F. 3d 227, 230 (1995), the Sixth Circuit, without specifically mentioning Jones, disavowed the notion that “gross negligence is sufficient to support a substantive due process claim.” Although Foy involved police inaction, rather than police pursuit, it seems likely that the Sixth Circuit would now apply the “deliberate indifference” standard utilized in that case, see 58 F. 3d, at 232-233, rather than the “gross negligence” standard adopted in Jones, in a police pursuit situation.
Respondents do not argue that they were denied due process of law by virtue of the fact that California’s postdeprivation procedures and rules of immunity have effectively denied them an adequate opportunity to seek compensation for the state-occasioned deprivation of their son’s life. We express no opinion here on the merits of such a claim, cf. Albright v. Oliver, 510 U. S. 266, 281-286 (1994) (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment); Parrott v. Taylor, 451 U. S. 527 (1981), or on the adequacy of California’s postdeprivation compensation scheme.
As in any action under §1983, the first step is to identify the exact contours of the underlying right said to have been violated. See Graham v. Connor, 490 U. S. 386, 394 (1989). The District Court granted summary judgment to Smith on the basis of qualified immunity, assuming without deciding that a substantive due process violation took plaee but holding that the law was not clearly established in 1990 so as to justify imposition of § 1983 liability. We do not analyze this ease in a similar fashion because, as we have held, 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. Normally, it is only then that a court should ask whether the right allegedly implicated was clearly established at the time of the events in question. See Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U. S. 226, 232 (1991) (“A necessary concomitant to the determination of whether the constitutional right asserted by a plaintiff is 'dearly established’ at the time the defendant acted is the determination of whether the plaintiff has asserted a violation of a constitutional right at all,” and courts should not “assumfe], without dedding, this preliminary issue”).
Justice Stevens suggests that the rule of Siegert should not apply where, as here, the constitutional question presented “is both difficult and unresolved.” Post, at 859. But the generally sound rule of avoiding determination of constitutional issues does not readily fit the situation presented here; when liability is claimed on the basis of a constitutional violation, even a finding of qualified immunity requires some determination about the state of constitutional law at the time the officer acted. What is more significant is that if the policy of avoidance were always followed in favor of ruling on qualified immunity whenever there was no clearly settled constitutional rule of primary conduct, standards of official conduct would tend to remain uncertain, 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:
|
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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case was brought in the District Court for the Western District of South Carolina. Jurisdiction was based on diversity of citizenship. 28 U. S. C. § 1332. The petitioner, a resident of North Carolina, sued respondent, a South Carolina corporation, for damages for injuries allegedly caused by the respondent’s negligence. He had judgment on a jury verdict. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed and directed the entry of judgment for the respondent. 238 F. 2d 346. We granted certiorari, 352 U. S. 999, and subsequently ordered reargument, 355 U. S. 950.
The respondent is in the business of selling electric power to subscribers in rural sections of South Carolina. The petitioner was employed as a lineman in the construction crew of a construction contractor. The contractor, R. H. Bouligny, Inc., held a contract with the respondent in the amount of $334,300 for the building of some 24 miles of new power lines, the reconversion to higher capacities of about 88 miles of existing lines, and the construction of 2 new substations and a breaker station. The petitioner was injured while connecting power lines to one of the new substations.
One of respondent’s affirmative defenses was that, under the South Carolina Workmen’s Compensation Act, the petitioner — because the work contracted to be done by his employer was work of the kind also done by the respondent’s own construction and maintenance crews— had the status of a statutory employee of the respondent and was therefore barred from suing the respondent at law because obliged to accept statutory compensation benefits as the exclusive remedy for his injuries. Two questions concerning this defense are before us: (1) whether the Court of Appeals erred in directing judgment for respondent without a remand to give petitioner an opportunity to introduce further evidence; and (2) whether petitioner, state practice notwithstanding, is entitled to a jury determination of the factual issues raised by this defense.
I.
The Supreme Court of South Carolina has held that there is no particular formula by which to determine whether an owner is a statutory employer under § 72-111. In Smith v. Fulmer, 198 S. C. 91, 97, 15 S. E. 2d 681, 683, the State Supreme Court said:
“And the opinion in the Marchbanks case [Marchbanks v. Duke Power Co., 190 S. C. 336, 2 S. E. 2d 825, said to be the “leading case” under the statute] reminds us that while the language of the statute is plain and unambiguous, there are so many different factual situations which may arise that no easily applied formula can be laid down for the determination of all cases. In other words, ‘it is often a matter of extreme difficulty to decide whether the work in a given case falls within the designation of the statute. It is in each case largely a question of degree and of fact.' ”
The respondent's manager testified on direct examination that three of its substations were built by the respondent’s own construction and maintenance crews. When pressed on cross-examination, however, his answers left his testimony in such doubt as to lead the trial judge to say, “I understood he changed his testimony, that they had not built three.” But the credibility of the manager’s testimony, and the general question whether the evidence in support of the affirmative defense presented a jury issue, became irrelevant because of the interpretation given § 72-111 by the trial judge. In striking respondent’s affirmative defense at the close of all the evidence he ruled that the respondent was the statutory employer of the petitioner only if the construction work done by respondent’s crews was done for somebody else, and was not the statutory employer if, as the proofs showed, the crews built facilities only for the respondent’s own use. “My idea of engaging in the business is to do something for somebody else. What they [the respondent] are doing — and everything they do about repairing lines and building substations, they do it for themselves.” On this view of the meaning of the statute, the evidence, even accepting the manager’s testimony on direct examination as true, lacked proof of an essential element of the affirmative defense, and there was thus nothing for the petitioner to meet with proof of his own.
The Court of Appeals disagreed with the District Court’s construction of § 72-111. Relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court of South Carolina, among others, in Marchbanks v. Duke Power Co., 190 S. C. 336, 2 S. E. 2d 825, and Boseman v. Pacific Mills, 193 S. C. 479, 8 S. E. 2d 878, the Court of Appeals held that the statute granted respondent immunity from the action if the proofs established that the respondent’s own crews had constructed lines and substations which, like the work contracted to the petitioner’s employer, were necessary for the distribution of the electric power which the respondent was in the business of selling. We ordinarily accept the interpretation of local law by the Court of Appeals, cf. Ragan v. Merchants Transfer Co., 337 U. S. 530, 534, and do so readily here since neither party now disputes the interpretation.
However, instead of ordering a new trial at which the petitioner might offer his own proof pertinent to a determination according to the correct interpretation, the Court of Appeals made its own determination on the record and directed a judgment for the respondent. The court noted that the Rural Electric Cooperative Act of South Carolina authorized the respondent to construct, acquire, maintain, and operate electric generating plants, buildings, and equipment, and any and all kinds of property which might be necessary or convenient to accomplish the purposes for which the corporation was organized, and pointed out that the work contracted to the petitioner’s employer was of the class which respondent was empowered by its charter to perform.
The court resolved the uncertainties in the manager’s testimony in a manner largely favorable to the respondent: “The testimony with respect to the construction of the substations of Blue Ridge, stated most favorably to the . . . [petitioner], discloses that originally Blue Ridge built three substations with its own facilities, but that all of the substations which were built after the war, including the six it was operating at the time of the accident, were constructed for it by independent contractors, and that at the time of the accident it had no one in its direct employ capable of handling the technical detail of substation construction.” 238 F. 2d 346, 350.
The court found that the respondent financed the work contracted to the petitioner’s employer with a loan from the United States, purchased the materials used in the work, and entered into an engineering service contract with an independent engineering company for the design and supervision of the work, concluding from these findings that “the main actor in the whole enterprise was the Cooperative itself.” Ibid.
Finally, the court held that its findings entitled the respondent to the direction of a judgment in its favor. “. . . [Tjhere can be no doubt that Blue Ridge was not only in the business of supplying electricity to rural communities, but also in the business of constructing the lines and substations necessary for the distribution of the product . . . .” Id., at 351.
While the matter is not adverted to in the court’s opinion, implicit in the direction of verdict is the holding that the petitioner, although having no occasion to do so under the District Court’s erroneous construction of the statute, was not entitled to an opportunity to meet the respondent’s case under the correct interpretation. That holding is also implied in the court’s denial, without opinion, of petitioner’s motion for a rehearing sought on the ground that “. . . [T]he direction to enter judgment for the defendant instead of a direction to grant a new trial denies plaintiff his right' to introduce evidence in contradiction to that of the defendant on the issue of defendant’s affirmative defense, a right which he would have exercised if the District Judge had ruled adversely to him on his motion to dismiss, and thus deprives him of his constitutional right to a jury trial on a factual issue.”
We believe that the Court of Appeals erred. We do not agree with the petitioner’s argument in this Court that the respondent’s evidence was insufficient to withstand the motion to strike the defense and that he is entitled to our judgment reinstating the judgment of the District Court. But the petitioner is entitled to have the question determined in the trial court. This would be necessary even if petitioner offered no proof of his own. Although the respondent’s evidence was sufficient to withstand the motion under the meaning given the statute by the Court of Appeals, it presented a fact question, which, in the circumstances of this case to be discussed infra, is properly to be decided by a jury. This is clear not only because of the issue of the credibility of the manager’s vital testimony, but also because, even should the jury resolve that issue as did the Court of Appeals, the jury on the entire record — consistent with the view of the South Carolina cases that this question is in each case largely one of degree and of fact — might reasonably reach an opposite conclusion from the Court of Appeals as to the ultimate fact whether the respondent was a statutory employer.
At all events, the petitioner is plainly entitled to have an opportunity to try the issue under the Court of Appeals’ interpretation. His motion to dismiss the affirmative defense, properly viewed, was analogous to a defendant’s motion for involuntary dismissal of an action after the plaintiff has completed the presentation of his evidence. Under Rule 41 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, in such case “the defendant, without waiving his right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief.” The respondent argues, however, that before the trial judge ruled on the petitioner’s motion, the petitioner’s counsel, in effect, conceded that he had no other evidence to offer and was submitting the issue of whether the respondent was a statutory employer on the basis of the evidence already in the case. The judge asked petitioner’s counsel: “In the event I overrule your motion, do you contemplate putting up any testimony in reply?” Counsel answered: “We haven’t discussed it, but we are making that motion. I frankly don’t know at this point of any reply that is necessary. I don’t know of any evidence in this case — .” The interruption which prevented counsel’s completion of the answer was the trial judge’s comment: “I am inclined to think so far it is a question of law but I will hear from Mr. Walker [respondent’s counsel] on that. I don’t know of any issue of fact to submit to the jury. It seems to me under the testimony here there has been — I don’t know of any conflict in the testimony, so far as that’s concerned, so far.” The judge turned to respondent’s counsel and there followed a long colloquy with him, at the conclusion of which the judge dismissed the defense upon the ground that under his interpretation of the statute the defense was not sustained without evidence that the respondent’s business involved the doing of work for others of the kind done by the petitioner’s employer for the respondent. Upon this record it plainly cannot be said that the petitioner submitted the issue upon the evidence in the case and conceded that he had no evidence of his own to offer. The petitioner was fully justified in that circumstance in not coming forward with proof of his own at that stage of the proceedings, for he had nothing to meet under the District Court’s view of the statute. He thus cannot be penalized by the denial of his day in court to try the issue under the correct interpretation of the statute. Cf. Fountain v. Filson, 336 U. S. 681; Weade v. Dichmann, Wright & Pugh, Inc., 337 U. S. 801; Globe Liquor Co. v. San Roman, 332 U. S. 571; Cone v. West Virginia Paper Co., 330 U. S. 212.
II.
A question is also presented as to whether on remand the factual issue is to be decided by the judge or by the jury. The respondent argues on the basis of the decision of the Supreme Court of South Carolina in Adams v. Da- vison-Paxon Co., 230 S. C. 532, 96 S. E. 2d 566, that the issue of immunity should be decided by the judge and not by the jury. That was a negligence action brought in the state trial court against a store owner by an employee of an independent contractor who operated the store’s millinery department. The trial judge denied the store owner’s motion for a directed verdict made upon the ground that § 72-111 barred the plaintiff’s action. The jury returned a verdict for the plaintiff. The South Carolina Supreme Court reversed, holding that it was for the judge and not the jury to decide on the evidence whether the owner was a statutory employer, and that the store owner had sustained his defense. The court rested its holding on decisions, listed in footnote 8, infra, involving judicial review of the Industrial Commission and said:
“Thus the trial court should have in this case resolved the conflicts in the evidence and determined the fact of whether . . . [the independent contractor] was performing a part of the 'trade, business or occupation’ of the department store-appellant and, therefore, whether . . . [the employee’s] remedy is exclusively under the Workmen’s Compensation Law.” 230 S. C., at 543, 96 S. E. 2d, at 572.
The respondent argues that this state-court decision governs the present diversity case and “divests the jury of its normal function” to decide the disputed fact question of the respondent’s immunity under § 72-111. This is to contend that the federal court is bound under Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64, to follow the state court’s holding to secure uniform enforcement of the immunity created by the State.
First. It was decided in Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins that the federal courts in diversity cases must respect the definition of state-created rights and obligations by the state courts. We must, therefore, first examine- the rule in Adams v. Davison-Paxon Co. to determine whether it is bound up with these rights and obligations in such a way that its application in the federal court is required. Cities Service Oil Co. v. Dunlap, 308 U. S. 208.
The Workmen’s Compensation Act is administered in South Carolina by its Industrial Commission. The South Carolina courts hold that, on judicial review of actions of the Commission under § 72-111, the question whether the claim of an injured workman is within the Commission’s jurisdiction is a matter of law for decision by the court, which makes its own findings of fact relating to that jurisdiction. The South Carolina Supreme Court states no reasons in Adams v. Davison-Paxon Co. why, although the jury decides all other factual issues raised by the cause of action and defenses, the jury is displaced as to the factual issue raised by the affirmative defense under § 72-111. The decisions cited to support the holding are those listed in footnote 8, which are concerned solely with defining the scope and method of judicial review of the Industrial Commission. A State may, of course, distribute the functions of its judicial machinery as it sees fit. The decisions relied upon, however, furnish no reason for selecting the judge rather than the jury to decide this single affirmative defense in the negligence action. They simply reflect a policy, cf. Crowell v. Benson, 285 U. S. 22, that administrative determination of “jurisdictional facts” should not be final but subject to judicial review. The conclusion is inescapable that the Adams holding is grounded in the practical consideration that the question had theretofore come before the South Carolina courts from the Industrial Commission and the courts had become accustomed to deciding the factual issue of immunity without the aid of juries. We find nothing to suggest that this rule was announced as an integral part of the special relationship created by the statute. Thus the requirement appears to be merely a form and mode of enforcing the immunity, Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U. S. 99, 108, and not a rule intended to be bound up with the definition of the rights and obligations of the parties. The situation is therefore not analogous to that in Dice v. Akron, C. & Y. R. Co., 342 U. S. 359, where this Court held that the right to trial by jury is so substantial a part of the cause of action created by the Federal Employers’ Liability Act that the Ohio courts could not apply, in an action under that statute, the Ohio rule that the question of fraudulent release was for determination by a judge rather than by a jury.
Second. But cases following Erie have evinced a broader policy to the effect that the federal courts should conform as near as may be — in the absence of other considerations — to state rules even of form and mode where the state rules may bear substantially on the question whether the litigation would come out one way in the federal court and another way in the state court if the federal court failed to apply a particular local rule. E. g., Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, supra; Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co., 350 U. S. 198. Concededly the nature of the tribunal which tries issues may be important in the enforcement of the parcel of rights making up a cause of action or defense, and bear significantly upon achievement of uniform enforcement of the right. It may well be that in the instant personal-injury case the outcome would be substantially affected by whether the issue of immunity is decided by a judge or a jury. Therefore, were “outcome” the only consideration, a strong case might appear for saying that the federal court should follow the state practice.
But there are affirmative countervailing considerations at work here. The federal system is an independent system for administering justice to litigants who properly invoke its jurisdiction. An essential characteristic of that system is the manner in which, in civil common-law actions, it distributes trial functions between judge and jury and, under the influence — if not the command — of the Seventh Amendment, assigns the decisions of disputed questions of fact to the jury. Jacob v. New York, 315 U. S. 752. The policy of uniform enforcement of state-created rights and obligations, see, e. g., Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, supra, cannot in every case exact compliance with a state rule — not bound up with rights and obligations— which disrupts the federal system of allocating functions between judge and jury. Herron v. Southern Pacific Co., 283 U. S. 91. Thus the inquiry here is whether the federal policy favoring jury decisions of disputed fact questions should yield to the state rule in the interest of furthering the objective that the litigation should not come out one way in the federal court and another way in the state court.
We think that in the circumstances of this case the federal court should not follow the state rule. It cannot be gainsaid that there is a strong federal policy against allowing state rules to disrupt the judge-jury relationship in the federal courts. In Herron v. Southern Pacific Co., supra, the trial judge in a personal-injury negligence action brought in the District Court for Arizona on diversity grounds directed a verdict for the defendant when it appeared as a matter of law that the plaintiff was guilty of contributory negligence. The federal judge refused to be bound by a provision of the Arizona Constitution which made the jury the sole arbiter of the question of contributory negligence. This Court sustained the action of the trial judge, holding that “state laws cannot alter the essential character or function of a federal court” because that function “is not in any sense a local matter, and state statutes which would interfere with the appropriate performance of that function are not binding upon the federal court under either the Conformity Act or the 'rules of decision’ Act.” Id., at 94. Perhaps even more clearly in light of the influence of the Seventh Amendment, the function assigned to the jury “is an essential factor in the process for which the Federal Constitution provides.” Id., at 95. Concededly the Herron case was decided before Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, but even when Swift v. Tyson, 16 Pet. 1, was governing law and allowed federal courts sitting in diversity cases to disregard state decisional law, it was never thought that state statutes or constitutions were similarly to be disregarded. Green v. Neal’s Lessee, 6 Pet. 291. Yet Herron held that state statutes and constitutional provisions could not disrupt or alter the essential character or function of a federal court.
Third. We have discussed the problem upon the assumption that the outcome of the litigation may be substantially affected by whether the issue of immunity is decided by a judge or a jury. But clearly there is not present here the certainty that a different result would follow, cf. Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, supra, or even the strong possibility that this would be the case, cf. Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co., supra. There are factors present here which might reduce that possibility. The trial judge in the federal system has powers denied the judges of many States to comment on the weight of evidence and credibility of witnesses, and discretion to grant a new trial if the verdict appears to him to be against the weight of the evidence. We do not think the likelihood of a different result is so strong as to require the federal practice of jury determination of disputed factual issues to yield to the state rule in the interest of uniformity of outcome.
The Court of Appeals did not consider other grounds of appeal raised by the respondent because, the ground taken disposed of the case. We accordingly remand the case to the Court of Appeals for the decision of the other questions, with instructions that, if not made unnecessary by the decision of such questions, the Court of Appeals shall remand the case to the District Court for a new trial of such issues as the Court of Appeals may direct.
Reversed and remanded.
S. C. Code, 1952, provides:
Ҥ 72-111. Liability of owner to workmen of subcontractor.
“When any person, in this section and §§ 72-113 and 72-114 referred to as 'owner/ undertakes to perform or execute any work which is a part of his trade, business or occupation and contracts with any other person (in this section and §§72-113 to 72-116 referred to as ‘subcontractor’) for the execution or performance by or under such subcontractor of the whole or any part of the work undertaken by such owner, the owner shall be hable to pay to any workman employed in the work any compensation under this Title which he would have been liable to pay if the workman had been immediately employed by him.”
“§ 72-121. Employees’ rights under Title exclude all others against employer.
“The rights and remedies granted by this Title to an employee when he and his employer have accepted the provisions of this Title, respectively, to pay and accept compensation on account of personal injury or death by accident, shall exclude all other rights and remedies of such employee, his personal representative, parents, dependents or next of kin as against his employer, at common law or otherwise, on account of such injury, loss of service or death.”
Ҥ 72-123. Only one remedy available.
“Either the acceptance of an award under this Title or the procurement and collection of a judgment in an action at law shall be a bar to proceeding further with the alternate remedy.”
In earlier proceedings the case was dismissed on the ground that the respondent, a nonprofit corporation, was immune from tort liability under South Carolina law. 118 F. Supp. 868. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case for trial. 215 F. 2d 542.
The trial judge, in spite of his action striking the defense, permitted the respondent to include the affirmative defense as a ground of its motions for a directed verdict and judgment non obstante veredicto.
S. C. Code, 1952, § 12-1025.
The only remarks thereafter made by the petitioner’s counsel reiterated his statement that he pressed his motion to dismiss the affirmative defense.
The decision came down several months after the Court of Appeals decided this case.
See Cities Service Oil Co. v. Dunlap, 308 U. S. 208; West v. American Tel. & Tel. Co., 311 U. S. 223; Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Co., 313 U. S. 487; Guaranty Trust Co. v. York, 326 U. S. 99; Angel v. Bullington, 330 U. S. 183; Ragan v. Merchants Transfer Co., 337 U. S. 530; Woods v. Interstate Realty Co., 337 U. S. 535; Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541; Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co., 350 U. S. 198; Sampson v. Channell, 110 F. 2d 754.
Knight v. Shepherd, 191 S. C. 452, 4 S. E. 2d 906; Tedars v. Savannah River Veneer Co., 202 S. C. 363, 25 S. E. 2d 235; McDowell v. Stilley Plywood Co., 210 S. C. 173, 41 S. E. 2d 872; Miles v. West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co., 212 S. C. 424, 48 S. E. 2d 26; Watson v. Wannamaker & Wells, Inc., 212 S. C. 506, 48 S. E. 2d 447; Gordon v. Hollywood-Beaufort Package Corp., 213 S. C. 438, 49 S. E. 2d 718; Holland v. Georgia Hardwood Lumber Co., 214 S. C. 195, 51 S. E. 2d 744; Younginer v. Jones Construction Co., 215 S. C. 135, 54 S. E. 2d 545; Horton v. Baruch, 217 S. C. 48, 59 S. E. 2d 545.
Cf. Morgan, Choice of Law Governing Proof, 58 Harv. L. Rev. 153; 3 Beale, Conflict of Laws, §594.1; Restatement of the Law, Conflict of Laws, pp. 699-701.
Our conclusion makes unnecessary the consideration of — and we intimate no view upon — the constitutional question whether the right of jury trial protected in federal courts by the Seventh Amendment embraces the factual issue of statutory immunity when asserted, as here, as an affirmative defense in a common-law negligence action.
The Courts of Appeals have expressed varying views about the effect of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins on judge-jury problems in diversity cases. Federal practice was followed in Gorham v. Mutual Benefit Health & Accident Assn., 114 F. 2d 97 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1940); Diederich v. American News Co., 128 F. 2d 144 (C. A. 10th Cir. 1942); McSweeney v. Prudential Ins. Co., 128 F. 2d 660 (C. A. 4th Cir. 1942); Ettelson v. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co., 137 F. 2d 62 (C. A. 3d Cir. 1943); Order of United Commercial Travelers v. Duncan, 221 F. 2d 703 (C. A. 6th Cir. 1955). State practice was followed in Cooper v. Brown, 126 F. 2d 874 (C. A. 3d Cir. 1942); Gutierrez v. Public Service Interstate Transportation Co., 168 F. 2d 678 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1948); Prudential Ins. Co. v. Glasgow, 208 F. 2d 908 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1953); Pierce Consulting Engineering Co. v. City of Burlington, 221 F. 2d 607 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1955); Rowe v. Pennsylvania Greyhound Lines, 231 F. 2d 922 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1956).
This Court held in Sibbach v. Wilson & Co., 312 U. S. 1, that Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 35 should prevail over a contrary state rule.
“The defense of contributory negligence or of assumption of risk shall, in all cases whatsoever, be a question of fact and shall, at all times, be left to the jury.” § 5, Art. 18.
Diederich v. American News Co., 128 F. 2d 144, decided after Eñe R. Co. v. Tompkins, held that an almost identical provision of the Oklahoma Constitution was not binding on a federal judge in a diversity case.
Stoner v. New York Life Ins. Co., 311 U. S. 464, is not contrary. It was there held that the federal court should follow the state rule defining the evidence sufficient to raise a jury question whether the state-created right was established. But the state rule did not have the effect of nullifying the function of the federal judge to control a jury submission as did the Arizona constitutional provision which was denied effect in Herron. The South Carolina rule here involved affects the jury function as the Arizona provision affected the function of the judge: The rule entirely displaces the jury without regard to the sufficiency of the evidence to support a jury finding of immunity.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
MR. Justice Stewart
delivered the opinion of the Court.
On September 22, 1967, the Government commenced this suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, challenging as violative of § 7 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 18, the acquisition of the stock of United Electric Coal Companies by Material Service Corp. and its successor, General Dynamics Corp. After lengthy discovery proceedings, a trial was held from March 30 to April 22, 1970, and on April 13, 1972, the District Court issued an opinion and judgment finding no violation of the Clayton Act. 341 F. Supp. 534. The Government appealed directly to this Court pursuant to the Expediting Act, 15 U. S. C. § 29, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 409 U. S. 1058.
I
At the time of the acquisition involved here, Material Service Corp. was a large midwest producer and supplier of building materials, concrete, limestone, and coal. All of its coal production was from deep-shaft mines operated by it or its affiliate, appellee Freeman Coal Mining Corp., and production from these operations amounted to 6.9 million tons of coal in 1959 and 8.4 million tons in 1967. In 1954, Material Service began to acquire the stock of United Electric Coal Companies. United Electric at all relevant times operated only strip or open-pit mines in Illinois and Kentucky; at the time of trial in 1970 a number of its mines had closed and its operations had been reduced to four mines in Illinois and none in Kentucky. In 1959, it produced 3.6 million tons of coal, and by 1967, it had increased this output to 5.7 million tons. Material Service’s purchase of United Electric stock continued until 1959. At this point Material’s holdings amounted to more than 34% of United Electric’s outstanding shares and — all parties are now agreed on this point — Material had effective control of United Electric. The president of Freeman was elected chairman of United Electric’s executive committee, and other changes in the corporate structure of United Electric were made at the behest of Material Service.
Some months after this takeover, Material Service was itself acquired by the appellee General Dynamics Corp. General Dynamics is a large diversified corporation, much of its revenues coming from sales of aircraft, communications, and marine products to Government agencies. The trial court found that its purchase of Material Service was part of a broad diversification program aimed at expanding General Dynamics into commercial, nondefense business. As a result of the purchase of Material Service, and through it, of Freeman and United Electric, General Dynamics became the Nation’s fifth largest commercial coal producer. During the early 1960’s General Dynamics increased its equity in United Electric by direct purchases of United Electric stock, and by 1966 it held or controlled 66.16% of United Electric's outstanding shares. In September 1966 the board of directors of General Dynamics authorized a tender offer to holders of the remaining United Electric stock. This offer was successful, and United Electric shortly thereafter became a wholly owned subsidiary of General Dynamics.
The thrust of the Government's complaint was that the acquisition of United Electric by Material Service in 1969 violated § 7 of the Clayton Act because the takeover substantially lessened competition in the production and sale of coal in either or both of two geographic markets. It contended that a relevant “section of the country” within the meaning of § 7 was, alternatively, the State of Illinois or the Eastern Interior Coal Province Sales Area, the latter being one of four major coal distribution areas recognized by the coal industry and comprising Illinois and Indiana, and parts of Kentucky, Tennessee, Iowa, Minnesota, Wisconsin, and Missouri.
At trial controversy focused on three basic issues: the propriety of coal as a “line of commerce,” the definition of Illinois or the Eastern Interior Coal Province Sales Area as a relevant “section of the country,” and the probability of a lessening of competition within these or any other product and geographic markets resulting from the acquisition. The District Court decided against the Government on each of these issues.
As to the relevant product market, the court found that coal faced strong and direct competition from other sources of energy such as oil, natural gas, nuclear energy, and geothermal power which created a cross-elasticity of demand among those various fuels. As a result, it concluded that coal, by itself, was not a permissible product market and that the “energy market” was the sole “line of commerce” in which anticompetitive effects could properly be canvassed.
Similarly, the District Court rejected the Government’s proposed geographic markets on the ground that they were “based essentially on past and present production statistics and do not relate to actual coal consumption patterns.” 341 F. Supp., at 556. The court found that a realistic geographic market should be defined in terms of transportation arteries and freight charges that determined the cost of delivered coal to purchasers and thus the competitive position of various coal producers. In particular, it found that freight rate districts, designated by the Interstate Commerce Commission for determining rail transportation rates, of which there were four in the area served by the appel-lee companies, were the prime determinants for the geographic competitive patterns among coal producers. In addition, the court concluded that two large and specialized coal consumption units were sufficiently differentiable in their coal use patterns to be included as relevant geographic areas. In lieu of the State of Illinois or the Eastern Interior Coal Province Sales Area, the court accordingly found the relevant geographic market to be 10 smaller areas, comprising the two unique consumers together with four utility sales areas and four nonutility sales areas based on the ICC freight rate districts.
Finally, and for purposes of this appeal most significantly, the District Court found that the evidence did not support the Government’s contention that the 1959 acquisition of United Electric substantially lessened competition in any product or geographic market. This conclusion was based on four determinations made in the court’s opinion, id., at 558-559. First, the court noted that while the number of coal producers in the Eastern Interior Coal Province declined from 144 to 39 during the period of 1957-1967, this reduction “occurred not because small producers have been acquired by others, but as the inevitable result of the change in the nature of demand for coal.” Consequently, the court found, “this litigation presents a very different situation from that in such cases as United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U. S. 321 (1963), and United States v. Von’s Grocery Co., 384 U. S. 270 (1966), where the Supreme Court was concerned with ‘preventing even slight increases in concentration.’ 374 U. S., at 365, n. 2.” 341 F. Supp., at 558. Second, the court noted that United Electric and Freeman were “predominantly complementary in nature” since “United Electric is a strip mining company with no experience in deep mining nor likelihood of acquiring it [and] Freeman is a deep mining company with no experience or expertise in strip mining.” Ibid. Third, the court found that if Commonwealth Edison, a large investor-owned public utility, were excluded, “none of the sales by United Electric in the period 1965 to 1967, the years chosen by the Government for analysis, would have or could have been competitive with Freeman, had the two companies been independent,” because of relative distances from potential consumers and the resultant impact on relative competitive position. Ibid. Finally, the court found that United Electric’s coal reserves were so low that its potential to compete with other coal producers in the future was far weaker than the aggregate production statistics relied on by the Government might otherwise have indicated. In particular, the court found that virtually all of United Electric’s proved coal reserves were either depleted or already committed by long-term contracts with large customers, and that United Electric’s power to affect the price of coal was thus severely limited and steadily diminishing. On the basis of these considerations, the court concluded: “Under these circumstances, continuation of the affiliation between United Electric and Freeman is not adverse to competition, nor would divestiture benefit competition even were this court to accept the Government's unrealistic product and geographic market definitions.” Id., at 560.
II
The Government sought to prove a violation of § 7 of the Clayton Act principally through statistics showing that within certain geographic markets the coal industry was concentrated among a small number of large producers; that this concentration was increasing; and that the acquisition of United Electric would materially enlarge the market share of the acquiring company and thereby contribute to the trend toward concentration.
The concentration of the coal market in Illinois and, alternatively, in the Eastern Interior Coal Province was demonstrated by a table of the shares of the largest two, four, and 10 coal-producing firms in each of these areas for both 1957 and 1967 that revealed the following:
Eastern Interior
Coal Province Illinois
1957 1967 1957 1967
Top 2 firms. 29.6 4813 37B 52^9
Top 4 firms. 43.0 62.9 54.5 75.2
Top 10 firms. 65.5 91.4 84.0 98.0
These statistics, the Government argued, showed not only that the coal industry was concentrated among a small number of leading producers, but that the trend had been toward increasing concentration. Furthermore, the undisputed fact that the number of coal-producing firms in Illinois decreased almost 73% during the period of 1957 to 1967 from 144 to 39 was claimed to be indicative of the same trend. The acquisition of United Electric by Material Service resulted in increased concentration of coal sales among the leading producers in the areas chosen by the Government, as shown by the following table:
1959
1967
Share of top 2 but for merger
Share of top 2 given merger
Percent increase
Share of top 2 but for merger
Share of top 2 given merger
Percent increase
Province. 33.1 37.9 14.5 45.0 48.6 8.0
Illinois. 36.6 44.3 22.4 44.0 52.9 20.2
Finally, the Government's statistics indicated that the acquisition increased the share of the merged company in the Illinois and Eastern Interior Coal Province coal markets by significant degrees:
Province Illinois
Share Share
Rank (percent) Rank (percent)
1959
Freeman. 2 7.6 2 15.1
United Electric. 6 4.8 5 8.1
Combined. 2 12.4 1 23.2
1967
Freeman. 5 6.5 2 12.9
United Electric. 9 4.4 6 8.9
Combined. 2 10.9 2 21.8
In prior decisions involving horizontal mergers between competitors, this Court has found prima facie violations of § 7 of the Clayton Act from aggregate statistics of the sort relied on by the United States in this case. In Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U. S. 294, the Court reviewed the legislative history of the most recent amendments to the Act and found that “[t]he dominant theme pervading congressional consideration of the 1950 amendments was a fear of what was considered to be a rising tide of economic concentration in the American economy.” Id., at 315. A year later, in United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U. S. 321, the Court clarified the relevance of a statistical demonstration of concentration in a particular industry and of the effects thereupon of a merger or acquisition with the following language:
“This intense congressional concern with the trend toward concentration warrants dispensing, in certain cases, with elaborate proof of market structure, market behavior, or probable anticompetitive effects. Specifically, we think that a merger which produces a firm controlling an undue percentage share of the relevant market, and results in a significant increase in the concentration of firms in that market, is so inherently likely to lessen competition substantially that it must be enjoined in the absence of evidence clearly showing that the merger is not likely to have such anticompetitive effects.” Id., at 363.
See also United States v. Continental Can Co., 378 U. S. 441, 458; United States v. Von’s Grocery Co., 384 U. S., at 277; United States v. Pabst Brewing Co., 384 U. S. 546, 550-552.
The effect of adopting this approach to a determination of a “substantial” lessening of competition is to allow the Government to rest its case on a showing of even small increases of market share or market concentration in those industries or markets where concentration is already great or has been recently increasing, since “if concentration is already great, the importance of preventing even slight increases in concentration and so preserving the possibility of eventual deconcentration is correspondingly great.” United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 377 U. S. 271, 279, citing United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, supra, at 365 n. 42.
While the statistical showing proffered by the Government in this case, the accuracy of which was not discredited by the District Court or contested by the appellees, would under this approach have sufficed to support a finding of “undue concentration” in the absence of other considerations, the question before us is whether the District Court was justified in finding that other pertinent factors affecting the coal industry and the business of the appellees mandated a conclusion that no substantial lessening of competition occurred or was threatened by the acquisition of United Electric. We are satisfied that the court’s ultimate finding was not in error.
In Brown Shoe v. United States, supra, we cautioned that statistics concerning market share and concentration, while of great significance, were not conclusive indicators of anticompetitive effects:
“Congress indicated plainly that a merger had to be functionally viewed, in the context of its particular industry.” 370 U. S., at 321-322.
“Statistics reflecting the shares of the market controlled by the industry leaders and the parties to the merger are, of course, the primary index of market power; but only a further examination of the particular market — its structure, history and probable future — can provide the appropriate setting for judging the probable anticompetitive effect of the merger.” Id., at 322 n. 38.
See also United States v. Continental Can Co., supra, at 458. In this case, the District Court assessed the evidence of the “structure, history and probable future” of the coal industry, and on the basis of this assessment found no substantial probability of anticompetitive effects from the merger.
Much of the District Court’s opinion was devoted to a description of the changes that have affected the coal industry since World War II. On the basis of more than three weeks of testimony and a voluminous record, the court discerned a number of clear and significant developments in the industry. First, it found that coal had become increasingly less able to compete with other sources of energy in many segments of the energy market. Following the War the industry entirely lost its largest single purchaser of coal — the railroads — and faced increasingly stiffer competition from oil and natural gas as sources of energy for industrial and residential uses. Because of these changes in consumption patterns, coal's share of the energy resources consumed in this country fell from 78.4% in 1920 to 21.4% in 1968. The court reviewed evidence attributing this decline not only to the changing relative economies of alternative fuels and to new distribution and consumption patterns, but also to more recent concern with the effect of coal use on the environment and consequent regulation of the extent and means of such coal consumption.
Second, the court found that to a growing extent since 1954, the electric utility industry has become the mainstay of coal consumption. While electric utilities consumed only 15.76% of the coal produced nationally in 1947, their share of total consumption increased every year thereafter, and in 1968 amounted to more than 59% of all the coal consumed throughout the Nation.
Third, and most significantly, the court found that to an increasing degree, nearly all coal sold to utilities is transferred under long-term requirements contracts, under which coal producers promise to meet utilities’ coal consumption requirements for a fixed period of time, and at predetermined prices. The court described the mutual benefits accruing to both producers and consumers of coal from such long-term contracts in the following terms:
“This major investment [in electric utility equipment] can be jeopardized by a disruption in the supply of coal. Utilities are, therefore, concerned with assuring the supply of coal to such a plant over its life. In addition, utilities desire to establish in advance, as closely as possible, what fuel costs will be for the life of the plant. For these reasons, utilities typically arrange long-term contracts for all or at least a major portion of the total fuel requirements for the life of the plant....
“The long-term contractual commitments are not only required from the consumer’s standpoint, but are also necessary from the viewpoint of the coal supplier. Such commitments may require the development of new mining capacity.... Coal producers have been reluctant to invest in new mining capacity in the absence of long-term contractual commitments for the major portion of the mine’s capacity. Furthermore, such long-term contractual commitments are often required before financing for the development of new capacity can be obtained by the producer.” 341 F. Supp., at 543 (footnote omitted).
These developments in the patterns of coal distribution and consumption, the District Court found, have limited the amounts of coal immediately available for “spot” purchases on the open market, since “[t]he growing practice by coal producers of expanding mine capacity only to meet long-term contractual commitments and the gradual disappearance of the small truck mines has tended to limit the production capacity available for spot sales.” Ibid.
Because of these fundamental changes in the structure of the market for coal, the District Court was justified in viewing the statistics relied on by the Government as insufficient to sustain its case. Evidence of past production does not, as a matter of logic, necessarily give a proper picture of a company's future ability to compete. In most situations, of course, the unstated assumption is that a company that has maintained a certain share of a market in the recent past will be in a position to do so in the immediate future. Thus, companies that have controlled sufficiently large shares of a concentrated market are barred from merger by § 7, not because of their past acts, but because their past performances imply an ability to continue to dominate with at least equal vigor. In markets involving groceries or beer, as in Von’s Grocery, supra, and Pabst, supra, statistics involving annual sales naturally indicate the power of each company to compete in the future. Evidence of the amount of annual sales is relevant as a prediction of future competitive strength, since in most markets distribution systems and brand recognition are such significant factors that one may reasonably suppose that a company which has attracted a given number of sales will retain that competitive strength.
In the coal market, as analyzed by the District Court, however, statistical evidence of coal production was of considerably less significance. The bulk of the coal produced is delivered under long-term requirements contracts, and such sales thus do not represent the exercise of competitive power but rather the obligation to fulfill previously negotiated contracts at a previously fixed price. The focus of competition in a given time frame is not on the disposition of coal already produced but on the procurement of new long-term supply contracts. In this situation, a company's past ability to produce is of limited significance, since it is in a position to offer for sale neither its past production nor the bulk of the coal it is presently capable of producing, which is typically already committed under a long-term supply contract. A more significant indicator of a company’s power effectively to compete with other companies lies in the state of a company’s uncommitted reserves of recoverable coal. A company with relatively large supplies of coal which are not already under contract to a consumer will have a more important influence upon competition in the contemporaneous negotiation of supply contracts than a firm with small reserves, even though the latter may presently produce a greater tonnage of coal. In a market where the availability and price of coal are set by long-term contracts rather than immediate or short-term purchases and sales, reserves rather than past production are the best measure of a company’s ability to compete.
The testimony and exhibits in the District Court revealed that United Electric’s coal reserve prospects were “unpromising.” 341 F. Supp., at 559. United’s relative position of strength in reserves was considerably weaker than its past and current ability to produce. While United ranked fifth among Illinois coal producers in terms of annual production, it was 10th in reserve holdings, and controlled less than 1% of the reserves held by coal producers in Illinois, Indiana, and western Kentucky. Id., at 538. Many of the reserves held by United had already been depleted at the time of trial, forcing the closing of some of United’s midwest mines. Even more significantly, the District Court found that of the 52,033,304 tons of currently mineable reserves in Illinois, Indiana, and Kentucky controlled by United, only four million tons had not already been committed under long-term contracts. United was found to be -facing the future with relatively depleted resources at its disposal, and with the vast majority of those resources already committed under contracts allowing no further adjustment in price. In addition, the District Court found that “United Electric has neither the possibility of acquiring more [reserves] nor the ability to develop deep coal reserves,” and thus was not in a position to increase its reserves to replace those already depleted or committed. Id., at 560.
Viewed in terms of present and future reserve prospects — and thus in terms of probable future ability to compete — rather than in terms of past production, the District Court held that United Electric was a far less significant factor in the coal market than the Government contended or the production statistics seemed to indicate. While the company had been and remained a “highly profitable” and efficient producer of relatively large amounts of coal, its current and future power to compete for subsequent long-term contracts was severely limited by its scarce uncommitted resources. Irrespective of the company's size when viewed as a producer, its weakness as a competitor was properly analyzed by the District Court and fully substantiated that court’s conclusion that its acquisition by Material Service would not “substantially... lessen competition....” The validity of this conclusion is not undermined, we think, by the three-faceted attack made upon it by the Government in this Court — to which we now turn.
Ill
First, the Government urges that the court committed legal error by giving undue consideration to facts occurring after the effective acquisition in 1959. In FTC v. Consolidated Foods Corp., 380 U. S. 592, 598, this Court stated that postacquisition evidence tending to diminish the probability or impact of anti-competitive effects might be considered in a § 7 case. See also United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 353 U. S. 586, 597 et seq., 602 et seq. But in Consolidated Foods, supra, and in United States v. Continental Can Co., 378 U. S., at 463, the probative value of such evidence was found to be extremely limited, and judgments against the Government were in each instance reversed in part because “too much weight” had been given to postacquisition events. The need for such a limitation is obvious. If a demonstration that no anti-competitive effects had occurred at the time of trial or of judgment constituted a permissible defense to a § 7 divestiture suit, violators could stave off such actions merely by refraining from aggressive or anticompetitive behavior when such a suit was threatened or pending.
Furthermore, the fact that no concrete anticompetitive symptoms have occurred does not itself imply that competition has not already been affected, “for once the two companies are united no one knows what the fate of the acquired company and its competitors would have been but for the merger.” FTC v. Consolidated Foods, supra, at 598. And, most significantly, § 7 deals in “probabilities, not certainties,” Brown Shoe v. United States, 370 U. S., at 323, and the mere nonoccurrence of a substantial lessening of competition in the interval between acquisition and trial does not mean that no substantial lessening will develop thereafter; the essential question remains whether the probability of such future impact exists at the time of trial.
In this case, the District Court relied on evidence relating to changes in the patterns and structure of the coal industry and in United Electric’s coal reserve situation after the time of acquisition in 1959. Such evidence could not reflect a positive decision on the part of the merged companies to deliberately but temporarily refrain from anticompetitive actions, nor could it reasonably be thought to reflect less active competition than that which might have occurred had there not been an acquisition in 1959. As the District Court convincingly found, the trend toward increased dependence on utilities as consumers of coal and toward the near-exclusive use of long-term contracts was the product of inevitable pressures on the coal industry in all parts of the country. And, unlike evidence showing only that no lessening of competition has yet occurred, the demonstration of weak coal resources necessarily and logically implied that United Electric was not merely disinclined but unable to compete effectively for future contracts. Such evidence went directly to the question of whether future lessening of competition was probable, and the District Court was fully justified in using it.
Second, the Government contends that reliance on depleted and committed resources is essentially a “failing company” defense which must meet the strict limits placed on that defense by this Court’s decisions in United States v. Third National Bank in Nashville, 390 U. S. 171; Citizen Publishing Co. v. United States, 394 U. S. 131; and United States v. Greater Buffalo Press, 402 U. S. 549. The failing-company doctrine, recognized as a valid defense to a § 7 suit in Brown Shoe, supra, at 346, was first announced by this Court in International Shoe Co. v. FTC, 280 U. S. 291, and was preserved by explicit references in the legislative history of the modern amendments to § 7. H. R. Rep. No. 1191, 81st Cong., 1st Sess., 6 (1949); S. Rep. No. 1775, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 7 (1950). A company invoking the defense has the burden of showing that its “resources [were] so depleted and the prospect of rehabilitation so remote that it faced the grave probability of a business failure...,” International Shoe, supra, at 302, and further that it tried and failed to merge with a company other than the acquiring one, Citizen Publishing Co., supra, at 138; Greater Buffalo Press, supra, at 555.
The Government asserts that United Electric was a healthy and thriving company at the time of the acquisition and could not be considered on the brink of failure, and also that the appellees have not shown that Material Service was the only available acquiring company.. These considerations would be significant if the District Court had found no violation of § 7 by reason of United Electric's being a failing company, but the District Court's conclusion was not, as the Government suggests, identical with or even analogous to such a finding. The failing-company defense presupposes that the effect on competition and the “loss to [the company’s] stockholders and injury to the communities where its plants were operated,” International Shoe, supra, at 302, will be less if a company continues to exist even as a party to a merger than if it disappears entirely from the market. It is, in a sense, a “lesser of two evils” approach, in which the possible threat to competition resulting from an acquisition is deemed preferable to the adverse impact on competition and other losses if the company goes out of business. The appellees’ demonstration of United’s weak reserves position, however, proved an entirely different point. Rather than showing that United would have gone out of business but for the merger with Material Service, the finding of inadequate reserves went to the heart of the Government’s statistical prima facie case based on production figures and substantiated the District Court’s conclusion that United Electric, even if it remained in the market, did not have sufficient reserves to compete effectively for long-term contracts. The failing-company defense is simply inapposite to this finding and the failure of the appellees to meet the prerequisites of that doctrine did not detract from the validity of the court’s analysis.
Finally, the Government contends that the factual underpinning of the District Court’s opinion was not supported by the evidence contained in the record, and should be re-evaluated by this Court. The findings and conclusions of the District Court are, of course, governed by the “clearly erroneous” standard of Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 52 (a) just as fully on direct appeal to this Court as when a civil case is being reviewed by a court of appeals. The record in this case contains thousands of pages of transcript and hundreds of exhibits. Little purpose would be served by discussing in detail each of the Government’s specific factual contentions. Suffice it to say that we find the controlling findings and conclusions contained in the District Court’s careful and lengthy opinion to be supported by the evidence in the record and not clearly erroneous.
One factual claim by the Government, however, goes to the heart of the reasoning of the District Court and thus is worthy of explicit note here. The Government asserts that the paucity of United Electric's coal reserves could not have the significance perceived by the District Court, since all companies engaged in extracting minerals at some point deplete their reserves and then acquire new reserves or the new technology required to extract more minerals from their existing holdings. United Electric, the Government suggests, could at any point either purchase new strip reserves or acquire the expertise to ‘recover currently held deep reserves.
But the District Court specifically found new strip reserves not to be available: “Evidence was presented at trial by experts, by state officials, by industry witnesses and by the Government itself indicating that economically mineable strip reserves that would permit United Electric to continue operations beyond the life of its present mines are not available. The Government failed to come forward with any evidence that such reserves are ;presently available.” 341 F. Supp., at 559. In addition, there was considerable testimony at trial, apparently credited by the District Court, indicating that United Electric and others had tried to find additional strip reserves not already held for coal production, and had been largely unable to do so.
Moreover, the hypothetical possibility that United Electric might in the future acquire the expertise to mine deep reserves proves nothing — or too much. As the Government pointed out in its brief and at. oral argument, in recent years a number of companies with no prior experience in extracting coal have purchased coal reserves and entered the coal production business in order to diversify and complement their current operations. The mere possibility that United Electric, in common with all other companies with the inclination and the corporate treasury to do so, could some day expand into an essentially new line of business does not depreciate the validity of the conclusion that United Electric at the time of the trial did not have the power to compete on a significant scale for the procurement of future long-term contracts, nor does it vest in the production statistics relied on by the Government more significance than ascribed to them by the District Court.
IV
In addition to contending that the District Court erred in finding that the acquisition of United Electric would not substantially lessen competition, the Government urges us to review the court’s determinations of the proper product and geographic markets. The Government suggests that while the “energy market” might have been an appropriate “line of commerce,” coal also had sufficient “practical indicia” as a separate “line of commerce” to qualify as an independent and consistent submarket. Cf. United States v. Continental Can Co., 378 U. S., at 456-457. It also suggests that irrespective of the validity of the criteria adopted by the District Court in selecting its 10 geographic markets, competition between United Electric and Material Service within the larger alternative geographic markets claimed by the Government established those areas as a permissible “section of the country” within the meaning of § 7.
While under normal circumstances a delineation of proper geographic and product markets is a necessary precondition to assessment of the probabilities of a substantial effect on competition within them, in this case we nevertheless affirm the District Court’s judgment without reaching these questions. By determining that the amount and availability of usable reserves, and not the past annual production figures relied on by the Government, were the proper indicators of future ability to compete, the District Court wholly rejected the Government’s prima facie case. Irrespective of the markets within which the acquiring and the acquired company might be viewed as competitors for purposes of this § 7 suit, the Government’s statistical presentation simply did not establish that a substantial lessening of competition was likely to occur in any market. By concluding that “divestiture [would not] benefit competition even were this court to accept the Government’s unrealistic product and geographic market definitions,” 341 F. Supp., at 560, the District Court rendered superfluous its further determinations that the Government also erred in its choice of relevant markets. Since we agree with the District Court that the Government’s reliance on production statistics in the context of this case was insufficient, it follows that the judgment before us may be affirmed without reaching the issues of geographic and product markets.
The judgment of the District Court is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
United Electric also had coal-mining operations in Utah and other Western States. The Government has not contended, however, that these holdings are. of any releyance in this case.
Section 7 of the Clayton Act reads in pertinent part as follows:
“No corporation engaged in commerce shall acquire, directly or indirectly, the whole or any part of the stock or other share capital and no corporation subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal Trade Commission shall acquire the whole or any part of the assets of another corporation engaged also in commerce, where in anjr line of commerce in any section of the country, the effect of such acquisition may be substantially to lessen competition, or to tend to create a monopoly.”
Testimony at trial indicated that the Eastern Interior Coal Province — the area of coal production upon which the Eastern Coal Province Sales Area was based — was originally named by United States Geological Survey maps of the coalfields in the United States and described one portion of a sequence of coal-bearing rock formations known geologically as the Pennsylvania System. The Sales Area of the Eastern Interior Coal Province was derived from the assumption, acknowledged in the trial court’s opinion, that the high costs of transporting coal — which may amount to 40% of the price of delivered coal — will inevitably give producers of coal a clear competitive advantage in sales in the immediate areas of the mines.
The trial court found that Commonwealth Edison, a large private electric utility with generation facilities in many parts of Illinois, and the Metropolitan Chicago Interstate Air Quality Control Region constituted separate and unique geographic regions. Commonwealth Edison was found to have unique attributes because of the great size of its coal consumption requirements, its distinctive distribution patterns, and its extensive commitment to air pollution programs and the development of nuclear energy. The Chicago Control Region, a congressional designated area consisting of six counties in Illinois and two in Indiana, was distinguished from other geographic markets because of the impact of existing and anticipated air pollution regulations which would create special problems in the competition for coal sales contracts. 341 F. Supp. 534, 557.
The figures for 1967 reflect the impact on market concentration of the acquisition involved here.
The figures demonstrating the degree of concentration in the two coal markets chosen by the Government were roughly comparable to those in United States v. Von’s Grocery Co., 384 U. S. 270, where the top four firms in the market controlled 24.4% of the sales, the top eight 40.9%, and the top 12 48.8%. See id., at 281 (White, J., concurring). See also United States v. Pab
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises, Inc., 486 U. S. 888 (1988), this Court held unconstitutional (as impermissibly burdening interstate commerce) an Ohio “tolling” provision that, in effect, gave Ohio tort plaintiffs unlimited time to sue out-of-state (but not in-state) defendants. Subsequently, in the case before us, the Supreme Court of Ohio held that, despite Bendix, Ohio’s tolling law continues to apply to tort claims that accrued before that decision. This holding, in our view, violates the Constitution’s Supremacy Clause. We therefore reverse the Ohio Supreme Court’s judgment.
The accident that led to this case, a collision between a car and a truck, occurred in Ashtabula County, Ohio, on March 5, 1984. More than three years later, on August 11, 1987, Carol Hyde (respondent here) sued the truck’s driver, John Blosh, and its owner, Reynoldsville Casket Company (petitioners). All parties concede that, had Blosh and Reynolds-ville made their home in Ohio, Ohio law would have given Hyde only two years to bring her lawsuit. See Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2305.10 (1991). But, because petitioners were from Pennsylvania, a special provision of Ohio law tolled the running of the statute of limitations, making the lawsuit timely. See §2305.15(A) (tolling the statute of limitations while a person against whom “a cause of action accrues” is “out of” or “departs from” the State).
Ten months after Hyde brought her suit, this Court, in Bendix, supra, held that the tolling provision on which she relied, § 2305.15(A), places an unconstitutional burden upon interstate commerce. Soon thereafter, the Ashtabula County Court of Common Pleas, finding this case indistinguishable from Bendix, held that the tolling provision could not constitutionally be applied to the case, and dismissed the lawsuit as untimely. The intermediate appellate state court affirmed the dismissal. However, the Ohio Supreme Court reinstated the suit. Its syllabus, which under Ohio law sets forth the authoritative basis for its decision, see Ohio Supreme Court Rules for the Reporting of Opinions Rule 1(B) (1994-1995); Akers v. Serv-A-Portion, Inc., 31 Ohio St. 3d 78, 79, n. 1, 508 N. E. 2d 964, 965, n. 1 (1987), simply says, “Bendix Autolite Corp. v. Midwesco Enterprises, Inc. . . . may not be retroactively applied to bar claims in state courts which had accrued prior to the announcement of that decision. (Section 16, Article I, Ohio Constitution, applied.)” 68 Ohio St. 3d 240, 240-241, 626 N. E. 2d 75 (1994). We granted certiorari to decide whether the Federal Constitution permits Ohio to continue to apply its tolling statute to pre-Bendix torts. And, as we have said, we conclude that it does not.
Hyde acknowledges that this Court, in Harper v. Virginia Dept. of Taxation, 509 U. S. 86, 97 (1993), held that, when (1) the Court decides a case and applies the (new) legal rule of that case to the parties before it, then (2) it and other courts must treat that same (new) legal rule as “retroactive,” applying it, for example, to all pending cases, whether or not those cases involve predecision events. She thereby concedes that, the Ohio Supreme Court’s syllabus to the contrary notwithstanding, Bendix applies to her case. And, she says, as “a result of Harper, there is no question that Bendix retroactively invalidated” the tolling provision that makes her suit timely. Brief for Respondent 8.
Although one might think that is the end of the matter, Hyde ingeniously argues that it is not. She asks us to look at what the Ohio Supreme Court has done, not through the lens of “retroactivity,” but through that of “remedy.” States, she says, have a degree of legal leeway in fashioning remedies for constitutional ills. She points to Chevron Oil Co. v. Huson, 404 U. S. 97 (1971), in which this Court applied prospectively only its ruling that a 1-year statute of limitations governed certain tort cases — primarily because that ruling had “effectively overruled a long line of decisions” applying a more generous limitations principle (that of laches), upon which plaintiffs had reasonably relied. Id., at 107. She concedes that Harper overruled Chevron Oil insofar as the case (selectively) permitted the prospective-only application of a new rule of law. But, she notes the possibility of recharacterizing Chevron Oil as a case in which the Court simply took reliance interests into account in tailoring an appropriate remedy for a violation of federal law. See Harper, supra, at 133-134 (O’Connor, J., dissenting); American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Smith, 496 U. S. 167, 218-225 (1990) (Stevens, J., dissenting). And she quotes Justice Harlan, who, before Chevron Oil, pointed out that “equitable considerations” such as “ ‘reliance’ ” might prove relevant to “relief.” United States v. Estate of Donnelly, 397 U. S. 286, 296-297 (1970) (concurring opinion).
Thus, Hyde asks, why not look at what the Ohio Supreme Court has done in this case as if it were simply an effort to fashion a remedy that takes into consideration her reliance on pr e-Bendix law? Here, the remedy would actually consist of providing no remedy for the constitutional violation or, to put the matter more precisely, of continuing to toll the 2-year statute of limitations in pr e-Bendix cases, such as hers, as a state law “equitable” device for reasons of reliance and fairness. She claims that use of this device violates no federal constitutional provision (such as the Due Process Clause) and is therefore permissible.
One serious problem with Hyde’s argument lies in the Ohio Supreme Court’s legal description of why, in fact, it refused to dismiss Hyde’s case. As we have pointed out, the Ohio Supreme Court’s syllabus (the legally authoritative statement of its holding) speaks, not about remedy, but about retroactivity. Regardless, we do not see how, in the circumstances before us, the Ohio Supreme Court could change a legal outcome that federal law, applicable under the Supremacy Clause, would otherwise dictate simply by calling its refusal to apply that federal law an effort to create a remedy. The Ohio Supreme Court’s justification for refusing to dismiss Hyde’s suit is that she, and others like her, may have reasonably relied upon pr e-Bendix law — a reliance of the same kind and degree as that involved in Chevron Oil. But, this type of justification — often present when prior law is overruled — is the very sort that this Court, in Harper, found insufficient to deny retroactive application of a new legal rule (that had been applied in the case that first announced it). If Harper has anything more than symbolic significance, how could virtually identical reliance, without more, prove sufficient to permit a virtually identical denial simply because it is characterized as a denial based on “remedy” rather than “nonretroactivity”?
Hyde tries to answer this question by pointing to other cases in which, she claims, this Court has allowed state courts effectively to avoid retroactive application of federal law by denying a particular remedy for violation of that law or by refusing to provide any remedy at all. She argues that these cases are similar enough to her own to permit a “remedial” exception to the retroactive application of Bendix. We have examined the cases to which Hyde looks for support, and conclude that they all involve very different circumstances.
First, Hyde points to a statement in the opinion announcing the Court’s judgment in James B. Beam Distilling Co. v. Georgia, 501 U. S. 529 (1991), that once “a rule is found to apply ‘backward,’ there may then be a further issue of remedies, i. e., whether the party prevailing under a new rule should obtain the same relief that would have been awarded if the rule had been an old one.” Id., at 535 (opinion of Souter, J.); ibid. (“Subject to possible constitutional thresholds, . . . the remedial inquiry is one governed by state law, at least where the case originates in state court”); American Trucking Assns., Inc. v. Smith, 496 U. S., at 178 (opinion of O’Connor, J.) (speaking of the need to “distinguish the question of retroactivity... from the distinct remedial question”); id., at 210 (Stevens, J., dissenting) (distinguishing “between retroactivity as a choice-of-law rule and retroactivity as a remedial principle”). This language, however, read both literally and in context, makes clear that the ordinary application of a new rule of law “backwards,” say, to pending cases, may or may not, involve a further matter of remedies. Whether it does so, and, if so, what kind of remedy the state court may fashion, depend — like almost all legal issues— upon the kind of case, matter, and circumstances involved. Not all cases concerning retroactivity and remedies are of the same sort.
Second, Hyde points to tax cases in which the Court applied retroactively new rules holding certain state tax laws unconstitutional, but nonetheless permitted the state courts a degree of leeway in designing a remedy, including a remedy that would deny state taxpayers, with pending refund cases, the refund that they sought. See Harper v. Virginia Dept. of Taxation, 509 U. S. 86 (1993); Beam, supra. If state courts may at the same time apply new law (invalidating tax statutes) and withhold relief (tax refunds) from tax plaintiffs, asks Hyde, why can they not at the same time apply new law (invalidating tolling statutes) and withhold relief (dismissal) from tort defendants?
The answer to this question lies in the special circumstances of the tax cases. The Court has suggested that some of them involve a particular kind of constitutional violation — a kind that the State could cure without repaying back taxes. See McKesson Corp. v. Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco, Fla. Dept. of Business Regulation, 496 U. S. 18,40-41 (1990). Where the violation depends, in critical part, upon differential treatment of two similar classes of individuals, then one might cure the problem either by similarly burdening, or by similarly unburdening, both groups. Where the violation stemmed from, say, taxing the retirement funds of one group (retired Federal Government employees) but not those of another (retired state government employees), see Davis v. Michigan Dept. of Treasury, 489 U. S. 803 (1989), then the State might cure the problem either (1) by taxing both (imposing, say, back taxes on the previously advantaged group, to the extent constitutionally permissible), or (2) by taxing neither (and refunding back taxes). Cf. McKesson Corp., supra, at 40-41, and n. 23. And, if the State chooses the first, then the taxpayers need receive no refund. But, that result flows not from some general “remedial” exception to “retroactivity” law, but simply from the fact that the state law that the taxpayer had attacked now satisfies the Constitution.
One can imagine a roughly comparable situation in the statute of limitations context. Suppose that Ohio violated the Constitution by treating two similar classes of tort defendants differently, say, by applying a 2-year statute of limitations to the first (in-state defendants) but a 4-year statute to the second (out-of-state defendants). Ohio might have cured this (imaginary) constitutional problem either (1) by applying a 4-year statute to both groups, or (2) by applying a 2-year statute to both groups. Had it chosen the first of these remedies, then Hyde’s case could continue because the 4-year statute would no longer violate the Federal Constitution. This imaginary case, however, is not the case at hand, for the Ohio Supreme Court’s “remedy” here (allowing Hyde to proceed) does not cure the tolling statute’s problem of unconstitutionality. And, her tort claim critically depends upon Ohio tolling law that continues to violate the Commerce Clause.
Other tax examples present different, remedial problems. Suppose a State collects taxes under a taxing statute that this Court later holds unconstitutional. Taxpayers then sue for a refund of the unconstitutionally collected taxes. Retroactive application of the Court’s holding would seem to entitle the taxpayers to a refund of taxes. But what if a preexisting, separate, independent rule of state law, having nothing to do with retroactivity — a rule containing certain procedural requirements for any refund suit — nonetheless barred the taxpayers’ refund suit? See McKesson Corp., supra, at 45; Reich v. Collins, 513 U. S. 106, 111 (1994). Depending upon whether or not this independent rule satisfied other provisions of the Constitution, it could independently bar the taxpayers’ refund claim. See McKesson Corp., supra, at 45.
This tax scenario simply reflects the legal commonplace that, when two different rules of law each independently bar recovery, then a decision, the retroactive application of which invalidates one rule, will make no difference to the result. The other, constitutionally adequate rule remains in place. Hyde cannot bring her case within the protection of this principle, for the Ohio Supreme Court did not rest its holding upon a pre-existing, separate rule of state law (having nothing to do with retroactivity) that independently permitted her to proceed. Rather, the maintenance of her action critically depends upon the continued application of the Ohio statute’s “tolling” principle — a principle that this Court has held unconstitutional.
Third, Hyde points to the law of qualified immunity, which, she says, imposes a “remedial” limitation upon the “retroactive” application of a new rule to pending cases. To understand her argument, consider the following scenario: (1) Smith sues a police officer claiming injury because of an unconstitutional arrest; (2) the police officer asserts that the arrest was constitutional; (3) this Court then holds, in a different case, that an identical arrest is not constitutional; (4) the holding of this different case applies retroactively to Smith’s case; but (5) the police officer still wins on grounds of qualified immunity because the new rule of law was not “clearly established” at the time of the arrest. See generally Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, 818 (1982). In one sense, Smith lost for a reason similar to the tax plaintiffs mentioned above, namely, that a previously existing, separate, constitutional legal ground (that of the law not being “clearly established”) bars her claim. We acknowledge, however, that this separate legal ground does reflect certain remedial considerations. In particular, it permits government officials to rely upon old law. But, it does so lest threat of liability “ ‘dampen the ardor of all but the most resolute, or the most irresponsible [public officials], in the unflinching discharge of their duties.’” Id., at 814 (quoting Gregoire v. Biddle, 177 F. 2d 579, 581 (CA2 1949)). And, it reflects the concern that “society as a whole,” without that immunity, would have to bear “the expenses of litigation, the diversion of official energy from pressing public issues, and the deterrence of able citizens from acceptance of public office.” 457 U. S., at 814. These very facts — that a set of special federal policy considerations have led to the creation of a well-established, independent rule of law — distinguish the qualified immunity cases from the case before us, where a concern about reliance alone has led the Ohio court to create what amounts to an ad hoc exemption from retroactivity.
Finally, Hyde points to the line of cases starting with Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989), in which, she says, this Court has held that a habeas corpus petitioner cannot obtain a habeas corpus remedy where doing so would require the habeas court to apply retroactively a new rule of criminal law. The Teague doctrine, however, does not involve a special “remedial” limitation on the principle of “retroactivity” as much as it reflects a limitation inherent in the principle itself. New legal principles, even when applied retroactively, do not apply to cases already closed. Cf. United States v. Estate of Donnelly, 397 U. S., at 296 (Harlan, J., concurring) (at some point, “the rights of the parties should be considered frozen” and a “conviction . . . final”). And, much as the qualified immunity doctrine embodies special federal policy concerns related to the imposition of damages liability upon persons holding public office, the Teague doctrine embodies certain special concerns — related to collateral review of state criminal convictions — that affect which cases are closed, for which retroactivity-related purposes, and under what circumstances. No such special finality-related concerns are present here.
The upshot is that Hyde shows, through her examples, the unsurprising fact that, as courts apply “retroactively” a new rule of law to pending cases, they will find instances where that new rule, for well-established legal reasons, does not determine the outcome of the case. Thus, a court may find (1) an alternative way of curing the constitutional violation, or (2) a previously existing, independent legal basis (having nothing to do with retroactivity) for denying relief, or (3) as in the law of qualified immunity, a well-established general legal rule that trumps the new rule of law, which general rule reflects both reliance interests and other significant policy justifications, or (4) a principle of law, such as that of “finality” present in the Teague context, that limits the principle of retroactivity itself. But, this case involves no such mstance; nor does it involve any other special circumstance that might somehow justify the result Hyde seeks. Rather, Hyde offers no more than simple reliance (of the sort at issue in Chevron Oil) as a basis for creating an exception to Harper’s rule of retroactivity — in other words, she claims that, for no special reason, Harper does not apply. We are back where we started. Hyde’s necessary concession, that Harper governs this case, means that she cannot prevail.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio is
Reversed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
D
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether a complex statistical study that indicates a risk that racial considerations enter into capital sentencing determinations proves that petitioner McCleskey’s capital sentence is unconstitutional under the Eighth or Fourteenth Amendment.
H
McCleskey, a black man, was convicted of two counts of armed robbery and one count of murder in the Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, on October 12, 1978. McCleskey’s convictions arose out of the robbery of a furniture store and the killing of a white police officer during the course of the robbery. The evidence at trial indicated that McCleskey and three accomplices planned and carried out the robbery. All four were armed. McCleskey entered the front of the store while the other three entered the rear. McCleskey secured the front of the store by rounding up the customers and forcing them to lie face down on the floor. The other three rounded up the employees in the rear and tied them up with tape. The manager was forced at gunpoint to turn over the store receipts, his watch, and $6. During the course of the robbery, a police officer, answering a silent alarm, entered the store through the front door. As he was walking down the center aisle of the store, two shots were fired. Both struck the officer. One hit him in the face and killed him.
Several weeks later, McCleskey was arrested in connection with an unrelated offense. He confessed that he had participated in the furniture store robbery, but denied that he had shot the police officer. At trial, the State introduced evidence that at least one of the bullets that struck the officer was fired from a.38 caliber Rossi revolver. This description matched the description of the gun that McCleskey had carried diming the robbery. The State also introduced the testimony of two witnesses who had heard McCleskey admit to the shooting.
The jury convicted McCleskey of murder. At the penalty hearing, the jury heard arguments as to the appropriate sentence. Under Georgia law, the jury could not consider imposing the death penalty unless it found beyond a reasonable doubt that the murder was accompanied by one of the statutory aggravating circumstances. Ga. Code Ann. § 17-10-30(c) (1982). The jury in this case found two aggravating circumstances to exist beyond a reasonable doubt: the murder was committed during the course of an armed robbery, § 17 — 10—30(b)(2); and the murder was committed upon a peace officer engaged in the performance of his duties, § 17 — 10—30(b)(8). In making its decision whether to impose the death sentence, the jury considered the mitigating and aggravating circumstances of McCleskey’s conduct. § 17-10-2(c). McCleskey offered no mitigating evidence. The jury recommended that he be sentenced to death on the murder charge and to consecutive life sentences on the armed robbery charges. The court followed the jury’s recommendation and sentenced McCleskey to death.
On appeal, the Supreme Court of Georgia affirmed the convictions and the sentences. McCleskey v. State, 245 Ga. 108, 263 S. E. 2d 146 (1980). This Court denied a petition for a writ of certiorari. McCleskey v. Georgia, 449 U. S. 891 (1980). The Superior Court of Fulton County denied Mc-Cleskey’s extraordinary motion for a new trial. McCleskey then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Superior Court of Butts County. After holding an eviden-tiary hearing, the Superior Court denied relief. McCleskey v. Zant, No. 4909 (Apr. 8, 1981). The Supreme Court of Georgia denied McCleskey’s application for a certificate of probable cause to appeal the Superior Court’s denial of his petition, No. 81-5523, and this Court again denied certiorari. McCleskey v. Zant, 454 U. S. 1093 (1981).
McCleskey next filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the Federal District Court for the Northern District of Georgia. His petition raised 18 claims, one of which was that the Georgia capital sentencing process is administered in a racially discriminatory manner in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution. In support of his claim, McCleskey proffered a statistical study performed by Professors David C. Baldus, Charles Pulaski, and George Woodworth (the Baldus study) that purports to show a disparity in the imposition of the death sentence in Georgia based on the race of the murder victim and, to a lesser extent, the race of the defendant. The Bal-dus study is actually two sophisticated statistical studies that examine over 2,000 murder cases that occurred in Georgia during the 1970’s. The raw numbers collected by Professor Baldus indicate that defendants charged with killing white persons received the death penalty in 11% of the cases, but defendants charged with killing blacks received the death penalty in only 1% of the cases. The raw numbers also indicate a reverse racial disparity according to the race of the defendant: 4% of the black defendants received the death penalty, as opposed to 7% of the white defendants.
Baldus also divided the cases according to the combination of the race of the defendant and the race of the victim. He found that the death penalty was assessed in 22% of the cases involving black defendants and white victims; 8% of the cases involving white defendants and white victims; 1% of the cases involving black defendants and black victims; and 3% of the cases involving white defendants and black victims. Similarly, Baldus found that prosecutors sought the death penalty in 70% of the cases involving black defendants and white victims; 32% of the cases involving white defendants and white victims; 15% of the cases involving black defendants and black victims; and 19% of the cases involving white defendants and black victims.
Baldus subjected his data to an extensive analysis, taking account of 230 variables that could have explained the disparities on nonracial grounds. One of his models concludes that, even after taking account of 39 nonracial variables, defendants charged with killing white victims were 4.3 times as likely to receive a death sentence as defendants charged with killing blacks. According to this model, black defendants were 1.1 times as likely to receive a death sentence as other defendants. Thus, the Baldus study indicates that black defendants, such as McCleskey, who kill white victims have the greatest likelihood of receiving the death penalty.
The District Court held an extensive evidentiary hearing on McCleskey’s petition. Although it believed that McCles-key’s Eighth Amendment claim was foreclosed by the Fifth Circuit’s decision in Spinkellink v. Wainwright, 578 F. 2d 582, 612-616 (1978), cert. denied, 440 U. S. 976 (1979), it nevertheless considered the Baldus study with care. It con-eluded that McCleskey’s “statistics do not demonstrate a prima facie case in support of the contention that the death penalty was imposed upon him because of his race, because of the race of the victim, or because of any Eighth Amendment concern.” McCleskey v. Zant, 580 F. Supp. 338, 379 (ND Ga. 1984). As to McCleskey’s Fourteenth Amendment claim, the court found that the methodology of the Baldus study was flawed in several respects. Because of these defects, the court held that the Baldus study “fail[ed] to contribute anything of value” to McCleskey’s claim. Id., at 372 (emphasis omitted). Accordingly, the court denied the petition insofar as it was based upon the Baldus study.
The Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit, sitting en banc, carefully reviewed the District Court’s decision on McCleskey’s claim. 753 F. 2d 877 (1985). It assumed the validity of the study itself and addressed the merits of Mc-Cleskey’s Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment claims. That is, the court assumed that the study “showed that systematic and substantial disparities existed in the penalties imposed upon homicide defendants in Georgia based on race of the homicide victim, that the disparities existed at a less substantial rate in death sentencing based on race of defendants, and that the factors of race of the victim and defendant were at work in Fulton County.” Id., at 895. Even assuming the study’s validity, the Court of Appeals found the statistics “insufficient to demonstrate discriminatory intent or unconstitutional discrimination in the Fourteenth Amendment context, [and] insufficient to show irrationality, arbitrariness and capriciousness under any kind of Eighth Amendment analysis.” Id., at 891. The court noted:
“The very exercise of discretion means that persons exercising discretion may reach different results from exact duplicates. Assuming each result is within the range of discretion, all are correct in the eyes of the law. It would not make sense for the system to require the exercise of discretion in order to be facially constitutional, and at the same time hold a system unconstitutional in application where that discretion achieved different results for what appear to be exact duplicates, absent the state showing the reasons for the difference....
“The Baldus approach... would take the cases with different results on what are contended to be duplicate facts, where the differences could not be otherwise explained, and conclude that the different result was based on race alone.... This approach ignores the realities.... There are, in fact, no exact duplicates in capital crimes and capital defendants. The type of research submitted here tends to show which of the directed factors were effective, but is of restricted use in showing what undirected factors control the exercise of constitutionally required discretion.” Id., at 898-899.
The court concluded:
“Viewed broadly, it would seem that the statistical evidence presented here, assuming its validity, confirms rather than condemns the system.... The marginal disparity based on the race of the victim tends to support the state’s contention that the system is working far differently from the one which Furman [v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 288 (1972)] condemned. In pre-Furman days, there was no rhyme or reason as to who got the death penalty and who did not. But now, in the vast majority of cases, the reasons for a difference are well documented. That they are not so clear in a small percentage of the cases is no reason to declare the entire system unconstitutional.” Id., at 899.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial by the District Court of McCleskey’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus insofar as the petition was based upon the Baldus study, with three judges dissenting as to McCleskey’s claims based on the Baldus study. We granted certiorari, 478 U. S. 1019 (1986), and now affirm.
II
McCleskey’s first claim is that the Georgia capital punishment statute violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. He argues that race has infected the administration of Georgia’s statute in two ways: persons who murder whites are more likely to be sentenced to death than persons who murder blacks, and black murderers are more likely to be sentenced to death than white murderers. As a black defendant who killed a white victim, McCleskey claims that the Baldus study demonstrates that he was discriminated against because of his race and because of the race of his victim. In its broadest form, McCleskey’s claim of discrimination extends to every actor in the Georgia capital sentencing process, from the prosecutor who sought the death penalty and the jury that imposed the sentence, to the State itself that enacted the capital punishment statute and allows it to remain in effect despite its allegedly discriminatory application. We agree with the Court of Appeals, and every other court that has considered such a challenge, that this claim must fail.
A
Our analysis begins with the basic principle that a defendant who alleges an equal protection violation has the burden of proving “the existence of purposeful discrimination.” Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U. S. 545, 550 (1967). A corollary to this principle is that a criminal defendant must prove that the purposeful discrimination “had a discriminatory effect” on him. Wayte v. United States, 470 U. S. 598, 608 (1985). Thus, to prevail under the Equal Protection Clause, McCles-key must prove that the decisionmakers in his case acted with discriminatory purpose. He offers no evidence specific to his own case that would support an inference that racial considerations played a part in his sentence. Instead, he relies solely on the Baldus study. McCleskey argues that the Baldus study compels an inference that his sentence rests on purposeful discrimination. McCleskey’s claim that these statistics are sufficient proof of discrimination, without regard to the facts of a particular case, would extend to all capital cases in Georgia, at least where the victim was white and the defendant is black.
The Court has accepted statistics as proof of intent to discriminate in certain limited contexts. First, this Court has accepted statistical disparities as proof of an equal protection violation in the selection of the jury venire in a particular district. Although statistical proof normally must present a “stark” pattern to be accepted as the sole proof of discriminatory intent under the Constitution, Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Dev. Corp., 429 U. S. 252, 266 (1977), “[bjecause of the nature of the jury-selection task,... we have permitted a finding of constitutional violation even when the statistical pattern does not approach [such] extremes.” Id., at 266, n. 13. Second, this Court has accepted statistics in the form of multiple-regression analysis to prove statutory violations under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Bazemore v. Friday, 478 U. S. 385, 400-401 (1986) (opinion of Brennan, J., concurring in part).
But the nature of the capital sentencing decision, and the relationship of the statistics to that decision, are fundamentally different from the corresponding elements in the venire-selection or Title VII cases. Most importantly, each particular decision to impose the death penalty is made by a petit jury selected from a properly constituted venire. Each jury is unique in its composition, and the Constitution requires that its decision rest on consideration of innumerable factors that vary according to the characteristics of the individual defendant and the facts of the particular capital offense. See Hitchcock v. Dugger, post, at 398-399; Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586, 602-605 (1978) (plurality opinion of Burger, C. J.). Thus, the application of an inference drawn from the general statistics to a specific decision in a trial and sentencing simply is not comparable to the application of an inference drawn from general statistics to a specific venire-selection or Title VII case. In those cases, the statistics relate to fewer entities, and fewer variables are relevant to the challenged decisions.
Another important difference between the cases in which we have accepted statistics as proof of discriminatory intent and this case is that, in the venire-selection and Title VII contexts, the decisionmaker has an opportunity to explain the statistical disparity. See Whitus v. Georgia, 385 U. S., at 552; Texas Dept. of Community Affairs v. Burdine, 450 U. S. 248, 254 (1981); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, 802 (1973). Here, the State has no practical opportunity to rebut the Baldus study. “[Cjontrolling considerations of... public policy,” McDonald v. Pless, 238 U. S. 264, 267 (1915), dictate that jurors “cannot be called... to testify to the motives and influences that led to their verdict.” Chicago, B. & Q. R. Co. v. Babcock, 204 U. S. 585, 593 (1907). Similarly, the policy considerations behind a prosecutor’s traditionally “wide discretion” suggest the impropriety of our requiring prosecutors to defend their decisions to seek death penalties, “often years after they were made.” See Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409, 425-426 (1976). Moreover, absent far stronger proof, it is unnecessary to seek such a rebuttal, because a legitimate and unchallenged explanation for the decision is apparent from the record: McCleskey committed an act for which the United States Constitution and Georgia laws permit imposition of the death penalty.
Finally, McCleskey’s statistical proffer must be viewed in the context of his challenge. McCleskey challenges decisions at the heart of the State’s criminal justice system. “[0]ne of society’s most basic tasks is that of protecting the lives of its citizens and one of the most basic ways in which it achieves the task is through criminal laws against murder.” Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 226 (1976) (White, J., concurring). Implementation of these laws necessarily requires discretionary judgments. Because discretion is essential to the criminal justice process, we would demand exceptionally clear proof before we would infer that the discretion has been abused. The unique nature of the decisions at issue in this case also counsels against adopting such an inference from the disparities indicated by the Baldus study. Accordingly, we hold that the Baldus study is clearly insufficient to support an inference that any of the decisionmakers in McCles-key’s case acted with discriminatory purpose.
B
McCleskey also suggests that the Baldus study proves that the State as a whole has acted with a discriminatory purpose. He appears to argue that the State has violated the Equal Protection Clause by adopting the capital punishment statute and allowing it to remain in force despite its allegedly discriminatory application. But “ ‘[discriminatory purpose’... implies more than intent as volition or intent as awareness of consequences. It implies that the decisionmaker, in this case a state legislature, selected or reaffirmed a particular course of action at least in part ‘because of,’ not merely ‘in spite of,’ its adverse effects upon an identifiable group.” Personnel Administrator of Massachusetts v. Feeney, 442 U. S. 256, 279 (1979) (footnote and citation omitted). See Wayte v. United States, 470 U. S., at 608-609. For this claim to prevail, McCleskey would have to prove that the Georgia Legislature enacted or maintained the death penalty statute because of an anticipated racially discriminatory effect. In Gregg v. Georgia, supra, this Court found that the Georgia capital sentencing system could operate in a fair and neutral manner. There was no evidence then, and there is none now, that the Georgia Legislature enacted the capital punishment statute to further a racially discriminatory purpose.
Nor has McCleskey demonstrated that the legislature maintains the capital punishment statute because of the racially disproportionate impact suggested by the Baldus study. As legislatures necessarily have wide discretion in the choice of criminal laws and penalties, and as there were legitimate reasons for the Georgia Legislature to adopt and maintain capital punishment, see Gregg v. Georgia, supra, at 183-187 (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.), we will not infer a discriminatory purpose on the part of the State of Georgia. Accordingly, we reject McCleskey’s equal protection claims.
Ill
McCleskey also argues that the Baldus study demonstrates that the Georgia capital sentencing system violates the Eighth Amendment. We begin our analysis of this claim by reviewing the restrictions on death sentences established by our prior decisions under that Amendment.
A
The Eighth Amendment prohibits infliction of “cruel and unusual punishments.” This Court’s early Eighth Amendment cases examined only the “particular methods of execution to determine whether they were too cruel to pass constitutional muster.” Gregg v. Georgia, supra, at 170. See In re Kemmler, 136 U. S. 436 (1890) (electrocution); Wilkerson v. Utah, 99 U. S. 130 (1879) (public shooting). Subsequently, the Court recognized that the constitutional prohibition against cruel and unusual punishments “is not fastened to the obsolete but may acquire meaning as public opinion becomes enlightened by a humane justice.” Weems v. United States, 217 U. S. 349, 378 (1910). In Weems, the Court identified a second principle inherent in the Eighth Amendment, “that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to offense.” Id., at 367.
Chief Justice Warren, writing for the plurality in Trop v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 99 (1958), acknowledged the constitutionality of capital punishment. In his view, the “basic concept underlying the Eighth Amendment” in this area is that the penalty must accord with “the dignity of man. ” Id., at 100. In applying this mandate, we have been guided by his statement that “[t]he Amendment must draw its meaning from the evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Id., at 101. Thus, our constitutional decisions have been informed by “contemporary values concerning the infliction of a challenged sanction,” Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S., at 173. In assessing contemporary values, we have eschewed subjective judgment, and instead have sought to ascertain “objective indicia that reflect the public attitude toward a given sanction.” Ibid. First among these indicia are the decisions of state legislatures, “because the... legislative judgment weighs heavily in ascertaining” contemporary standards, id., at 175. We also have been guided by the sentencing decisions of juries, because they are “a significant and reliable objective index of contemporary values,” id., at 181. Most of our recent decisions as to the constitutionality of the death penalty for a particular crime have rested on such an examination of contemporary values. E. g., Enmund v. Florida, 458 U. S. 782, 789-796 (1982) (felony murder); Coker v. Georgia, 433 U. S. 584, 592-597 (1977) (plurality opinion of White, J.) (rape); Gregg v. Georgia, supra, at 179-182 (murder).
B
Two principal decisions guide our resolution of McCles-key’s Eighth Amendment claim. In Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238 (1972), the Court concluded that the death penalty was so irrationally imposed that any particular death sentence could be presumed excessive. Under the statutes at issue in Furman, there was no basis for determining in any particular case whether the penalty was proportionate to the crime: “[T]he death penalty [was] exacted with great infrequency even for the most atrocious crimes and... there [was] no meaningful basis for distinguishing the few cases in which it [was] imposed from the many cases in which it [was] not.” Id., at 313 (White, J., concurring).
In Gregg, the Court specifically addressed the question left open in Furman — whether the punishment of death for murder is “under all circumstances, ‘cruel and unusual’ in violation of the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments of the Constitution.” 428 U. S., at 168. We noted that the imposition of the death penalty for the crime of murder “has a long history of acceptance both in the United States and in England.” Id., at 176 (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.). “The most marked indication of society’s endorsement of the death penalty for murder [was] the legislative response to Furman.” Id., at 179. During the 4-year period between Furman and Gregg, at least 35 States had reenacted the death penalty, and Congress had authorized the penalty for aircraft piracy. 428 U. S., at 179-180. The “actions of juries” were “fully compatible with the legislative judgments.” Id., at 182. We noted that any punishment might be unconstitutionally severe if inflicted without peno-logical justification, but concluded:
“Considerations of federalism, as well as respect for the ability of a legislature to evaluate, in terms of its particular State, the moral consensus concerning the death penalty and its social utility as a sanction, require us to conclude, in the absence of more convincing evidence, that the infliction of death as a punishment for murder is not without justification and thus is not unconstitutionally severe.” Id., at 186-187.
The second question before the Court in Gregg was the constitutionality of the particular procedures embodied in the Georgia capital punishment statute. We explained the fundamental principle of Furman, that “where discretion is afforded a sentencing body on a matter so grave as the determination of whether a human life should be taken or spared, that discretion must be suitably directed and limited so as to minimize the risk of wholly arbitrary and capricious action.” 428 U. S., at 189. Numerous features of the then new Georr gia statute met the concerns articulated in Furman. The Georgia system bifurcates guilt and sentencing proceedings so that the jury can receive all relevant information for sentencing without the risk that evidence irrelevant to the defendant’s guilt will influence the jury’s consideration of that issue. The statute narrows the class of murders subject to the death penalty to cases in which the jury finds at least one statutory aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. Conversely, it allows the defendant to introduce any relevant mitigating evidence that might influence the jury not to impose a death sentence. See 428 U. S., at 163-164. The procedures also require a particularized inquiry into “ ‘the circumstances of the offense together with the character and propensities of the offender.’” Id., at 189 (quoting Pennsylvania ex rel. Sullivan v. Ashe, 302 U. S. 51, 55 (1937)). Thus, “while some jury discretion still exists, ‘the discretion to be exercised is controlled by clear and objective standards so as to produce non-discriminatory application.’” 428 U. S., at 197-198 (quoting Coley v. State, 231 Ga. 829, 834, 204 S. E. 2d 612, 615 (1974)). Moreover, the Georgia system adds “an important additional safeguard against arbitrariness and caprice” in a provision for automatic appeal of a death sentence to the State Supreme Court. 428 U. S., at 198. The statute requires that court to review each sentence to determine whether it was imposed under the influence of passion or prejudice, whether the evidence supports the jury’s finding of a statutory aggravating circumstance, and whether the sentence is disproportionate to sentences imposed in generally similar murder cases. To aid the court’s review, the trial judge answers a questionnaire about the trial, including detailed questions as to “the quality of the defendant’s representation [and] whether race played a role in the trial.” Id., at 167.
C
In the cases decided after Gregg, the Court has imposed a number of requirements on the capital sentencing process to ensure that capital sentencing decisions rest on the individualized inquiry contemplated in Gregg. In Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280 (1976), we invalidated a mandatory capital sentencing system, finding that the “respect for humanity underlying the Eighth Amendment requires consideration of the character and record of the individual offender and the circumstances of the particular offense as a constitutionally indispensable part of the process of inflicting the penalty of death.” Id., at 304 (plurality opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.) (citation omitted). Similarly, a State must “narrow the class of murderers subject to capital punishment,” Gregg v. Georgia, supra, at 196, by providing “specific and detailed guidance” to the sentencer. Proffitt v. Florida, 428 U. S. 242, 253 (1976) (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.).
In contrast to the carefully defined standards that must narrow a sentencer’s discretion to impose the death sentence, the Constitution limits a State’s ability to narrow a sen-tencer’s discretion to consider relevant evidence that might cause it to decline to impose the death sentence. “[T]he sentencer... [cannot] be precluded from considering, as a mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant’s character or recorcl and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death.” Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S., at 604 (plurality opinion of Burger, C. J.) (emphasis in original; footnote omitted). See Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U. S. 1 (1986). Any exclusion of the “compassionate or mitigating factors stemming from the diverse frailties of humankind” that are relevant to the sentencer’s decision would fail to treat all persons as “uniquely individual human beings.” Woodson v. North Carolina, supra, at 304.
Although our constitutional inquiry has centered on the procedures by which a death sentence is imposed, we have not stopped at the face of a statute, but have probed the application of statutes to particular cases. For example, in Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U. S. 420 (1980), the Court invalidated a Georgia Supreme Court interpretation of the statutory aggravating circumstance that the murder be “outrageously or wantonly vile, horrible or inhuman in that it involved torture, depravity of mind, or an aggravated battery to the victim.” Ga. Code § 27-2534.1(b)(7) (1978). Although that court had articulated an adequate limiting definition of this phrase, we concluded that its interpretation in Godfrey was so broad that it may have vitiated the role of the aggravating circumstance in guiding the sentencing jury’s discretion.
Finally, where the objective indicia of community values have demonstrated a consensus that the death penalty is disproportionate as applied to a certain class of cases, we have established substantive limitations on its application. In Coker v. Georgia, 433 U. S. 584 (1977), the Court held that a State may not constitutionally sentence an individual to death for the rape of an adult woman. In Enmund v. Florida, 458 U. S. 782 (1982), the Court prohibited imposition of the death penalty on a defendant convicted of felony murder absent a showing that the defendant possessed a sufficiently culpable mental state. Most recently, in Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U. S. 399 (1986), we prohibited execution of prisoners who are insane.
D
In sum, our decisions since Furman have identified a constitutionally permissible range of discretion in imposing the death penalty. First, there is a required threshold below which the death penalty cannot be imposed. In this context, the State must establish rational criteria that narrow the decisionmaker’s judgment as to whether the circumstances of a particular defendant’s case meet the threshold. Moreover, a societal consensus that the death penalty is disproportionate to a particular offense prevents a State from imposing the death penalty for that offense. Second, States cannot limit the sentencer’s consideration of any relevant circumstance that could cause it to decline to impose the penalty. In this respect, the State cannot channel the sentencer’s discretion, but must allow it to consider any relevant information offered by the defendant.
IV
A
In light of our precedents under the Eighth Amendment, McCleskey cannot argue successfully that his sentence is “disproportionate to the crime in the traditional sense.” See Pulley v. Harris, 465 U. S. 37, 43 (1984). He does not deny that he committed a murder in the course of a planned robbery, a crime for which this Court has determined that the death penalty constitutionally may be imposed. Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S., at 187. His disproportionality claim “is of a different sort.” Pulley v. Harris, supra, at 43. Mc-Cleskey argues that the sentence in his case is disproportionate to the sentences in other murder cases.
On the one hand, he cannot base a constitutional claim on an argument that his case differs from other cases in which defendants did receive the death penalty. On automatic appeal, the Georgia Supreme Court found that McCleskey’s death sentence was not disproportionate to other death sentences imposed in the State. McCleskey v. State, 245 Ga. 108, 263 S. E. 2d 146 (1980). The court supported this conclusion with an appendix containing citations to 13 cases involving generally similar murders. See Ga. Code Ann; § 17-10-35(e) (1982). Moreover, where the statutory procedures adequately channel the sentencer’s discretion, such proportionality review is not constitutionally required. Pulley v. Harris, supra, at 50-51.
On the other hand, absent a showing that the Georgia capital punishment system operates in an arbitrary and capricious manner, McCleskey cannot prove a constitutional violation by demonstrating that other defendants who may be similarly situated did not receive the death penalty. In Gregg, the Court confronted the argument that “the opportunities for discretionary action that are inherent in the processing of any murder case under Georgia law,” 428 U. S., at 199, specifically the opportunities for discretionary leniency, rendered the capital sentences imposed arbitrary and capricious. We rejected this contention:
“The existence of these discretionary stages is not determinative of the issues before us. At each of these stages an actor in the criminal justice system makes a decision which may remove a defendant from consideration as a candidate for the death penalty. Furman, in contrast, dealt with the decision to impose the death sentence on a specific individual who had been convicted of a capital offense. Nothing in any of our cases suggests that the decision to afford an individual defendant mercy violates the Constitution. Furman held only that, in order to minimize the risk that the death penalty would be imposed on a capriciously selected group of offenders, the decision to impose it had to be guided by standards so that the sentencing authority would focus on the particularized circumstances of the crime and the defendant.” Ibid,.
Because McCleskey’s sentence was imposed under Georgia sentencing procedures that focus discretion “on the particularized nature of the crime and the particularized characteristics of the individual defendant,” id., at 206, we lawfully may presume that McCleskey’s death sentence was not “wantonly and freakishly” imposed, id., at 207, and thus that the sentence is not disproportionate within any recognized meaning under the Eighth Amendment.
B
Although our decision in Gregg as to the facial validity of the Georgia capital punishment statute appears to foreclose McCleskey’s disproportionality argument, he further contends that the Georgia capital punishment system is arbitrary and capricious in application, and therefore his sentence is excessive, because racial considerations may influence capital sentencing decisions in Georgia. We now address this claim.
To evaluate McCleskey’s challenge, we must examine exactly what the Baldus study may show. Even Professor Bal-dus does not contend that his statistics prove that race enters into any capital sentencing decisions or that race was a factor in McCleskey’s particular case. Statistics at most may show only a likelihood that a particular factor entered into some decisions. There is, of course, some risk of racial prejudice influencing a jury’s decision in a criminal case. There are similar risks that other kinds of prejudice will influence other criminal trials. See infra, at 315-318. The question “is at what point that risk becomes constitutionally unacceptable,” Turner v. Murray, 476 U. S. 28, 36, n. 8 (1986). McCleskey asks us to accept the likelihood allegedly shown by the Baldus study as the constitutional measure of an unacceptable risk of racial prejudice influencing capital sentencing decisions. This we decline to do.
Because of the risk that the factor of race may enter the criminal justice process, we have engaged in “unceasing efforts” to eradicate racial prejudice from our criminal justice system. Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 79, 85 (1986). Our efforts have been guided
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Petitioners are corporations — two organized under Maryland law and one under Delaware law — and wholly ówned subsidiaries of Schenley Industries, Inc. They were indicted with others for restraining trade, conspiring to monopolize and attempting to monopolize commerce in violation of §§ 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, 15 U. S. C. §§ 1, 2. Shortly after the indictment was returned, petitioners were dissolved under their respective state statutes and became separate divisions of a new corporation under the same ultimate ownership. They then moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that their dissolution abated the proceeding. The District Court denied the motions, holding that under the applicable. Maryland and Delaware statutes the existence of the dissolved corporations continued so far as prosecution of this criminal proceeding was concerned. 138 F. Supp. 685. Petitioners then pleaded nolo contendere and the District Court levied fines against them. The Court of Appeals affirmed, 258 F. 2d 726. The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted because of a conflict among the Circuits. 358 U. S. 878.
We start from the premise that in the federal domain prosecutions abate both on the death of an individual defendant (List v. Pennsylvania, 131 U. S. 396; Schreiber v. Sharpless, 110 U. S. 76) and on the dissolution of a corporate defendant (Defense Supplies Corp. v. Lawrence Warehouse Co., 336 U. S. 631, 634), unless the action is saved by statute. We need not decide whether federal law alone would be sufficient to save a federal cause of action against a corporation dissolved under state law. We have here a situation where the interplay of federal and state law makes it clear that petitioners did not escape criminal responsibility under the Sherman Act by the kind of dissolution decreed under Maryland and Delaware law: . s .
The Sherman Law in § 8 defines “person” to include corporations “existing” under the laws of any State. • The question whether a corporation “exists” for any purpose is thus determined by reference to state law. We conclude that under both Maryland and Delaware law .the lives of these corporations were not cut short, as is sometimes done on dissolution, cf. Chicago T. & T. Co. v. Wilcox Bldg. Corp., 302 U. S. 120, but were sufficiently continued so that this proceeding did not abate.
In Maryland, during the period relevant here, though the dissolution of the corporation w;as effective when the articles of dissolution had been accepted, the corporation continued “in existence for the purpose of paying-, satisfying and discharging any existing debts and obligations . . . (Flack’s Md. Ann. Code, 1951, Art. 23, § 72 (b).) It was also provided in § 78 (a) that “such dissolution” shall not “abate any pending suit or proceeding by or against'the corporation . . . .” We have found no Maryland decisions interpreting these sections; but we are satisfied that the term “proceeding,” no matter how the state court may construe it, implies enough vitality to make the corporation an “existing” enterprise for. the purposes of § 8 of the Sherman Act.
•The Delaware statute seems equally clear, though again there is no authoritative interpretation of it. It provides that any “proceeding” begun by or against a corporation before or within three years after dissolution shall continue “until any judgments, orders, or decrees therein shall be fully executed.” Del. Code Ann., 1953, Tit. 8, § 278; Addy v. Short, 47 Del. 157, 89 A. 2d 136, 139. The term “proceeding” is elsewhere used in the Delaware Code as including criminal prosecutions; and that seems to us to be consistent with its normal construction. We conclude that irrespective of how the Delaware statute may be construed by the Delaware courts, it sufficiently continued the existence of this, corporation for the purpose of § 8 of the Sherman Act.
Policy reasons look to the same result. Petitioners wére wholly owned subsidiaries of Schenley Industries, Inc. After dissolution they simply became divisions of á-new corporation under the same ultimate ownership. In this situation there is no more reason for allowing them to escape criminal penalties than damages in civil suits. As the Court of Appeals noted, a corporation cannot be sent to jail. The discharge of its liabilities whether criminal or civil can be effected only by the payment of money.
Affirmed.
See United States v. Line Material Co., 202 F. 2d 929; United States v. United States Vanadium Corp., 230 F. 2d 646. Cf. United States v. P. F. Collier & Son, 208 F. 2d 936.
Á memorandum filed by the Attorney General’s office states that while there are no rulings on the point by the Maryland Court of 'Appeals or by the Attorney General, “the issue has been fully covered' in opinions of- the District Court and the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals.” And it adds, “We wish to express, however, our concurrence with the rulings of the lower courts in the pending litigation.”
“Whenever.a corporation is informed against in a criminal proceeding . . . .” Tit. 11, § 1702.
An argument to the contrary is premised on Del. Code Ann., 1953, Tit. 8, § 281, which provides that the trustees of a dissolved corporation shall, after payment of allowances, expenses, and costs, pay “the other debts due from the corporation.” It is urged that “debts” in this setting means existing debts; 'But that seems to us too narrow a reading in light óf the provision in § 279 which contemplates the entry of judgments against the corporation.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents a challenge to Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4141.29 (D) (1) (a) (1973). That statute, at the times relevant to this suit, imposed a disqualification for unemployment benefits when the claimant’s unemployment was “due to a labor dispute other than a lockout at any factory... owned or operated by the employer by which he is or was last employed.” The challenge is based on the Supremacy Clause and on the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The case also raises questions concerning abstention.
I
In November 1974 plaintiff-appellee, Leonard Paul Hodory, was employed as a millwright apprentice with United States Steel Corporation (USS) at its works in Youngstown, Ohio. The United Mine Workers at that time were out on strike at coal mines owned by USS and by Republic Steel Corporation throughout the country. These company-owned mines supplied the fuel used in the operation of manufacturing facilities of USS and Republic. As a result of the strike, the fuel supply at the Youngstown plant was reduced. The plant eventually was shut down, and appellee was furloughed on November 12, 1974.
Hodory applied to appellant Ohio Bureau of Employment Services for unemployment benefits. On January 3, 1975, he was notified by the Bureau that his claim was disallowed under Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4141.29 (D) (1) (a) (1973). That statute then provided that a worker may not receive unemployment benefits if
“[h]is unemployment was due to a labor dispute other than a lockout at any factory, establishment, or other premises located in this or any other state and owned or operated by the employer by which he is or was last employed; and for so long as his unemployment is due to such labor dispute.”
The written notification to appellee recited: “A labor dispute started at coal mines owned and operated by U. S. Steel Corporation and claimant is unemployed because of this labor dispute.” App. i. Other notifications to Hodory for subsequent unemployment weeks contained similar recitals. Id., at ii and iii. Appellee promptly filed a request for reconsideration. In accord with the provisions of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4141.28 (G) (1973), his request, along with a number of others, was referred on March 7 to the Board of Review.
Meanwhile, on January 27, Hodory filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio against the Bureau and its director, Albert G. Giles. The complaint was based on 42 U. S. C. § 1983 and sought declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of appellee and “all others similarly situated” who had been or in the future would be denied benefits under § 4141.29 (D) (1) (a). Record, Doc. 3, pp. 1 and 3. Hodory asserted, among other things, that the Ohio statute was in conflict with §§ 303 (a)(1) and (3) of the Social Security Act of 1935, as amended, 42 U. S. C. §§ 503 (a)(1) and (3), and that the statute as applied was irrational and had no valid public purpose, in violation of the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The gravamen of Hodory’s complaint was the assertion that the State may not deny benefits to those who, like him, are unemployed under circumstances where the unemployment is “not the fault of the employee.” A three-judge court was requested.
Appellants in their answer asserted, among other things, that Hodory had failed to exhaust his state administrative remedies.
A three-judge court was convened. The case was tried on the pleadings and interrogatories. In its opinion filed March 5, 1976, 408 F. Supp. 1016, that court concluded that abstention was not required and would not be proper; that the action was properly maintained as a class action; and that the appellants had failed to demonstrate a rational and legitimate interest in discriminating against “individuals who were unemployed through no fault of their own and neither participated in nor benefited from the labor dispute involving another union and their employer.” Id., at 1022. The court then held that §4141.29 (D)(1)(a), as applied to Hodory and the class members, violated the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses.
The Bureau and its director took a direct appeal here pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1253. In their jurisdictional statement appellants argued only that (1) the “labor dispute” disqualification provision is not unconstitutional as applied to appellee and the class; (2) the disqualification provision is not in conflict with the Social Security Act; (3) a state system of unemployment compensation may predicate disqualification upon any reasonable basis; and (4) USS and Republic, as employers of the class members, were denied substantive and procedural due process by the failure of the District Court to order them joined as parties defendant. Appellants made no claim therein based on abstention. We noted probable jurisdiction. 429 U. S. 814 (1976).
A claim that the District Court should have abstained from deciding the case has been raised, however, in the brief amicus curiae filed by the AFL-CIO. A like claim is at least suggested. by Republic Steel. Brief as Amicus Curiae 16-17. We feel those claims merit consideration.
We follow the proper course for federal courts by considering first whether abstention is required, then whether there is a statutory ground of resolution, and finally, only if the challenge persists, whether the statute violates the Constitution.
II
Abstention
There are, of course, two primary types of federal abstention. The first, usually referred to as Pullman abstention, involves an inquiry focused on the possibility that the state courts may interpret a challenged state statute so as to eliminate, or at least to alter materially, the constitutional question presented. Railroad Comm’n v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496 (1941). See Bellotti v. Baird, 428 U. S. 132 (1976). The second type is Younger abstention, in which the court is primarily concerned, in an equitable setting, with considerations of comity and federalism, both as they relate to the State’s interest in pursuing an ongoing state proceeding, and as they involve the ability of the state courts to consider federal constitutional claims in that context. Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971). See Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U. S. 592 (1975); Juidice v. Vail, 430 U. S. 327 (1977); Trainor v. Hernandez, ante, at 448 (concurring opinion).
A. In the present case, appellants, who in effect are the State of Ohio, argued before the District Court that appellee was free to pursue his pending administrative appeal and have his constitutional claim adjudicated in the Court of Common Pleas, and that principles of comity therefore required abstention. Although appellants in their written submission to that court cited Pullman, the argument was clearly to the effect that Younger abstention should apply.
The District Court held that abstention was unwarranted. It first asserted that in Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U. S. 564 (1973), this Court “stated specifically that administrative remedies need not be exhausted where the federal court plaintiff states a good cause of action under 42 U. S. C. § 1983.” 408 F. Supp., at 1019. The court then stated that § 4141.29 (D)(1)(a), “on its face, would appear to except the plaintiff from unemployment benefits for the period he was laid off due to coal miners' strike,” and that “the Employment Bureau has denied benefits to plaintiff... solely on the basis of the challenged labor dispute disqualification.” 408 F. Supp., at 1019. The court held that exhaustion of administrative remedies would be futile because the administrative appeal process would not permit a challenge to the constitutionality of the statute, and the Ohio courts had held the statute to be constitutional. Id., at 1019, and n. 1. Although the court observed that Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., supra, broadened the Younger doctrine “to include a prohibition against federal court interference with certain ongoing civil proceedings in the state courts,” 408 F. Supp., at 1019-1020, the court held that Huffman “was limited to‘the enjoining of ongoing state-initiated judicial proceedings,” 408 F. Supp., at 1020 (emphasis in original), and did not apply to a challenge to administrative actions. Finally, the court held that abstention, along the Pullman line, “would not be proper in this case” because the challenged statute is not an ambiguous one “involving unsettled questions of state law which could be rendered constitutionally inoffensive by a limiting construction in the state courts.” 408 F. Supp., at 1020. The court concluded that it would be improper to require the appellee “to undertake three administrative appeals” before he could challenge the statute in state court “where, moreover, the issue as to the constitutionality of the labor dispute disqualification has apparently been settled.” Ibid.
In this Court, as has been noted, appellants have not argued that Younger requires a remand with directions to the District Court to abstain, and at oral argument they resisted the suggestion of such a remand. Tr. of Oral Arg. 9-10. Instead, it is amicus Republic Steel that has made the suggestion.
Younger v. Harris reflects “a system in which there is sensitivity to the legitimate interests of both State and National Governments, and in which the National Government, anxious though it may be to vindicate and protect federal rights and federal interests, always endeavors to do so in ways that will not unduly interfere with the legitimate activities of the States.” 401 U. S., at 44. See Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U. S., at 604; Juidice v. Vail, 430 U. S., at 334; Trainor v. Hernandez, ante, at 441-443, 445-446, and id., at 448 (concurring opinion). Younger and these cited cases express equitable principles of comity and federalism. They are designed to allow the State an opportunity to “set its own house in order” when the federal issue is already before a state tribunal.
It may not be argued, however, that a federal court is compelled to abstain in every such situation. If the State voluntarily chooses to submit to a federal forum, principles of comity do not demand that the federal court force the case back into the State’s own system. In the present case, Ohio either believes that the District Court was correct in its analysis of abstention or, faced with the prospect of lengthy administrative appeals followed by equally protracted state judicial proceedings, now has concluded to submit the constitutional issue to this Court for immediate resolution. In either event, under these circumstances Younger principles of equity and comity do not require this Court to refuse Ohio the immediate adjudication it seeks.
B. Amicus ABL-CIO argues that Pullman abstention is proper here. The basis for the claimed applicability of Pullman is found in the facts that there were other steelworkers, at other Ohio facilities, laid off at the same time as appellee and assertedly for the same reason, and yet they were awarded unemployment compensation by the Bureau. See Brief for Appellants 3. Benefits were granted on the ground that the company-owned coal mines did not supply a sufficient amount of fuel to the plants there involved to effect a plant shutdown. Amicus argues that if appellee were to pursue his administrative appeal, he might be granted benefits on the same ground.
The problems with this approach, however, are several. First, appellee did not press any such claim before the Bureau or on administrative appeal, Tr. of Oral Arg. 9, and there is no indication that a claimant may be awarded benefits on the basis of a claim not made to the Bureau or Board of Review. Second, there is no indication that the plant at which appellee worked is situated similarly to the plants as to which benefits were granted. The Bureau apparently applied a test under which the closing of a plant was held not to be “due to” the labor dispute if the plant received less than 50% of its coal from the employer’s struck mines. Id., at 7-8. There has been no claim or showing that the 50% test is unreasonable or improper and there has been no claim that appellee’s plant was not dependent on the struck mines for more than 50% of its coal. What amicus suggests is that the court abstain on the basis of speculation that the unchallenged facts may not be as the Bureau obviously saw them, or that the Board might overturn an unchallenged standard of causation, or that the Board might even come up with a hitherto unknown and unclaimed reason for awarding benefits to appellee, such as a theory that because the coal strike was nationwide it was not “ ‘at the employers’ mines.’ ” See Brief for AFL-CIO as Amicus Curiae 8.
None of these suggestions is based on fact or solid legal precedent. As has been noted, Pullman abstention is an equitable doctrine that comes into play when it appears that abstention may eliminate or materially alter the constitutional issue presented. There is a point, however, at which the possible benefits of abstention become too speculative to justify or require avoidance of the question presented. That point has been reached and surpassed here. We conclude that Pullman abstention is not appropriate.
Ill
Pre-emption
Appellee argues that the Ohio statute is in conflict with, or pre-empted by, certain provisions of the Social Security Act, 42 U. S. C. § 501 et seq., and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, 26 U. S. C. §§ 3301-3311. This argument was raised in the District Court but was not resolved there. It would have been preferable, of course, for that court to have dealt with this statutory issue first. See Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 528, 543-545 (1974). The issue, however, entails no findings of fact and has been fully briefed here by both parties. We therefore perceive no need to remand to the District Court, and we proceed to decide the question.
Appellee points to two statutes as the source of his claimed federal requirement that he be paid unemployment compensation. The first is 42 U. S. C. § 503 (a)(1), to the effect that the Secretary of Labor shall make no certification for payment of federal funds to state unemployment compensation programs unless state law provides for such methods of administration “as are found by the Secretary of Labor to be reasonably calculated to insure full payment of unemployment compensation when due.” Appellee’s argument necessarily is that payment is “due” him.
Appellee cites only a single page of the voluminous legislative history of the Social Security Act in support of his assertion that the Act forbids disqualification of persons laid off due to a labor dispute at a related plant. That page contains the sentence: “To serve its purposes, unemployment compensation must be paid only to workers involuntarily unemployed.” Report of the Committee on Economic Security, as reprinted in Hearings on S. 1130 before the Senate Committee on Finance, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 1311, 1328 (1935).
The cited Report was one to the President of the United States and became the cornerstone of the Social Security Act. On its face, the quoted sentence may be said to give some support to appellee’s claim that “involuntariness” was intended to be the key to eligibility. A reading of the entire Report and consideration of the sentence in context, however, show that Congress did not intend to require that the States give coverage to every person involuntarily unemployed.
The Report recognized that federal definition of the scope of coverage would probably prove easier to administer than individualized state plans, id., at 1323, but it nonetheless recommended the form of unemployment compensation scheme that exists today, namely, federal involvement primarily through tax incentives to encourage state-run programs. The Report’s section entitled “Outline of Federal Act” concludes with the statement:
“The plan for unemployment compensation that we suggest contemplates that the States shall have broad freedom to set up the type of unemployment compensation they wish. We believe that all matters in which uniformity is not absolutely essential should be left to the States. The Federal Government, however, should assist the States in setting up their administrations and in the solution of the problems they will encounter.” Id., at 1326.
See also id., at 1314.
Following this statement, the Report contains a section entitled “Suggestions for State Legislation.” It reads:
“Benefits. — The States should have freedom in determining their own waiting periods, benefit rates, maximum-benefit periods, etc. We suggest caution lest they insert benefit provisions in excess of collections in their laws. To arouse hopes of benefits which cannot be fulfilled is invariably bad social and governmental policy.” Id., at 1327.
This statement reflects two things. First, it reflects the understanding that unemployment compensation schemes generally do not grant full benefits immediately and indefinitely, even to those involuntarily unemployed. The States were expected to create waiting periods, benefit rates, and maximum-benefit periods, so as to bring the amount paid out in line with receipts. Second, the statement reflects concern that the States might grant eligibility greater than their funds could handle.
By way of advice on particular statutes, the Report’s “Suggestions” contains the following:
“Willingness-to-work test. — To serve its purposes, unemployment compensation must be paid only to workers involuntarily unemployed. The employees compensated must be both able and willing to work and must be denied benefits if they refuse to accept other suitable employment. Workers, however, should not be required to accept positions with wage, hour, or working conditions below the usual standard for the occupation or the particular region, or outside of the State, or where their rights of self-organization and collective bargaining would be interfered with.” Id., at 1328. c
This, as has been noted, is the origin of appellee’s argument that all persons involuntarily unemployed were intended to be compensated. Placed in context, however, it is clear that the single sentence is only an expression of caution that funds should not be dispensed too freely, and is not a direction that funds must be dispensed.
Appellee’s claim of support in the legislative history accordingly fails. Indeed, that history shows, rather, that Congress did not intend to restrict the ability of the States to legislate with respect to persons in appellee’s position. See also H. R. Rep. No. 615, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 8-9 (1935); S. Rep. No. 628, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 12-13 (1935).
Appellee would find support in the “labor dispute disqualification” contained in § 5 (d) of draft bills issued by the Social Security Board shortly after passage of the Social Security Act. Social Security Board, Draft Bills for State Unemployment Compensation of Pooled Fund and Employer Reserve Account Types (1936). Appellee argues that this proposed section evinced an intention that “innocent” persons not be disqualified from unemployment compensation. The Social Security Board, however, on the cover page of the draft bills booklet explicitly stated:
“These drafts are merely suggestive.... Therefore, they cannot properly be termed ‘model’ bills or even recommended bills. This is in keeping with the policy of the Social Security Board of recognizing that it is the final responsibility and the right of each state to determine for itself just what type of legislation it desires and how it shall be drafted.”
We therefore are most reluctant to read implications of the draft bills into the Social Security Act.
More important, however, appellee’s argument fails on its face. The draft bills themselves denied “innocents” certain compensation. They did so not only in the various provisions as to minimum time spent at the job, waiting periods, and maximum benefits, but also in the labor dispute disqualification itself. The labor dispute provisions are triggered by a dispute at the same “establishment” and they disqualify any member of a “grade or class of workers” any of whose members were interested in the dispute. As the commentary and case law in jurisdictions that adopted versions of the draft bills immediately recognized, this division could serve to disqualify even a person who actively opposed a. strike and could extend to persons laid off because of a dispute at another plant owned by the same employer.
The law that appellee challenges is different in form from the draft bills, but we cannot say that it is qualitatively different. We do not find in the draft bills any significant support for appellee’s argument that the Social Security Act forbids his disqualification from benefits.
Appellee also claims support from this Court’s decision in California Human Resources Dept. v. Java, 402 U. S. 121 (1971). In that case the Court held that the requirement of 42 U. S. C. § 503 (a)(1) that payments be made “when due” forbids suspension of payments during an appeal subsequent to a full consideration on the merits. Appellee relies on the Court’s statement: “The objective of Congress was to provide a substitute for wages lost during a period of unemployment not the fault of the employee.” 402 U. S., at 130. Appellee argues that this statement is a holding that the Act forbids disqualification of persons in his position. We do not agree. Nothing in Java purported to define the class of persons eligible for benefits. The Court’s sole concern there was with the treatment of those who already had been determined under state law to be eligible.
Finally, appellee argues that statements in the legislative history of the Employment Security Amendments of 1970, 84 Stat. 695, indicate a congressional understanding that persons in his position must not be disqualified. These statements (identical in both House and Senate Reports) relate to the amendment prohibiting States from canceling accumulated wage credits on grounds such as an employee’s change of jobs. The statements are concerned with a situation unrelated to the one in which appellee finds himself. To the extent that they might be seen as shedding light on the area, they are far from persuasive authority in appellee’s favor, since they recognize that the States continue to be free to disqualify a claimant whose unemployment is due to a labor dispute “in the worker’s plant, etc.”
As an alternative or addition to his argument based on the Social Security Act, appellee urges that the Federal Unemployment Tax Act, 26 U. S. C. §§ 3301-3311, as amended, shows “congressional intent to pre-empt the state, particularly with respect to the scope of inclusiveness in the unemployment program.” Brief for Appellee 13. We do not understand appellee to argue that the States are pre-empted by the Federal Unemployment Tax Act from imposing any sort of labor dispute disqualification. If total pre-emption is not claimed, we find nothing in any of appellee's citations that would show pre-emption in the particular area of concern to him. Indeed, study of the various provisions cited shows that when Congress wished to impose or forbid a condition for compensation, it was able to do so in explicit terms. There are numerous examples, in addition to the one set forth in n. 16, less related to labor disputes but showing congressional ability to deal with specific aspects of state plans. The fact that Congress has chosen not to legislate on the subject of labor dispute disqualifications confirms our belief that neither the Social Security Act nor the Federal Unemployment Tax Act was intended to restrict the States’ freedom to legislate in this area.
IV
Constitutionality
We come, then, to the question whether the Ohio labor dispute disqualification provision is constitutional. The statute does not involve any discernible fundamental interest or affect with particularity any protected class. Appellee concedes that the test of constitutionality, therefore, is whether the statute has a rational relation to a legitimate state interest. Brief for Appellee 29. See New Orleans v. Dukes, 427 U. S. 297 (1976). Our statement last Term in Massachusetts Bd. of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U. S. 307 (1976), explains the analysis:
“We turn then to examine this state classification under the rational-basis standard. This inquiry employs a relatively relaxed standard reflecting the Court’s awareness that the drawing of lines that create distinctions is peculiarly a legislative task and an unavoidable one. Perfection in making the necessary classifications is neither possible nor necessary. Dandridge v. Williams, [397 U. S. 471,] 485 [(1970)]. Such action by a legislature is presumed to be valid.” Id., at 314.
Appellee challenges the statute only in its application to persons in his situation. We find it difficult, however, to discern the precise nature of the situation that appellee claims may not be the subject of disqualification. His discussion focuses to a great extent on his claim that he is “involuntarily unemployed,” but he cannot be arguing that no person involuntarily unemployed may be disqualified, for he approves the draft bills’ labor dispute provision. Brief for Appellee 53. That provision, as discussed above, would disqualify an involuntarily unemployed nonunion worker who opposed a strike but whose grade or class of workers nevertheless went out on shrike.
Appellee’s claim of irrationality appears to be based, rather, on his view of the statute’s broad sweep, in that it disqualifies an individual “regardless of the geographical remoteness of the location of the dispute, and regardless of any arguable actual, or imputable, participation or direct interest in the dispute on the part of the disqualified person.” Id., at 34. Appellee thus focuses on the interests of the recipient of unemployment compensation.
The unemployment compensation statute, however, touches upon more than just the recipient. It provides for the creation of a fund produced by contributions from private employers. The rate of an employer’s contribution to the fund varies according to benefits paid to that employer’s eligible employees. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 4141.25 (1973). Any action with regard to disbursements from the unemployment compensation fund thus will affect both the employer and the fiscal integrity of the fund. Appellee in effect urges that the Court consider only the needs of the employee seeking compensation. The decision of the weight-to be given the various effects of the statute, however, is a legislative decision, and appellee’s position is contrary to the principle that “the Fourteenth Amendment gives the federal courts no power to impose upon the States their views of what constitutes wise economic or social policy.” Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. 471, 486 (1970). In considering the constitutionality of the -statute, therefore, the Court must view its consequences, not only for the recipient of benefits, but also for the contributors to the fund and for the fiscal integrity of the fund.
Looking only at the face of the statute, an acceptable rationale immediately appears. The disqualification is triggered by “a labor dispute other than a lockout.” In other words, if a union goes on strike, the employer’s contributions are not increased, but if the employer locks employees out, all his employees thus put out of work are compensated and the employer’s contributions accordingly are increased. Although one might say that this system provides only “rough justice,” its treatment of the employer is far from irrational. “If the classification has some ‘reasonable basis,’ it does not offend the Constitution simply because the classification ‘is not made with mathematical nicety or because in practice it results in some inequality.’ Lindsley v. Natural Carbonic Gas Co., 220 U. S. 61, 78.” Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U. S. at 485. The rationality of this treatment is, of course, independent of any “innocence” of the workers collecting compensation.
Appellants assert three additional rationales for the disqualification provision. First, they argue that granting benefits to workers laid off due to a strike at a parent company’s subsidiary plant in effect would be subsidizing the union members. Brief for Appellants 12. The District Court correctly rejected this rationale, as applied to appellee and his class, because payments to appellee would in no way directly subsidize the striking coal miners, and the fact that appellee happened to be a member of a union (other than the striking union) is not a legitimate reason, standing alone, to deny him benefits. 408 F. Supp., at 1022. The court continued:
“Moreover, close scrutiny of the reasons for the State’s classification reveals that what the state is actually intending to prevent is not the'subsidizing’ of unemployed union members per se, but the subsidizing of union-initiated work stoppages” (emphasis in original). Ibid.
This statement of the State’s purpose reflects its second proffered justification, namely, that the granting of benefits would place the employer at an unfair disadvantage in negotiations with the unions. The District Court rejected this justification on the grounds that payments of funds to the steelworkers
“could hardly be deemed to put the coal miners in a position to refuse to negotiate with the steel companies until the companies reached a financial crisis, thereby causing the companies to yield to the unreasonable and economically unsound demands of the coal miners to prevent bankruptcy.” Ibid.
Although the District Court was reacting to appellants’ own hyperbole in speaking of financial crises and bankruptcy, it must be recognized that effects less than pushing the employer to bankruptcy may be rationally viewed as undesirable. The employer’s costs go up with every laid-off worker who is qualified to collect unemployment. The only way for the employer to stop these rising costs is to settle the strike so as to return the employees to work. Qualification for unemployment compensation thus acts as a lever increasing the pressures on an employer to settle a strike. The State has chosen to leave this lever in existence for situations in which the employer has locked out his employees, but to eliminate it if the union has made the strike move. Regardless of our views of the wisdom or lack of wisdom of this form of state “neutrality” in labor disputes, we cannot say that the approach taken by Ohio is irrational.
The third rationale offered by the State is its interest in protecting the fiscal integrity of its compensation fund. This has been a continuing concern of Congress and the States with regard to unemployment compensation systems. See Report of the Committee on Economic Security, cited supra, at 482; Hearing on H. R. 6900 before the Senate Committee on Finance, 94th Cong., 1st Sess. (1975). It is clear that protection of the fiscal integrity of the fund is a legitimate concern of the State. We need not consider whether it would be “rational” for the State to protect the fund through a random means, such as elimination from coverage of all persons with an odd number of letters in their surnames. Here, the limitation of liability tracks the reasons found rational above, and the need for such limitation unquestionably provides the legitimate state interest required by the equal protection equation.
The District Court's opinion contains a paragraph declaring that, in addition to violating the Equal Protection Clause, the disqualification denied appellee due process. 408 F. Supp., at 1022. There is, however, no claim of denial of procedural due process, cf. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U. S. 319 (1976), and we are unable to discern the basis for a claim that appellee has been denied substantive due process.
The judgment of the District Court is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
In December 1975, § 4141.29 (D) (1) (a) (1973), was amended to read:
“(D) Notwithstanding division (A) of this section, no individual may-serve a waiting period or be paid benefits under the following conditions:
“(1) Eor any week with respect to which the administrator finds that:
“(a) His unemployment was due to a labor dispute other than a lockout at any factory, establishment, or other premises located in this or any other state and owned or operated by the employer by which he is or was last employed; and for so long as his unemployment is due to such labor dispute. No individual shall be disqualified under this provision if: (i) his employment was with such employer at any factory, establishment, or premises located in this state, owned or operated by such employer, other than the factory, establishment, or premises at which the labor dispute exists, if it is shown that he is not financing, participating in, or directly interested in such labor dispute, or, (ii) his employment was with an employer not involved in the labor dispute but whose place of business was located within the same premises as the employer engaged in the dispute, unless his employer is a wholly owned subsidiary of the employer engaged in the dispute, or unless he actively participates in or voluntarily stops work because of such dispute. If it is established that the claimant was laid off for an indefinite period and not recalled to work prior to the dispute, or was separated by the employer prior to the dispute for reasons other than the labor dispute, or that he obtained a bona fide job with another employer while the dispute was still in progress, such labor dispute shall not render the employee ineligible for benefits.” Act (amended substitute Senate bill 173) effective Dec. 2,1975.
The amendment added subdivision (i). Thus it is possible that if appellee’s furlough had been effected after December 2, 1975, he would qualify for benefits. We are advised, however, that the amendment is not retroactive. Tr. of Oral Arg. 16.
Appellants state that these referrals are still before the Board of Review but are stayed pending decision in this case. Brief for Appellants 4.
At no point in this litigation has appellee claimed that § 4141.29 (D) (1) (a) conflicts with or is pre-empted by any provision of the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 151 et seq. We do not today consider or decide the relationship between that Act and a statute such as §4141.29 (D)(1)(a).
The District Court determined, however, that the class as defined by appellee in his complaint was overbroad. The court in its turn defined the class as “Hodory and approximately 1250 members of the United Steelworlaers in Ohio, who became unemployed through no fault of their own, [and] were denied unemployment benefits by defendants for a specific period of time because of the labor dispute disqualification clause in § 4141.29 (D) (1) (a), despite the fact that they may have been qualified in all other respects to receive the benefits.” 408 F. Supp., at 1020. Members of this class included Hodory’s fellow workers at USS and also employees of Republic Steel who were furloughed as a result of the strike at Republic’s coal mines.
In view of our disposition of the case, we have no reason to reach this constitutional claim. USS and Republic each sought to intervene for purposes of taking an appeal here, and as parties in this Court.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 SOTOMAYOR delivered the opinion of the Court.
To take an immediate appeal from a federal district court's order granting or denying class certification, a party must first seek permission from the relevant court of appeals "within 14 days after the order is entered." Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(f). This case poses the question whether a court of appeals may forgive on equitable tolling grounds a failure to adhere to that deadline when the opposing party objects that the appeal was untimely. The applicable rules of procedure make clear that the answer is no.
I
In March 2013, respondent Troy Lambert sued petitioner Nutraceutical Corporation in federal court, alleging that its marketing of a dietary supplement ran afoul of California consumer-protection law. The District Court for the Central District of California initially permitted Lambert to litigate on behalf of a class of similarly situated consumers. On February 20, 2015, however, the District Court revisited that decision and ordered the class decertified. From that point, Lambert had 14 days to ask the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit for permission to appeal the order. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23(f).
Instead of filing a petition for permission to appeal, Lambert informed the District Court at a status conference on March 2 (10 days after the decertification order) that he would "want to file a motion for reconsideration" in the near future. App. to Pet. for Cert. 74. The court told Lambert to file any such motion "no later than" March 12. Id. , at 76. Neither Lambert nor the District Court mentioned the possibility of an appeal.
Lambert filed his motion for reconsideration, in compliance with the District Court's schedule, on March 12 (20 days after the decertification order). The District Court denied the motion on June 24, 2015. Fourteen days later, on July 8, Lambert petitioned the Court of Appeals for permission to appeal the decertification order. Nutraceutical's response argued that Lambert's petition was untimely because more than four months had elapsed since the District Court's February 20 order decertifying the class, far more than the 14 days that Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) allows. App. 41.
Notwithstanding the petition's apparent untimeliness, the Court of Appeals "deem[ed] Lambert's petition timely" because, in its view, the Rule 23(f) deadline should be "tolled" under the circumstances. 870 F.3d 1170, 1176 (C.A.9 2017). The Court of Appeals reasoned that Rule 23(f)'s time limit is "non-jurisdictional, and that equitable remedies softening the deadline are therefore generally available." Ibid . Tolling was warranted, the court concluded, because Lambert "informed the [District Court] orally of his intention to seek reconsideration" within Rule 23(f)'s 14-day window, complied with the District Court's March 12 deadline, and "otherwise acted diligently." Id., at 1179. On the merits, the Court of Appeals held that the District Court abused its discretion in decertifying the class. Id., at 1182-1184. It reversed the decertification order. Id., at 1184.
In accepting Lambert's petition, the Court of Appeals "recognize[d] that other circuits would likely not toll the Rule 23(f) deadline in Lambert's case." Id., at 1179.
We granted certiorari. 585 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 2675, 201 L.Ed.2d 1070 (2018).
II
When Lambert filed his petition, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(f) authorized courts of appeals to "permit an appeal from an order granting or denying class-action certification ... if a petition for permission to appeal is filed ... within 14 days after the order is entered." The Court of Appeals held that Rule 23(f)'s time limitation is nonjurisdictional and thus, necessarily, subject to equitable tolling. While we agree that Rule 23(f) is nonjurisdictional, we conclude that it is not subject to equitable tolling.
Because Rule 23(f)'s time limitation is found in a procedural rule, not a statute, it is properly classified as a nonjurisdictional claim-processing rule. See Hamer v. Neighborhood Housing Servs. of Chicago , 583 U.S. ----, ----, 138 S.Ct. 13, 20-21, 199 L.Ed.2d 249 (2017). It therefore can be waived or forfeited by an opposing party. See Kontrick v. Ryan , 540 U.S. 443, 456, 124 S.Ct. 906, 157 L.Ed.2d 867 (2004). The mere fact that a time limit lacks jurisdictional force, however, does not render it malleable in every respect. Though subject to waiver and forfeiture, some claim-processing rules are "mandatory"-that is, they are " 'unalterable' " if properly raised by an opposing party. Manrique v. United States , 581 U.S. ----, ----, 137 S.Ct. 1266, 1272, 197 L.Ed.2d 599 (2017) (quoting Eberhart v. United States , 546 U.S. 12, 15, 126 S.Ct. 403, 163 L.Ed.2d 14 (2005) (per curiam )); see also Kontrick , 540 U.S. at 456, 124 S.Ct. 906. Rules in this mandatory camp are not susceptible of the equitable approach that the Court of Appeals applied here. Cf. Manrique , 581 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1274 ("By definition, mandatory claim-processing rules ... are not subject to harmless-error analysis").
Whether a rule precludes equitable tolling turns not on its jurisdictional character but rather on whether the text of the rule leaves room for such flexibility. See Carlisle v. United States , 517 U.S. 416, 421, 116 S.Ct. 1460, 134 L.Ed.2d 613 (1996). Where the pertinent rule or rules invoked show a clear intent to preclude tolling, courts are without authority to make exceptions merely because a litigant appears to have been diligent, reasonably mistaken, or otherwise deserving. Ibid. ; see Kontrick , 540 U.S. at 458, 124 S.Ct. 906 ; United States v. Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 229, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259 (1960). Courts may not disregard a properly raised procedural rule's plain import any more than they may a statute's. See Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States , 487 U.S. 250, 255, 108 S.Ct. 2369, 101 L.Ed.2d 228 (1988).
Here, the governing rules speak directly to the issue of Rule 23(f)'s flexibility and make clear that its deadline is not subject to equitable tolling. To begin with, Rule 23(f) itself conditions the possibility of an appeal on the filing of a petition "within 14 days" of "an order granting or denying class-action certification." Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 5(a)(2) likewise says that a petition for permission to appeal "must be filed within the time specified." To be sure, the simple fact that a deadline is phrased in an unqualified manner does not necessarily establish that tolling is unavailable. See Fed. Rule App. Proc. 2 (allowing suspension of other Rules for "good cause"); Fed. Rule App. Proc. 26(b) (similar) ; Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 45(b) (similar) ; Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 6(b) (similar). Here, however, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure single out Civil Rule 23(f) for inflexible treatment. While Appellate Rule 2 authorizes a court of appeals for good cause to "suspend any provision of these rules in a particular case," it does so with a conspicuous caveat: "except as otherwise provided in Rule 26(b)." Appellate Rule 26(b), which generally authorizes extensions of time, in turn includes this express carveout: A court of appeals "may not extend the time to file ... a petition for permission to appeal." Fed. Rule App. Proc. 26(b)(1). In other words, Appellate Rule 26(b) says that the deadline for the precise type of filing at issue here may not be extended. The Rules thus express a clear intent to compel rigorous enforcement of Rule 23(f)'s deadline, even where good cause for equitable tolling might otherwise exist.
Precedent confirms this understanding. Carlisle , 517 U.S. 416, 116 S.Ct. 1460, 134 L.Ed.2d 613, and Robinson , 361 U.S. 220, 80 S.Ct. 282, 4 L.Ed.2d 259, both centered on Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 45(b), an extension-of-time provision that parallels Appellate Rule 26(b). Carlisle addressed Rule 45(b)'s interaction with the time limit in Criminal Rule 29 for filing a postverdict motion for judgment of acquittal. See 517 U.S. at 419-423, 116 S.Ct. 1460. Rule 45(b), as it was then written, made clear that " 'the court may not extend the time for taking any action' " under Rule 29, " 'except to the extent and under the conditions' " stated therein. Id., at 421, 116 S.Ct. 1460. Because the Court found the text's purpose to foreclose acceptance of untimely motions "plain and unambiguous," the Court held that the District Court lacked that authority. Ibid. Likewise, in Robinson , the Court held that an earlier iteration of Rule 45(b) that said " 'the court may not enlarge ... the period for taking an appeal' " prohibited a court from accepting a notice of appeal that was untimely filed. 361 U.S. at 224, 80 S.Ct. 282 (quoting Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 45(b) ).
Because Rule 23(f) is not amenable to equitable tolling, the Court of Appeals erred in accepting Lambert's petition on those grounds.
III
Lambert resists the foregoing conclusion on a variety of grounds. None withstands scrutiny.
Most pertinently, Lambert argues that the above-mentioned Rules are less emphatic than they first appear. Rule 26(b)'s general grant of authority to relax time limits, he notes, refers both to "extend[ing]" the time to file a petition for permission to appeal and "permit[ting]" a petition to be filed after the deadline. See Fed. Rule App. Proc. 26(b) ("For good cause, the court may extend the time prescribed by these rules ... to perform any act, or may permit an act to be done after that time expires" (emphasis added)). Rule 26(b)(1) then prohibits courts only from "extend[ing] the time to file," while making no further mention of "permit[ting] an act to be done after that time expires." In Lambert's view, Rule 26(b)(1)'s prohibition on "extend[ing] the time to file" a petition for permission to appeal therefore should be understood to foreclose only formal extensions granted ex ante , and to leave courts free to excuse late filings on equitable grounds after the fact.
Whatever we would make of this contention were we writing on a blank slate, this Court has already rejected an indistinguishable argument in Robinson . There, Rule 45(b) generally authorized both " 'enlarg[ing]' " a filing period and " 'permit[ting] the act to be done after [its] expiration,' " then specifically forbade " 'enlarg[ing] ... the period for taking an appeal.' " 361 U.S. at 223, 80 S.Ct. 282. The lower court had accepted a late filing on the ground that to do so "would not be to 'enlarge' the period for taking an appeal, but rather would be only to 'permit the act to be done' after the expiration of the specified period." Ibid. ; see also id. , at 230, 80 S.Ct. 282 (Black and Douglas, JJ., dissenting). This Court reversed, explaining that acceptance of the late filing did, in fact, "enlarge" the relevant filing period. Id., at 224, 80 S.Ct. 282. Lambert offers no sound basis for reading Rule 26(b) differently, and none is apparent. Cf. Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co. , 487 U.S. 312, 315, 108 S.Ct. 2405, 101 L.Ed.2d 285 (1988) ("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").
Likewise unavailing is Lambert's reliance on the 1998 Advisory Committee Notes to Rule 23(f), which say that a petition "may be granted or denied on the basis of any consideration that the court of appeals finds persuasive." Advisory Committee's Notes on 1998 Amendments to Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23, 28 U.S.C. App., p. 815; see also Microsoft Corp. v. Baker , 582 U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 137 S.Ct. 1702, 1709-1710, 198 L.Ed.2d 132 (2017). That comment, however, speaks to a court of appeals' discretion to decide whether a particular certification decision warrants review in an interlocutory posture, not its determination whether a petition is timely. If anything, the comment serves as a reminder that interlocutory appeal is an exception to the general rule that appellate review must await final judgment-which is fully consistent with a conclusion that Rule 23(f)'s time limit is purposefully unforgiving. See Mohawk Industries, Inc. v. Carpenter , 558 U.S. 100, 106, 130 S.Ct. 599, 175 L.Ed.2d 458 (2009) ("The justification for immediate appeal must ... be sufficiently strong to overcome the usual benefits of deferring appeal until litigation concludes"); cf. Baker , 582 U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1709 (describing Rule 23(f) as "the product of careful calibration").
Finally, Lambert notes that every Court of Appeals to have considered the question would accept a Rule 23(f) petition filed within 14 days of the resolution of a motion for reconsideration that was itself filed within 14 days of the original order. See 870 F.3d at 1177-1178, n. 3 (collecting cases). Although Lambert's own reconsideration motion was not filed until after the initial 14 days had run, he cites the lower courts' handling of such cases as evidence that Rule 23(f) is indeed amenable to tolling. He further suggests that there is no basis for relaxing the 14-day limit in one situation but not the other.
Lambert's argument relies on a mistaken premise. A timely motion for reconsideration filed within a window to appeal does not toll anything; it "renders an otherwise final decision of a district court not final" for purposes of appeal. United States v. Ibarra , 502 U.S. 1, 6, 112 S.Ct. 4, 116 L.Ed.2d 1 (1991) (per curiam ). In other words, it affects the antecedent issue of when the 14-day limit begins to run, not the availability of tolling. See id., at 4, n. 2, 112 S.Ct. 4 (noting that this practice is not "a matter of tolling").
IV
Lambert devotes much of his merits brief to arguing the distinct question whether his Rule 23(f) petition was timely even without resort to tolling. First, he argues that, even if his motion for reconsideration was not filed within 14 days of the decertification order, it was filed within the time allowed (either by the Federal Rules or by the District Court at the March 2 hearing). The timeliness of that motion, Lambert contends, "cause[d] the time to appeal to run from the disposition of the reconsideration motion, not from the original order." Brief for Respondent 8; see id., at 9-18. Alternatively, he argues that the District Court's order denying reconsideration was itself "an order granting or denying class-action certification" under Rule 23(f). Id., at 8-9, 19-20. The Court of Appeals did not rule on these alternative grounds, which are beyond the scope of the question presented. Mindful of our role, we will not offer the first word. See United States v. Stitt , 586 U.S. ----, ----, 139 S.Ct. 399, 407-408, 202 L.Ed.2d 364 (2018) ; Pacific Bell Telephone Co. v. LinkLine Communications, Inc. , 555 U.S. 438, 457, 129 S.Ct. 1109, 172 L.Ed.2d 836 (2009). If the Court of Appeals concludes that these arguments have been preserved, it can address them in the first instance on remand.
* * *
The relevant Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure clearly foreclose the flexible tolling approach on which the Court of Appeals relied to deem Lambert's petition timely. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
See Nucor Corp. v. Brown , 760 F.3d 341, 343 (C.A.4 2014) ; Fleischman v. Albany Med. Ctr. , 639 F.3d 28, 31 (C.A.2 2011) ; Gutierrez v. Johnson & Johnson , 523 F.3d 187, 193, and n. 5 (C.A.3 2008) ; McNamara v. Felderhof , 410 F.3d 277, 281 (C.A.5 2005) ; Gary v. Sheahan , 188 F.3d 891, 892 (C.A.7 1999).
Rule 23(f) has since been amended and now reads, in relevant part: "A court of appeals may permit an appeal from an order granting or denying class-action certification .... A party must file a petition for permission to appeal ... within 14 days after the order is entered ...." The difference is immaterial for purposes of this case.
To be sure, this Court has previously suggested that time limits for taking an appeal are "mandatory and jurisdictional." Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co. , 486 U.S. 196, 203, 108 S.Ct. 1717, 100 L.Ed.2d 178 (1988). As our more recent precedents have made clear, however, this Court once used that phrase in a " 'less than meticulous' " manner. Hamer , 583 U.S., at ----, 138 S.Ct., at 21 ; Kontrick v. Ryan , 540 U.S. 443, 454, 124 S.Ct. 906, 157 L.Ed.2d 867 (2004). Those earlier statements did not necessarily signify that the rules at issue were formally "jurisdictional" as we use that term today.
Lambert's other textual arguments center on rules addressed to appeals as of right. See Brief for Respondent 9-12, 17-18, 36-38 (discussing, e.g. , Fed. Rules App. Proc. 3 and 4 ). As noted above, Rules 5 and 26 specifically address petitions for permission to appeal from nonfinal orders such as the one at issue here. Lambert's attempts to reason by implication from other, inapposite Rules therefore bear little weight. See Manrique v. United States , 581 U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 137 S.Ct. 1266, 1272-1273, 197 L.Ed.2d 599 (2017).
Lambert also argues that interpreting Rule 23(f) flexibly would be consistent with the Rules' generally equitable approach. Brief for Respondent 21-27. But that simply fails to engage with the dispositive point here: Any such background preference for flexibility has been overcome by the clear text of the relevant rules. See, e.g., Young v. United States , 535 U.S. 43, 49, 122 S.Ct. 1036, 152 L.Ed.2d 79 (2002).
Lambert argues that his counsel's statements 10 days after the District Court's decertification order constituted an oral motion for reconsideration, but the transcript belies any such claim. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 71 (requesting only "leave to file"); id., at 74 (informing the District Court that Lambert "will want to file" a reconsideration motion).
We therefore have no occasion to address the effect of a motion for reconsideration filed within the 14-day window. Moreover, because nothing the District Court did misled Lambert about the appeal filing deadline, see supra, at ---- - ----, we similarly have no occasion to address the question whether his motion would be timely if that had occurred. See Carlisle v. United States , 517 U.S. 416, 428, 116 S.Ct. 1460, 134 L.Ed.2d 613 (1996) ; id., at 435-436, 116 S.Ct. 1460 (GINSBURG, J., concurring) (discussing Thompson v. INS , 375 U.S. 384, 386-387, 84 S.Ct. 397, 11 L.Ed.2d 404 (1964) (per curiam ), and Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc. , 371 U.S. 215, 216-217, 83 S.Ct. 283, 9 L.Ed.2d 261 (1962) (per curiam )). We also have no occasion to address whether an insurmountable impediment to filing timely might compel a different result. Cf. Fed. Rule App. Proc. 26(a)(3) (addressing computation of time when "the clerk's office is inaccessible").
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
In this habeas case, the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit set aside two 29-year-old murder convictions based on the flimsiest of rationales. The court’s decision is a textbook example of what the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) proscribes: “using federal habeas corpus review as a vehicle to second-guess the reasonable decisions of state courts.” Renico v. Lett, 559 U. S. 766, 779 (2010). We therefore grant the petition for certiorari and reverse.
HH
Between 1 and 2 a.m. on the morning of June 29, 1981, respondent David Eugene Matthews broke into the Louisville home he had until recently shared with his estranged wife, Mary Marlene Matthews (Marlene). At the time, Matthews’ mother-in-law, Magdalene Cruse, was staying at the home with her daughter. Matthews found Cruse in bed and shot her in the head at pointblank range, using a gun he had purchased with borrowed funds hours before. Matthews left Cruse there mortally wounded and went into the next room, where he found his wife. He had sexual relations with her once or twice; stayed with her until about 6 a.m.; and then shot her twice, killing her. Cruse would die from her wound later that day.
Matthews was apprehended that morning at his mother’s house, where he had already begun to wash the clothes he wore during the crime. Later in the day, police officers found the murder weapon secreted below the floorboards of a backyard shed on the property. At the police station, Matthews made a tape-recorded statement to a police detective in which he denied responsibility for the murders.
A grand jury indicted Matthews for the two murders and for burglary. At trial, he did not contest that he killed the two victims. Instead, he sought to show that he had acted under “extreme emotional disturbance,” which under Kentucky law serves to reduce a homicide that would otherwise be murder to first-degree manslaughter. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§507.020(l)(a), 507.030(l)(b) (West 2006). As support for that claim, Matthews pointed to the troubled history of his marriage with Marlene: Matthews and his wife had been frequently separated from one another, and their periods of separation were marked by extreme hostility. Marlene would regularly procure criminal warrants against Matthews; several weeks before the murders she obtained one charging Matthews with sexual abuse of Marlene’s 6-year-old daughter, which had led to Matthews’ spending roughly three weeks in jail. Witnesses also testified that Marlene sought to control Matthews when they were together and would yell at him from across the street when they were separated; and Matthews’ mother recounted that Marlene would leave the couple’s young child crying in the street late at night outside the house where Matthews was sleeping in order to antagonize him.
Matthews also introduced the testimony of a psychiatrist, Dr. Lee Chutkow, who had evaluated Matthews. Dr. Chut-kow related what Matthews had told him about the murders, including that Matthews had been drinking heavily and taking Valium and a stimulant drug. Dr. Chutkow testified that he had diagnosed Matthews as suffering from an adjustment disorder, which he described as a “temporary emotional and behavioral disturbance in individuals who are subject to a variety of stresses,” that would temporarily impair a person’s judgment and cause symptoms such as “anxiety, nervousness, depression, even suicide attempts or attempts to hurt other people.” 6 Record 558. Dr. Chut-kow testified to his opinion that Matthews was acting under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the murders—in particular, that he experienced “extreme tension, irritability, and almost a kind of fear of his late wife,” id., at 567, whom he perceived as having tormented and emasculated him.
The jury convicted Matthews on all charges, and he was sentenced to death. The Kentucky Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence, rejecting Matthews’ 37 claims of error. Matthews v. Commonwealth, 709 S. W. 2d 414, 417 (1985). In response to Matthews’ argument that the evidence was insufficient to establish that he had acted in the absence of extreme emotional disturbance, the court concluded that the evidence regarding Matthews’ “conduct before, during and after the crimes was more than sufficient to support the jury’s findings of capital murder.” Id., at 421. A claim that the prosecutor had committed misconduct during his closing argument was rejected on the merits, but without discussion.
Following an unsuccessful state postconviction proceeding, Matthews filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U. S. C. § 2254 in the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky. Matthews contended, among other things, that the Kentucky Supreme Court had contravened clearly established federal law in rejecting his claim that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he had not acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance and in rejecting his claim of prosecutorial misconduct. The District Court dismissed the petition, but a divided panel of the Sixth Circuit reversed with instructions to grant relief. 651 F. 3d 489 (2011).
II
Under AEDPA, the Sixth Circuit had no authority to issue the writ of habeas corpus unless the Kentucky Supreme Court’s decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States,” or “was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts in light of the evidence presented in the State court proceeding.” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d). The Sixth Circuit gave two grounds for its conclusion that Matthews was entitled to relief under this “difficult to meet . . . and highly deferential standard,” Cullen v. Pinholster, 563 U. S. 170, 181 (2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). Neither is valid.
A
First, the Sixth Circuit held that the Kentucky Supreme Court had impermissibly shifted to Matthews the burden of proving extreme emotional disturbance, and that the Commonwealth had failed to prove the absence of extreme emotional disturbance beyond a reasonable doubt. The Sixth Circuit reasoned that, at the time Matthews committed his offenses, the allocation of the burden of proof on extreme emotional disturbance was governed by the Kentucky Supreme Court’s decision in Gall v. Commonwealth, 607 S. W. 2d 97, 108 (1980), which placed the burden of producing evidence on the defendant, but left the burden of proving the absence of extreme emotional disturbance with the Commonwealth in those cases in which the defendant had introduced evidence sufficient to raise a reasonable doubt on the issue. According to the Sixth Circuit, however, the Kentucky Supreme Court departed from that understanding in Matthews’ case and placed the burden of proving extreme emotional disturbance “entirely on the defendant,” 651 F. 3d, at 500.
The Sixth Circuit’s interpretation is supported by certain aspects of the Kentucky Supreme Court’s opinion in Matthews’ case. For example, the state court indicated that Matthews had “presented] extensive evidence” of his extreme emotional disturbance, yet the court rejected his sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim by finding the evidence he had presented “far from overwhelming,” rather than by stating that it failed to raise a reasonable doubt. Matthews, supra, at 420-421. The state court also observed that it had recently clarified in Wellman v. Commonwealth, 694 S. W. 2d 696 (1985), that “absence of extreme emotional disturbance is not an element of the crime of murder which the Commonwealth must affirmatively prove.” Matthews, supra, at 421. In the Sixth Circuit’s view, the Kentucky Supreme Court’s reliance on this Wellman formulation of extreme emotional disturbance in resolving Matthews’ appeal violated the Due Process Clause, as construed by this Court in Bouie v. City of Columbia, 378 U. S. 347, 354 (1964), because it involved the retroactive application of an “ ‘unexpected and indefensible’ ” judicial revision of the Kentucky murder statute.
The Kentucky Supreme Court’s initial assessment of the evidence and reliance upon Wellman would be relevant if they formed the sole basis for denial of Matthews’ sufficiency-of-the-evidence claim. It is not clear, however, that they did. The Kentucky Supreme Court explained that “[t]he trial court’s instructions in regard to extreme emotional disturbance were adequate, and the proof supported the jury’s findings of intentional murder.” 709 S. W. 2d, at 421. Those jury instructions required the jury to find beyond a reasonable doubt that Matthews had not acted “under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable justification or excuse under the circumstances as he believed them to be.” 6 Record 625, 628-629. The case had been submitted to the jury with the burden assigned to the Commonwealth, the jury had found that burden carried, and the Kentucky Supreme Court found the evidence adequate to sustain that finding. That ground was sufficient to reject Matthews’ claim, so it is irrelevant that the court also invoked a ground of questionable validity. See Wetzel v. Lambert, 565 U. S. 520, 524-525 (2012) (per curiam).
The Sixth Circuit’s opinion also challenges the conclusion that the evidence supported a finding of no extreme emotional disturbance. We have said that “it is the responsibility of the jury—not the court—to decide what conclusions should be drawn from evidence admitted at trial,” Cavazos v. Smith, 565 U. S. 1, 2 (2011) (per curiam). The evidence is sufficient to support a conviction whenever, “after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution, any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt.” Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U. S. 307, 319 (1979). And a state-court decision rejecting a sufficiency challenge may not be overturned on federal habeas unless the “decision was ‘objectively unreasonable.’ ” Cavazos, supra, at 2.
In light of this twice-deferential standard, it is abundantly clear that the Kentucky Supreme Court’s rejection of Matthews’ sufficiency claim is controlling in this federal habeas proceeding. The Sixth Circuit noted that Dr. Chutkow expressed an opinion that Matthews was under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance at the time of the murders, and did not retreát from that opinion on cross-examination. But there was ample evidence pointing in the other direction as well. As the Kentucky Supreme Court observed, Matthews’ claim of extreme emotional disturbance was belied by “the circumstances of the crime,” 709 S. W. 2d, at 421—including the facts that he borrowed money to purchase the murder weapon the day of the murders, that he waited several hours after buying the gun before starting for his wife’s home, and that he delayed several hours between shooting his mother-in-law and killing his wife. The claim was also belied by his behavior after the murders, including his “[taking] steps to hide the gun and clean his clothes,” and later “giv[ing] a false statement to the police.” Ibid. The Sixth Circuit discounted this evidence because Dr. Chutkow testified that Matthews’ deliberateness and consciousness of wrongdoing were not inconsistent with the diagnosis of extreme emotional disturbance. 651 F. 3d, at 504, n. 4. But expert testimony does not trigger a conclusive presumption of correctness, and it was not unreasonable to conclude that the jurors were entitled to consider the tension between Dr. Chutkow’s testimony and their own commonsense understanding of emotional disturbance. In resolving the conflict in favor of Dr. Chutkow’s testimony, the Sixth Circuit overstepped the proper limits of its authority. See Jackson, supra, at 326.
More fundamentally, the Sixth Circuit did not appear to consider the possibility that the jury could have found the symptoms described by Dr. Chutkow inadequate to establish what is required to reduce murder to manslaughter under Kentucky law: that Matthews “acted under the influence of extreme emotional disturbance for which there was a reasonable explanation or excuse, the reasonableness of which is to be determined from the viewpoint of a person in the defendant’s situation under the circumstances as the defendant believed them to be.” Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 507.020(1)(a). Dr. Chutkow himself agreed that many people face tension and anxiety—two symptoms he attributed to Matthews. 6 Record 579-580. And he agreed that many people suffer from adjustment disorders. Id., at 592. But of course very few people commit murders. In light of these points, which bear on the proper characterization of Matthews’ mental condition and the reasonableness of his conduct, the Kentucky Supreme Court made no objectively unreasonable error in concluding that the question of extreme emotional disturbance was properly committed to the jury for resolution.
B
As a second ground for its decision, the Sixth Circuit held that certain remarks made by the prosecutor during his closing argument constituted a denial of due process. This claim was rejected on the merits by the Kentucky Supreme Court (albeit without analysis) and therefore receives deferential review under the AEDPA standard. See Harrington v. Richter, 562 U. S. 86, 98 (2011). The “clearly established Federal law” relevant here is our decision in Darden v. Wainwright, 477 U. S. 168 (1986), which explained that a prosecutor’s improper comments will be held to violate the Constitution only if they “ ‘so infected the trial with unfairness as to make the resulting conviction a denial of due process.’ ” Id., at 181 (quoting Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U. S. 637, 643 (1974)).
According to the Sixth Circuit, the prosecutor violated Darden by suggesting that Matthews had colluded with his lawyer, David Busse, and with Dr. Chutkow to manufacture an extreme emotional disturbance defense. But although the Sixth Circuit quoted a lengthy section of the prosecutor’s closing argument which could be understood as raising a charge of collusion, the court did not address the prosecutor’s statement that immediately followed the quoted portion and expressly disavowed any suggestion of collusion:
“And that’s not to say that Mr. Busse is unethical. Not at all. He is entitled to the best defense he can get, but that’s the only defense he has, what the doctor has to say, and that’s not to say that the doctor gets on the stand and perjures himself. He’s telling you the truth. He wouldn’t perjure himself for anything. He’s telling you the truth, Ladies and Gentlemen.” 7 Record 674.
With the prosecutor’s immediate clarification that he was not alleging collusion in view, the Sixth Circuit’s conclusion that this feature of the closing argument clearly violated due process is unsupportable. Nor does the prosecutor’s suggestion that Matthews had “enhance[d] his story to Doctor Chutkow,” ibid., suffice to justify the Sixth Circuit’s grant of habeas relief. In context, that statement is clearly a part of a broader argument that Matthews had a motive to exaggerate his emotional disturbance in his meetings with Dr. Chut-kow. Shortly after the quoted statement, the prosecutor continued with a series of rhetorical questions:
“Don’t you think he would exaggerate his fears about his wife, his mother-in-law, and all these other things about what other people might be doing to his mother? Don’t you think he would overstate the extent of his intoxication to his psychiatrist?” Ibid.
The Sixth Circuit cited no precedent of this Court in support of its conclusion that due process prohibits a prosecutor from emphasizing a criminal defendant’s motive to exaggerate exculpatory facts.
The Sixth Circuit also suggested that the prosecutor “denigrated the [extreme emotional disturbance] defense itself,” 651 F. 3d, at 506, by stating that “[i]t’s the defense of last resort, Ladies and Gentlemen. He has no excuse for his conduct, but that’s his only way out.” 7 Record 674. But the Kentucky Supreme Court could have understood this comment too as having been directed at Matthews’ motive to exaggerate his emotional disturbance—i. e., as emphasizing that the unavailability of any other defense raised the stakes with respect to extreme emotional disturbance.
Moreover, even if the comment is understood as directing the jury’s attention to inappropriate considerations, that would not establish that the Kentucky Supreme Court’s rejection of the Darden prosecutorial misconduct claim “was so lacking in justification that there was an error well understood and comprehended in existing law beyond any possibility for fairminded disagreement.” Harrington, 562 U. S., at 103. Indeed, Darden itself held that a closing argument considerably more inflammatory than the one at issue here did not warrant habeas relief. See 477 U. S., at 180, n. 11 (prosecutor referred to the defendant as an “ ‘animal’ ”); id., at 180, n. 12 (“ ‘I wish I could see [the defendant] with no face, blown away by a shotgun’”). Particularly because the Darden standard is a very general one, leaving courts “more leeway ... in reaching outcomes in case-by-case determinations,” Yarborough v. Alvarado, 541 U. S. 652, 664 (2004), the Sixth Circuit had no warrant to set aside the Kentucky Supreme Court’s conclusion.
The Sixth Circuit also erred by consulting its own precedents, rather than those of this Court, in assessing the reasonableness of the Kentucky Supreme Court’s decision. After quoting the governing standard from our decision in Darden, the Sixth Circuit added that it would “engag[e] in a two step inquiry to determine whether the prosecutorial misconduct rises to the level of unconstitutionality. ‘To satisfy the standard . . . , the conduct must be both improper and flagrant.’ ” 651 F. 3d, at 505 (quoting Broom v. Mitchell, 441 F. 3d 392, 412 (CA6 2006)). It went on to evaluate the flagrancy step of that inquiry in light of four factors derived from its own precedent: “ ‘(1) the likelihood that the remarks . . . tended to mislead the jury or prejudice the defendant; (2) whether the remarks were isolated or extensive; (3) whether the remarks were deliberately or accidentally made; and (4) the total strength of the evidence against [Matthews].’ ” 651 F. 3d, at 506 (quoting Broom, supra, at 412). And it stated that “the prosecutor’s comments in this case were sufficiently similar to” certain comments held unconstitutional in its prior decision in Gall II, 231 F. 3d 265 (CA6 2000), “that they rise to the level of impropriety.” 651 F. 3d, at 506.
As we explained in correcting an identical error by the Sixth Circuit two Terms ago, see Renico, 559 U. S., at 778-779, circuit precedent does not constitute “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court,” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1). It therefore cannot form the basis for habeas relief under AEDPA. Nor can the Sixth Circuit’s reliance on its own precedents be defended in this case on the ground that they merely reflect what has been “clearly established” by our cases. The highly generalized standard for evaluating claims of prosecutorial misconduct set forth in Darden bears scant resemblance to the elaborate, multistep test employed by the Sixth Circuit here. To make matters worse, the Sixth Circuit decided Gall II under pre-AEDPA law, see 231 F. 3d, at 283, n. 2, so that case did not even purport to reflect clearly established law as set out in this Court’s holdings. It was plain and repetitive error for the Sixth Circuit to rely on its own precedents in granting Matthews habeas relief.
* * *
The petition for a writ of certiorari and respondent’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis are granted. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
An ambiguously worded footnote in the Sixth Circuit’s opinion, see 651 F. 3d 489, 504, n. 5 (2011), suggests that the court may have found an additional due process violation. The court referred to a statement in the Kentucky Supreme Court’s decision in Gall v. Commonwealth, 607 S. W. 2d 97, 109 (1980), that “[u]nless the evidence raising the issue [of extreme emotional disturbance] is of such probative force that otherwise the defendant would be entitled as a matter of law to an acquittal on the higher charge (murder), the prosecution is not required to come forth with negating evidence in order to sustain its burden of proof.” Relying on its own opinion in Gall’s federal habeas proceeding, Gall v. Parker, 231 F. 3d 265 (CA6 2000) (Gall II), the Sixth Circuit suggested that the quoted statement “require[d] a defendant to bear the heavy burden of disproving an element of a crime beyond a reasonable doubt,” 651 F. 3d, at 504, n. 5, in violation of this Court’s decision in Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U. S. 684 (1975). That is not so. The statement explicitly acknowledges that the burden of proof rests with the prosecution, but merely asserts that when the burden of production is assigned to the defendant the jury may find the prosecution’s burden of proof satisfied without introduction of negating evidence, unless the defendant’s evidence is so probative as to establish reasonable doubt as a matter of law. That seems to us a truism. See 2 J. Strong, McCormick on Evidence § 338, pp. 419-420 (5th ed. 1999). Our opinion in Mullaney addressed a situation in which the burden of persuasion was shifted to the defendant, see 421 U. S., at 702, and n. 31; it does not remotely show that the Kentucky Supreme Court’s truism contravened clearly established federal law.
The full text of the section the Sixth Circuit found objectionable is as follows:
“He’s arraigned, he meets with his attorney and either he tells his attorney, I did it or I didn’t do it. One or the other. But, the attorney knows what the evidence is. By the way, the defendant knows what the evidence is, because while he’s giving this statement, it’s sitting right in front of him at the Homicide Office. Here’s the gun. Here’s the shoes, David. ‘Nah, nah, I never saw it before. I never borrowed a gun. I never borrowed any money. I wasn’t there. I was at home in bed asleep.’ He’s denying it there.
“And what does his attorney think? His attorney sees all this evidence, and he’s going through his mind, what kind of legal excuse can I have? What is this man’s defense? Self protection? No, there’s no proof of a gun found at that house on 310 North 24th Street. No proof of that. Protection of another? The defendant’s mother is at home on Lytle Street. He isn’t protecting her over there on North 24th Street. Intoxication? Yeah, well, he was drinking that night. Maybe that will mean something.
“But that isn’t enough, Ladies and Gentlemen. Mr. Busse has to contact a psychiatrist to see his client, and he comes in and sees his client one month after the day of his arrest, one month to the day, and by that time, Mr. David Eugene Matthews sees his defense in the form of Doctor Chutkow, and do you think this guy is aware of what’s going on? He’s competent. He can work with his attorney, and he enhances his story to Doctor Chutkow. Yeah, I was drinking. I was drinking a lot. I was taking a lot of pills, too, and let me tell you about the pills I was taking.
“Don’t you think he has a purpose in enhancing his story to the psychiatrist? Don’t you think he would exaggerate his fears about his wife, his mother-in-law, and all these other things about what other people might be doing to his mother? Don’t you think he would overstate the extent of his intoxication to his psychiatrist? It’s the defense of last resort, Ladies and Gentlemen. He has no excuse for his conduct, but that’s his only way out.” 7 Record 673-674.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner was found guilty of one count of conspiracy to possess cocaine with intent to distribute, and two counts of possession of cocaine with intent to distribute. He was sentenced to concurrent 7-year prison terms on all three counts, and to concurrent special parole terms of five years on the two possession counts. The Court of Appeals affirmed petitioner’s conspiracy conviction and one of his possession convictions. United States v. Sandoval, 791 F. 2d 929 (CA5 1986) (judg. order). Applying the so-called “concurrent sentence doctrine,” the court declined to review the second possession conviction because the sentences on the two possession counts were concurrent. We granted certiorari to review the role of the concurrent sentence doctrine in the federal courts. 479 U. S. 960 (1986).
It now appears, however, that petitioner is not in fact serving concurrent sentences. Title 18 U. S. C. § 3013 (1982 ed., Supp. Ill) provides that district courts shall assess a monetary charge “on any person convicted of an offense against the United States.” Pursuant to this section, the District Court imposed a $50 assessment on each count, in addition to the concurrent prison and parole terms, for a total of $150. Since petitioner’s liability to pay this total depends on the validity of each of his three convictions, the sentences are not concurrent. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore vacated, and the cause is remanded to that court so that it may consider petitioner’s challenge to his second possession conviction.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases raise but a single issue. It grows out of the United States Housing Act of 1937, 50 Stat. 888, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1401 et seg., which established a federal housing agency authorized to make loans and grants to state agencies for slum clearance and low-rent housing projects. In response, the California Legislature created in each county and city a public housing authority to take advantage of the financing made available by the federal Housing Act. See Cal. Health & Safety Code § 34240. At the time the federal legislation was passed the California Constitution had for many years reserved to the State’s people the power to initiate legislation and to reject or approve by referendum any Act passed by the state legislature. Cal. Const., Art. IV, § 1. The same section reserved to the electors of counties and cities the power of initiative and referendum over acts of local government bodies. In 1950, however, the State Supreme Court held that local authorities’ decisions on seeking federal aid for public housing projects were “executive” and “administrative,” not “legislative,” and therefore the state constitution’s referendum provisions did not apply to these actions. Within six months of that decision the California voters adopted Article XXXIV of the state constitution to bring public housing decisions under the State’s referendum policy. The Article provided that no low-rent housing project should be developed, constructed, or acquired in any manner by a state public body until the project was approved by a majority of those voting at a community election.
The present suits were brought by citizens of San Jose, California, and San Mateo County, localities where housing authorities could not apply for federal funds because low-cost housing proposals had been defeated in referendums. The plaintiffs, who are eligible for low-cost public housing, sought a declaration that Article XXXIV was unconstitutional because its referendum requirement violated: (1) the Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution; (2) the Privileges and Immunities Clause; and (3) the Equal Protection Clause. A three-judge court held that Article XXXIV denied the plaintiffs equal protection of the laws and it enjoined its enforcement. 313 F. Supp. 1 (ND Cal. 1970). Two appeals were taken from the judgment, one by the San Jose City Council, and the other by a single member of the council. We noted probable jurisdiction of both appeals. 398 U. S. 949 (1970); 399 U. S. 925 (1970). For the reasons that follow, we reverse.
The three-judge court found the Supremacy Clause argument unpersuasive, and we agree. By the Housing Act of 1937 the Federal Government has offered aid to state and local governments for the creation of low-rent public housing. However, the federal legislation does not purport to require that local governments accept this or to outlaw local referendums on whether the aid should be accepted. We also find the privileges and immunities argument without merit.
While the District Court cited several cases of this Court, its chief reliance plainly rested on Hunter v. Erickson, 393 U. S. 385 (1969). The first paragraph in the District Court’s decision stated simply: “We hold Article XXXIV to be unconstitutional. See Hunter v. Erickson . . . .” The court below erred in relying on Hunter to invalidate Article XXXIV. Unlike the case before us, Hunter rested on the conclusion that Akron’s referendum law denied equal protection by placing “special burdens on racial minorities within the governmental process.” Id., at 391. In Hunter the citizens of Akron had amended the city charter to require that any ordinance regulating real estate on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin could not take effect without approval by a majority of those voting in a city election. The Court held that the amendment created a classification based upon race because it required that laws dealing with racial housing matters could take effect only if they survived a mandatory referendum while other housing ordinances took effect without any such special election. The opinion noted:
“Because the core of the Fourteenth Amendment is the prevention of meaningful and unjustified official distinctions based on race, [citing a group of racial discrimination cases] racial classifications are ‘constitutionally suspect’. . . and subject to the ‘most rigid scrutiny.’. . . They ‘bear a far heavier burden of justification’ than other classifications.” Id., at 391-392.
The Court concluded that Akron had advanced no sufficient reasons to justify this racial classification and hence that it was unconstitutional under the Fourteenth Amendment.
Unlike the Akron referendum provision, it cannot be said that California’s Article XXXIV rests on “distinctions based on race.” Id., at 391. The Article requires referendum approval for any low-rent public housing project, not only for projects which will be occupied by a racial minority. And the record here would not support any claim that a law seemingly neutral on its face is in fact aimed at a racial minority. Cf. Gomillion v. Lightfoot, 364 U. S. 339 (1960). The present case could be affirmed only by extending Hunter, and this we decline to do.
California’s entire history demonstrates the repeated use of referendums to give citizens a voice on questions of public policy. A referendum provision was included in the first state constitution, Cal. Const. of 1849, Art. VIII, and referendums have been a commonplace occurrence in the State’s active political life. Provisions for referendums demonstrate devotion to democracy, not to bias, discrimination, or prejudice. Nonetheless, appellees contend that Article XXXIY denies them equal protection because it demands a mandatory referendum while many other referendums only take place upon citizen initiative. They suggest that the mandatory nature of the Article XXXIV referendum constitutes unconstitutional discrimination because it hampers persons desiring public housing from achieving their objective when no such roadblock faces other groups seeking to influence other public decisions to their advantage. But of course a lawmaking procedure that “disadvantages” a particular group does not always deny equal protection. Under any such holding, presumably a State would not be able to require referendums on any subject unless referendums were required on all, because they would always disadvantage some group. And this Court would be required to analyze governmental structures to determine whether a gubernatorial veto provision or a filibuster rule is likely to “disadvantage” any of the diverse and shifting groups that make up the American people.
Furthermore, an examination of California law reveals that persons advocating low-income housing have not been singled out for mandatory referendums while no other group must face that obstacle. Mandatory referendums are required for approval of state constitutional amendments, for the issuance of general obligation long-term bonds by local governments, and for certain municipal territorial annexations. See Cal. Const., Art. XVIII; Art. XIII, §40; Art. XI, §2(b). California statute books contain much legislation first enacted by voter initiative, and no such law can be repealed or amended except by referendum. Cal. Const., Art. IV, § 24(c). Some California cities have wisely provided that their public parks may not be alienated without mandatory referendums, see, e. g., San Jose Charter § 1700.
The people of California have also decided by their own vote to require referendum approval of low-rent public housing projects. This procedure ensures that all the people of a community will have a voice in a decision which may lead to large expenditures of local governmental funds for increased public services and to lower tax revenues. It gives them a voice in decisions that will affect the future development of their own community. This procedure for democratic decisionmaking does not violate the constitutional command that no State shall deny to any person “the equal protection of the laws.”
The judgment of the three-judge court is reversed and the cases are remanded for dismissal of the complaint.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Douglas took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
Housing Authority v. Superior Court, 35 Cal. 2d 550, 557-558, 219 P. 2d 457, 460-461 (1950).
“Section 1. No low rent housing project shall hereafter be developed, constructed, or acquired in any manner by any state public body until, a majority of the qualified electors of the city, town or county, as the case may be, in which it is proposed to develop, construct, or acquire the same, voting upon such issue, approve such project by voting in favor thereof at an election to be held for that purpose, or at any general or special election.
“For the purposes of this article the term ‘low rent housing project’ shall mean any development composed of urban or rural dwellings, apartments or other living accommodations for persons of low income, financed in whole or in part by the Federal Government or a state public body or to which the Federal Government or a state public body extends assistance by supplying all or part of the labor, by guaranteeing the payment of liens, or otherwise. . . .
“For the purposes of this article only 'persons of low income’ shall mean persons or families who lack the amount of income which is necessary (as determined by the state public body developing, constructing, or acquiring the housing project) to enable them, without financial assistance, to live in decent, safe and sanitary dwellings, without overcrowding.”
See, e. g., W. Crouch, The Initiative and Referendum in California (1950).
Public low-rent housing projects are financed through bonds issued by the local housing authority. To be sure, the Federal Government contracts to make contributions sufficient to cover interest and principal, but the local government body must agree to provide all municipal services for the units and to waive all taxes on the property. The local services to be provided include schools, police, and fire protection, sewers, streets, drains, and lighting. Some of the cost is defrayed by the local governing body’s receipt of 10% of the housing project rentals, but of course the rentals are set artificially low. Both appellants and appellees agree that the building of federally financed low-cost housing entails costs to the local community. Appellant Shaffer’s Brief 34-35. Appellees’ Brief 47. See also 42 U. S. C. §§ 1401-1430.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is an original proceeding in the Supreme Court of Illinois by way of writ of error to test the validity of sentences of imprisonment following pleas of guilty. The Supreme Court of Illinois having affirmed the judgment, 394 Ill. 194, 68 N. E. 2d 252, we brought the case here, 329 U. S. 712, because of the importance of reviewing convictions where solid doubt is raised whether the requirements of due process have been observed.
On February 22, 1935, the petitioners were sentenced to confinement in the Illinois State Penitentiary, under the Illinois State indeterminate sentence law, after pleading guilty to an indictment charging them with burglary and larceny. Cahill’s Ill. Rev. Stats. (1933) c. 38, §§ 65, 796. Since the controversy turns on the legal significance of the circumstances under which the pleas of guilty were accepted, it is important to state them according to the record which, for purposes of this proceeding, is binding upon the Illinois Supreme Court and therefore upon this Court. According to the “Minutes from the Judges Docket,” the defendants Foster and Payne (petitioners here)
“having been furnished with a copy of the Indictment and a list of the Jurors and Peoples Witnesses and are advised of their rights of Trial and of the consequences of an entry of a plea of guilty and being arraigned in open Court for plea to the Indictment says, each for himself That he is guilty of burglary and larceny as charged in the indictment and thereupon the Court advises and admonishes each of said defendants of the consequences of entering such pleas of guilty, and Thereafter each of said defendants still persist in such pleas of guilty . . . Whereupon said pleas of guilty are received and entered of record.”
“The Court finds the ages of said defendants to be as follows, respectively, Nelson Foster 34 years old, George Payne, alias Elijah Jefferson 48 years . . . .”
Eleven years later, on February 7, 1946, the petitioners asked the Supreme Court of Illinois for their discharge. Various state grounds were urged and rejected. Our sole concern is with the claim “that the record in this case fails to show” a compliance with the Fourteenth Amendment insofar as the Due Process Clause of that Amendment requires an accused to have the benefit of counsel.
The considerations that guide the disposition of this case have been canvassed here in a series of recent opinions. The “due process of law” which the Fourteenth Amendment exacts from the States is a conception of fundamental justice. See Hebert v. Louisiana, 272 U. S. 312, 316; Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 325. It is not satisfied by merely formal procedural correctness, nor is it confined by any absolute rule such as that which the Sixth Amendment contains in securing to an accused “the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.” By virtue of that provision, counsel must be furnished to an indigent defendant prosecuted in a federal court in every case, whatever the circumstances. See Palko v. Connecticut, supra, at 327; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458; Betts v. Brady, 316 U. S. 455, 464-65. Prosecutions in State courts are not subject to this fixed requirement. So we have held upon fullest consideration. Betts v. Brady, supra. But process of law in order to be “due” does require that a State give a defendant ample opportunity to meet an accusation. And so, in the circumstances of a “particular situation,” assignment of counsel may be “essential to the substance of a hearing” as part of the due process which the Fourteenth Amendment exacts from a State which imposes sentence. Palko v. Connecticut, supra, at 327. Such need may exist whether an accused contests a charge against him or pleads guilty.
The rationale of this application of due process was first expounded in Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45. In following that case our recent decisions have spoken of “the rule of Powell v. Alabama,” or “the requirements of Powell v. Alabama,” thereby indicating the essential scope of the doctrine. See Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U. S. 471, 476-77; Tomkins v. Missouri, 323 U. S. 485, 488. And so, in every case in which this doctrine was invoked and due process was found wanting, the prisoner sustained the burden of proving, or was prepared to prove but was denied opportunity, that for want of benefit of counsel an ingredient of unfairness actively operated in the process that resulted in his confinement. See Powell v. Alabama, supra, at 51, 53, 56, 57-58; Smith v. O’Grady, 312 U. S. 329, 334; Williams v. Kaiser, supra, at 472, 473-74, and 476-77; Tomkins v. Missouri, supra, at 486-487; House v. Mayo, 324 U. S. 42, 45-46; White v. Ragen, 324 U. S. 760, 762-63; Rice v. Olson, 324 U. S. 786, 788-89. Only the other day, in a case concerning a charge of first-degree murder against a seventeen-year-old defendant, in which we found a deprivation “of rights essential to a fair hearing,” we took pains to point out that “The court did not explain the consequences of the plea of guilty, and the record indicates considerable confusion in petitioner’s mind at the time of the arraignment as to the effect of such a plea.” De Meerleer v. Michigan, 329 U. S. 663, 664.
In this case there is neither proof nor uncontradicted allegation of any such miscarriage of justice in accepting pleas of guilty. The record of the proceeding plainly imports an observance of due process. In the contemporaneous language of the trial court, the defendants “are advised of their rights of Trial and of the consequences of an entry of a plea of guilty,” the court “advises and admonishes each of said defendants of the consequences of entering such pleas of guilty,” and the defendants thereafter still persisting, their pleas “are received and entered of record.” There was nothing in the common-law record, on the basis of which the Supreme Court of Illinois rendered its decision, to contradict this account of the proceedings in 1935. We thus have in effect the bald claim that, merely because the record does not disclose an offer of counsel to a defendant upon a plea of guilty, although the court before accepting the plea duly advised him of his “rights of Trial” and of the consequences of such a plea,'he is “deprived of rights essential to a fair hearing under the Federal Constitution.” De Meerleer v. Michigan, supra, at 665.
We reject such a claim. Most incarcerations are upon pleas of guilty, and probably most such pleas have been made without the felt need of counsel. It is not for us to suggest that it might be desirable to offer to every accused who desires to plead guilty the opportunities for counsel and to enter with formality upon the record the deliberate disclaimer of his need for counsel because of a full appreciation of the meaning of a plea of guilty as expounded by responsible judges. Our duty does not go beyond safeguarding “rights essential to a fair hearing” by the States. After all, due process, “itself a historical product,” Jackman v. Rosenbaum Co., 260 U. S. 22, 31, is not to be turned into a destructive dogma in the administration of systems of criminal justice under which the States have lived not only before the Fourteenth Amendment but for the eighty years since its adoption. It does not militate against respect for the deeply rooted systems of criminal justice in the States that such an abrupt innovation as recognition of the constitutional claim here made implies, would furnish opportunities hitherto uncontemplated for opening wide the prison doors of the land.
Insofar as the sentences in this case are attacked on claims which were not open for consideration on the common-law record which alone was before the Illinois court, see 394 Ill. 194, 68 N. E. 2d 252, they are not open here. Carter v. Illinois, 329 U. S. 173. They must be raised by whatever procedure Illinois may provide, or, in default of relief by appropriate Illinois proceedings, by a new claim of denial of due process for want of such relief. See Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103.
Affirmed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
motion of the appellees for leave to proceed in-forma pauperis is granted. The motion to dismiss is granted and the appeal is dismissed for failure to docket the case within the time prescribed by Rule 13.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner S. Simcha Goldman contends that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution permits him to wear a yarmulke while in uniform, notwithstanding an Air Force regulation mandating uniform dress for Air Force personnel. The District Court for the District of Columbia permanently enjoined the Air Force from enforcing its regulation against petitioner and from penalizing him for wearing his yarmulke. The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed on the ground that the Air Force’s strong interest in discipline justified the strict enforcement of its uniform dress requirements. We granted certiorari because of the importance of the question, 472 U. S. 1016 (1985), and now affirm.
Petitioner Goldman is an Orthodox Jew and ordained rabbi. In 1973, he was accepted into the Armed Forces Health Professions Scholarship Program and placed on inactive reserve status in the Air Force while he studied clinical psychology at Loyola University of Chicago. During his three years in the scholarship program, he received a monthly stipend and an allowance for tuition, books, and fees. After completing his Ph.D. in psychology, petitioner entered active service in the United States Air Force as a commissioned officer, in accordance with a requirement that participants in the scholarship program serve one year of active duty for each year of subsidized education. Petitioner was stationed at March Air Force Base in Riverside, California, and served as a clinical psychologist at the mental health clinic on the base.
Until 1981, petitioner was not prevented from wearing his yarmulke on the base. He avoided controversy by remaining close to his duty station in the health clinic and by wearing his service cap over the yarmulke when out of doors. But in April 1981, after he testified as a defense witness at a court-martial wearing his yarmulke but not his service cap, opposing counsel lodged a complaint with Colonel Joseph Gregory, the Hospital Commander, arguing that petitioner’s practice of wearing his yarmulke was a violation of Air Force Regulation (AFR) 35-10. This regulation states in pertinent part that “[h]eadgear will not be worn . . . [w]hile indoors except by armed security police in the performance of their duties.” AFR 35-10, ¶ l-6.h(2)(f) (1980).
Colonel Gregory informed petitioner that wearing a yarmulke while on duty does indeed violate AFR 35-10, and ordered him not to violate this regulation outside the hospital. Although virtually all of petitioner’s time on the base was spent in the hospital, he refused. Later, after petitioner’s attorney protested to the Air Force General Counsel, Colonel Gregory revised his order to prohibit petitioner from wearing the yarmulke even in the hospital. Petitioner’s request to report for duty in civilian clothing pending legal resolution of the issue was denied. The next day he received a formal letter of reprimand, and was warned that failure to obey AFR 35-10 could subject him to a court-martial. Colonel Gregory also withdrew a recommendation that petitioner’s application to extend the term of his active service be approved, and substituted a negative recommendation.
Petitioner then sued respondent Secretary of Defense and others, claiming that the application of AFR 35-10 to prevent him from wearing his yarmulke infringed upon his First Amendment freedom to exercise his religious beliefs. The United States District Court for the District of Columbia preliminarily enjoined the enforcement of the regulation, Goldman v. Secretary of Defense, 530 F. Supp. 12 (1981), and then after a full hearing permanently enjoined the Air Force from prohibiting petitioner from wearing a yarmulke while in uniform. Goldman v. Secretary of Defense, 29 EPD ¶ 32, 753 (1982). Respondents appealed to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, which reversed. Goldman v. Secretary of Defense, 236 U. S. App. D. C. 248, 734 F. 2d 1531 (1984). As an initial matter, the Court of Appeals determined that the appropriate level of scrutiny of a military regulation that clashes with a constitutional right is neither strict scrutiny nor rational basis. Id., at 252, 734 F. 2d, at 1535-1536. Instead, it held that a military regulation must be examined to determine whether “legitimate military ends are sought to be achieved,” id., at 253, 734 F. 2d, at 1536, and whether it is “designed to accommodate the individual right to an appropriate degree. ” Ibid. Applying this test, the court concluded that “the Air Force’s interest in uniformity renders the strict enforcement of its regulation permissible.” Id., at 257, 734 F. 2d, at 1540. The full Court of Appeals denied a petition for rehearing en banc, with three judges dissenting. 238 U. S. App. D. C. 267, 739 F. 2d 657 (1984).
Petitioner argues that AFR 35-10, as applied to him, prohibits religiously motivated conduct and should therefore be analyzed under the standard enunciated in Sherbert v. Vemer, 374 U. S. 398, 406 (1963). See also Thomas v. Review Bd. of Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707 (1981); Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205 (1972). But we have repeatedly held that “the military is, by necessity, a specialized society separate from civilian society.” Parker v. Levy, 417 U. S. 733, 743 (1974). See also Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U. S. 296, 300 (1983); Schlesinger v. Councilman, 420 U. S. 738, 757 (1975); Orloff v. Willoughby, 345 U. S. 83, 94 (1953). “[T]he military must insist upon a respect for duty and a discipline without counterpart in civilian life,” Schlesinger v. Councilman, supra, at 757, in order to prepare for and perform its vital role. See also Brown v. Glines, 444 U. S. 348, 354 (1980).
Our review of military regulations challenged on First Amendment grounds is far more deferential than constitutional review of similar laws or regulations designed for civilian society. The military need not encourage debate or tolerate protest to the extent that such tolerance is required of the civilian state by the First Amendment; to accomplish its mission the military must foster instinctive obedience, unity, commitment, and esprit de corps. See, e. g., Chappell v. Wallace, supra, at 300; Greer v. Spock, 424 U. S. 828, 843-844 (1976) (Powell, J., concurring); Parker v. Levy, supra, at 744. The essence of military service “is the subordination of the desires and interests of the individual to the needs of the service.” Orloff v. Willoughby, supra, at 92.
These aspects of military life do not, of course, render entirely nugatory in the military context the guarantees of the First Amendment. See, e. g., Chappell v. Wallace, supra, at 304. But “within the military community there is simply not the same [individual] autonomy as there is in the larger civilian community.” Parker v. Levy, supra, at 751. In the context of the present case, when evaluating whether military needs justify a particular restriction on religiously motivated conduct, courts must give great deference to the professional judgment of military authorities concerning the relative importance of a particular military interest. See Chappell v. Wallace, supra, at 305; Orloff v. Willoughby, supra, 93-94. Not only are courts “‘ill-equipped to determine the impact upon discipline that any particular intrusion upon military authority might have,’” Chappell v. Wallace, supra, at 305, quoting Warren, The Bill of Rights and the Military, 37 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 181, 187 (1962), but the military authorities have been charged by the Executive and Legislative Branches with carrying out our Nation’s military policy. “[J]udicial deference ... is at its apogee when legislative action under the congressional authority to raise and support armies and make rules and regulations for their governance is challenged.” Rostker v. Goldberg, 453 U. S. 57, 70 (1981).
The considered professional judgment of the Air Force is that the traditional outfitting of personnel in standardized uniforms encourages the subordination of personal preferences and identities in favor of the overall group mission. Uniforms encourage a sense of hierarchical unity by tending to eliminate outward individual distinctions except for those of rank. The Air Force considers them as vital during peacetime as during war because its personnel must be ready to provide an effective defense on a moment’s notice; the necessary habits of discipline and unity must be developed in advance of trouble. We have acknowledged that “[t]he inescapable demands of military discipline and obedience to orders cannot be taught on battlefields; the habit of immediate compliance with military procedures and orders must be virtually reflex wdth no time for debate or reflection.” Chappell v. Wallace, supra, at 300.
To this end, the Air Force promulgated AFR 35-10, a 190-page document, which states that “Air Force members will wear the Air Force uniform while performing their military duties, except when authorized to wear civilian clothes on duty.” AFR 35-10, ¶ 1-6 (1980). The rest of the document describes in minute detail all of the various items of apparel that must be worn as part of the Air Force uniform. It authorizes a few individualized options with respect to certain pieces of jewelry and hairstyle, but even these are subject to severe limitations. See AFR 35-10, Table 1-1, and ¶ l-12.b(l)(b) (1980). In general, authorized headgear may be worn only out of doors. See AFR 35-10, ¶ 1-6.h (1980). Indoors, “[hjeadgear [may] not be worn . . . except by armed security police in the performance of their duties.” AFR 35-10, ¶ 1-6.h(2)(f) (1980). A narrow exception to this rule exists for headgear worn during indoor religious ceremonies. See AFR 35-10, ¶ 1-6.h(2)(d) (1980). In addition, military commanders may in their discretion permit visible religious headgear and other such apparel in designated living quarters and nonvisible items generally. See Department, of Defense Directive 1300.17 (June 18, 1985).
Petitioner Goldman contends that the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment requires the Air Force to make an exception to its uniform dress requirements for religious apparel unless the accouterments create a “clear danger” of undermining discipline and esprit de corps. He asserts that in general, visible but “unobtrusive” apparel will not create such a danger and must therefore be accommodated. He argues that the Air Force failed to prove that a specific exception for his practice of wearing an unobtrusive yarmulke would threaten discipline. He contends that the Air Force’s assertion to the contrary is mere ipse dixit, with no support from actual experience or a scientific study in the record, and is contradicted by expert testimony that religious exceptions to AFR 35-10 are in fact desirable and will increase morale by making the Air Force a more humane place.
But whether or not expert witnesses may feel that religious exceptions to AFR 35-10 are desirable is quite beside the point. The desirability of dress regulations in the military is decided by the appropriate military officials, and they are under no constitutional mandate to abandon their considered professional judgment. Quite obviously, to the extent the regulations do not permit the wearing of religious apparel such as a yarmulke, a practice described by petitioner as silent devotion akin to prayer, military life may be more objectionable for petitioner and probably others. But the First Amendment does not require the military to accommodate such practices in the face of its view that they would detract from the uniformity sought by the dress regulations. The Air Force has drawn the line essentially between religious apparel that is visible and that which is not, and we hold that those portions of the regulations challenged here reasonably and evenhandedly regulate dress in the interest of the military’s perceived need for uniformity. The First Amendment therefore does not prohibit them from being applied to petitioner even though their effect is to restrict the wearing of the headgear required by his religious beliefs.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner Donald Fausner, a commercial airlines pilot, who regularly traveled by private automobile from his home to his place of employment and back again, a round trip of approximately 84 miles, sought to deduct the entire cost of commuting under § 162 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, on the theory that his automobile expenses were incurred to transport his flight bag and overnight bag and thus constituted ordinary and necessary business expenses. It is not disputed that petitioner would have commuted by private automobile regardless of whether he had to transport his two bags. The Tax Court disallowed the deduction in toto. On appeal, the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the decision of the Tax Court. 472 F. 2d 561.
This issue has been addressed by two other circuits, Sullivan v. Commissioner, 368 F. 2d 1007 (CA2 1966), and Tyne v. Commissioner, 385 F. 2d 40 (CA7 1967). Both of these circuits concluded that some allocable portion of the expenses incurred could be deducted as an ordinary and necessary business expense. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit refused to follow those cases on the ground that there was no rational basis for any allocation between the nondeductible commuting component and the deductible business component of the total expense.
As the Court of Appeals indicated, Congress has determined that all taxpayers shall bear the expense of commuting to and from work without receiving a deduction for that expense. We cannot read § 262 of the Internal Revenue Code as excluding such expense from “personal” expenses because by happenstance the taxpayer must carry incidentals of his occupation with him.' Additional expenses may at times be incurred for transporting job-required tools and material to and from work. Then an allocation of costs between “personal” and “business” expenses may be feasible. But no such allocation can be made here.
We grant the petition for certiorari and affirm the judgment below.
Mr. Justice Blackmun would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and set the case for oral argument.
“Except as otherwise expressly provided in this chapter, no deduction shall be allowed for personal, living, or family expenses.” 26 U. S. C. § 262.
See Rev. Rui. 63-100, 1963-1 Cum. Bull. 34.
Sec. 162 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U. S. C. §162 (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.
Chief Justice Rehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The State of Ohio has established a pilot program designed to provide educational choices to families with children who reside in the Cleveland City School District. The question presented is whether this program offends the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. We hold that it does not.
There are more than 75,000 children enrolled in the Cleveland City School District. The majority of these children are from low-income and minority families. Few of these families enjoy the means to send their children to any school other than an inner-city public school. For more than a generation, however, Cleveland’s public schools have been among the worst performing public schools in the Nation. In 1995, a Federal District Court declared a “crisis of magnitude” and placed the entire Cleveland school district under state control. See Reed v. Rhodes, No. 1:73 CV 1300 (ND Ohio, Mar. 3, 1995). Shortly thereafter, the state auditor found that Cleveland’s public schools were in the midst of a “crisis that is perhaps unprecedented in the history of American education.” Cleveland City School District Performance Audit 2-1 (Mar. 1996). The district had failed to meet any of the 18 state standards for minimal acceptable performance. Only 1 in 10 ninth graders could pass a basic proficiency examination, and students at all levels performed at a dismal rate compared with students in other Ohio public schools. More than two-thirds of high school students either dropped or failed out before graduation. Of those students who managed to reach their senior year, one of every four still failed to graduate. Of those students who did graduate, few could read, write, or compute at levels comparable to their counterparts in other cities.
It is against this backdrop that Ohio enacted, among other initiatives, its Pilot Project Scholarship Program, Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§3313.974-3313.979 (Anderson 1999 and Supp. 2000) (program). The program provides financial assistance to families in any Ohio school district that is or has been “under federal court order requiring supervision and operational management of the district by the state superintendent.” § 3313.975(A). Cleveland is the only Ohio school district to fall within that category.
The program provides two basic kinds of assistance to parents of children in a covered district. First, the program provides tuition aid for students in kindergarten through third grade, expanding each year through eighth grade, to attend a participating public or private school of their parent’s choosing. §§ 3313.975(B) and (C)(1). Second, the program provides tutorial aid for students who choose to remain enrolled in public school. § 3313.975(A).
The tuition aid portion of the program is designed to provide educational choices to parents who reside in a covered district. Any private school, whether religious or nonreligious, may participate in the program and accept program students so long as the school is located within the boundaries of a covered district and meets statewide educational standards. § 313.976(A)(3). Participating private schools must agree not to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or ethnic background, or to “advocate or foster unlawful behavior or teach hatred of any person or group on the basis of race, ethnicity, national origin, or religion.” § 3313.976(A)(6). Any public school located in a school district adjacent to the covered district may also participate in the program. § 3313.976(C). Adjacent public schools are eligible to receive a $2,250 tuition grant for each program student accepted in addition to the full amount of per-pupil state funding attributable to each additional student. §§ 3313.976(C), 3317.0B(I)(1). All participating schools, whether public or private, are required to accept students in accordance with rules and procedures established by the state superintendent. §§3313.977(A)(l)(a)-(c).
Tuition aid is distributed to parents according to financial need. Families with incomes below 200% of the poverty line are given priority and are eligible to receive 90% of private school tuition up to $2,250. §§ 3313.978(A) and (C)(1). For these lowest income families, participating private schools may not charge a parental copayment greater than $250. §3313.976(A)(8). For all other families, the program pays 75% of tuition costs, up to $1,875, with no copayment cap. §§ 3313.976(A)(8), 3313.978(A). These families receive tuition aid only if the number of available scholarships exceeds the number of low-income children who choose to participate. Where tuition aid is spent depends solely upon where parents who receive tuition aid choose to enroll their child. If parents choose a private school, checks are made payable to the parents who then endorse the checks over to the chosen school. § 3313.979.
The tutorial aid portion of the program provides tutorial assistance through grants to any student in a covered district who chooses to remain in public school. Parents arrange for registered tutors to provide assistance to their children and then submit bills for those services to the State for payment. §§ 3313.976(D), 3313.979(C). Students from low-income families receive 90% of the amount charged for such assistance up to $360. All other students receive 75% of that amount. § 3313.978(B). The number of tutorial assistance grants offered to students in a covered district must equal the number of tuition aid scholarships provided to students enrolled at participating private or adjacent public schools. § 3313.975(A).
The program has been in operation within the Cleveland City School District since the 1996-1997 school year. In the 1999-2000 school year, 56 private schools participated in the program, 46 (or 82%) of which had a religious affiliation. None of the public schools in districts adjacent to Cleveland have elected to participate. More than 3,700 students participated in the scholarship program, most of whom (96%) enrolled in religiously affiliated schools. Sixty percent of these students were from families at or below the poverty line. In the 1998-1999 school year, approximately 1,400 Cleveland public school students received tutorial aid. This number was expected to double during the 1999-2000 school year.
The program is part of a broader undertaking by the State to enhance the educational options of Cleveland’s schoolchildren in response to the 1995 takeover. That undertaking includes programs governing community and magnet schools. Community schools are funded under state law but are run by their own school boards, not by local school districts. §§ 3314.01(B), 3314.04. These schools enjoy academic independence to hire their own teachers and to determine their own curriculum. They can have no religious affiliation and are required to accept students by lottery. During the 1999-2000 school year, there were 10 startup community schools in the Cleveland City School District with more than 1,900 students enrolled. For each child enrolled in a community school, the school receives state funding of $4,518, twice the funding a participating program school may receive.
Magnet schools are public schools operated by a local school board that emphasize a particular subject area, teaching method, or service to students. For each student enrolled in a magnet school, the school district receives $7,746, including state funding of $4,167, the same amount received per student enrolled at a traditional public school. As of 1999, parents in Cleveland were able to choose from among 23 magnet schools, which together enrolled more than 13,000 students in kindergarten through eighth grade. These schools provide specialized teaching methods, such as Montessori, or a particularized curriculum focus, such as foreign language, computers, or the arts.
In 1996, respondents, a group of Ohio taxpayers, challenged the Ohio program in state court on state and federal grounds. The Ohio Supreme Court rejected respondents’ federal claims, but held that the enactment of the program violated certain procedural requirements of the Ohio Constitution. Simmons-Harris v. Goff, 86 Ohio St. 3d 1, 8-9, 711 N. E. 2d 203, 211 (1999). The state legislature immediately cured this defect, leaving the basic provisions discussed above intact.
In July 1999, respondents filed this action in United States District Court, seeking to enjoin the reenacted program on the ground that it violated the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution. In August 1999, the District Court issued a preliminary injunction barring further implementation of the program, 54 F. Supp. 2d 725 (ND Ohio), which we stayed pending review by the Court of Appeals, 528 U. S. 983 (1999). In December 1999, the District Court granted summary judgment for respondents. 72 F. Supp. 2d 834. In December 2000, a divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court, finding that the program had the “primary effect” of advancing religion in violation of the Establishment Clause. 234 F. 3d 945 (CA6). The Court of Appeals stayed its mandate pending disposition in this Court. App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 00-1779, p. 151. We granted certiorari, 533 U. S. 976 (2001), and now reverse the Court of Appeals.
The Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, prevents a State from enacting laws that have the “purpose” or “effect” of advancing or inhibiting religion. Agostini v. Felton, 521 U. S. 203, 222-223 (1997) (“[W]e continue to ask whether the government acted with the purpose of advancing or inhibiting religion [and] whether the aid has the ‘effect’ of advancing or inhibiting religion” (citations omitted)). There is no dispute that the program challenged here was enacted for the valid secular purpose of providing educational assistance to poor children in a demonstrably failing public school system. Thus, the question presented is whether the Ohio program nonetheless has the forbidden “effect” of advancing or inhibiting religion.
To answer that question, our decisions have drawn a consistent distinction between government programs that provide aid directly to religious schools, Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U. S. 793, 810-814 (2000) (plurality opinion); id., at 841-844 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment); Agostini, supra, at 225-227; Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of Univ. of Va., 515 U. S. 819, 842 (1995) (collecting cases), and programs of true private choice, in which government aid reaches religious schools only as a result of the genuine and independent choices of private individuals, Mueller v. Allen, 463 U. S. 388 (1983); Witters v. Washington Dept. of Servs. for Blind, 474 U. S. 481 (1986); Zobrest v. Catalina Foothills School Dist., 509 U. S. 1 (1993). While our jurisprudence with respect to the constitutionality of direct aid programs has “changed significantly” over the past two decades, Agostini, supra, at 236, our jurisprudence with respect to true private choice programs has remained consistent and unbroken. Three times we have confronted Establishment Clause challenges to neutral government programs that provide aid directly to a broad class of individuals, who, in turn, direct the aid to religious schools or institutions of their own choosing. Three times we have rejected such challenges.
In Mueller, we rejected an Establishment Clause challenge to a Minnesota program authorizing tax deductions for various educational expenses, including private school tuition costs, even though the great majority of the program’s beneficiaries (96%) were parents of children in religious schools. We began by focusing on the class of beneficiaries, finding that because the class included “all parents,” including parents with “children [who] attend nonsectarian private schools or sectarian private schools,” 463 U. S., at 397 (emphasis in original), the program was “not readily subject to challenge under the Establishment Clause,” id., at 399 (citing Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U. S. 263, 274 (1981) (“The provision of benefits to so broad a spectrum of groups is an important index of secular effect”)). Then, viewing the program as a whole, we emphasized the principle of private choice, noting that public funds were made available to religious schools “only as a result of numerous, private choices of individual parents of school-age children.” 463 U. S., at 399-400. This, we said, ensured that “no ‘imprimatur of state approval’ can be deemed to have been conferred on any particular religion, or on religion generally.” Id., at 399 (quoting Widmar, supra, at 274)). We thus found it irrelevant to the constitutional inquiry that the vast majority of beneficiaries were parents of children in religious schools, saying:
“We would be loath to adopt a rule grounding the constitutionality of a facially neutral law on annual reports reciting the extent to which various classes of private citizens claimed benefits under the law.” 463 U. S., at 401.
That the program was one of true private choice, with no evidence that the State deliberately skewed incentives toward religious schools, was sufficient for the program to survive scrutiny under the Establishment Clause.
In Witters, we used identical reasoning to reject an Establishment Clause challenge to a vocational scholarship program that provided tuition aid to a student studying at a religious institution to become a pastor. Looking at the program as a whole, we observed that “[a]ny aid... that ultimately flows to religious institutions does so only as a result of the genuinely independent and private choices of aid recipients.” 474 U. S., at 487. We further remarked that, as in Mueller, “[the] program is made available generally without regard to the sectarian-nonsectarian, or public-nonpublic nature of the institution benefited.” 474 U. S., at 487 (internal quotation marks omitted). In light of these factors, we held that the program was not inconsistent with the Establishment Clause. Id., at 488-489.
Five Members of the Court, in separate opinions, emphasized the general rule from Mueller that the amount of government aid channeled to religious institutions "by individual aid recipients was not relevant to the constitutional inquiry. 474 U. S., at 490-491 (Powell, J., joined by Burger, C. J., and Rehnquist, J., concurring) (citing Mueller, supra, at 398-399); 474 U. S., at 493 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); id., at 490 (White, J., concurring). Our holding thus rested not on whether few or many recipients chose to expend government aid at a religious school but, rather, on whether recipients generally were empowered to direct the aid to schools or institutions of their own choosing.
Finally, in Zobrest, we applied Mueller and Witters to reject an Establishment Clause challenge to a federal program that permitted sign-language interpreters to assist deaf children enrolled in religious schools. Reviewing our earlier decisions, we stated that “government programs that neutrally provide benefits to a broad class of citizens defined without reference to religion are not readily subject to an Establishment Clause challenge.” 509 U. S., at 8. Looking once again to the challenged program as a whole, we observed that the program “distributes benefits neutrally to any child qualifying as ‘disabled.’ ” Id., at 10. Its “primary beneficiaries,” we said, were “disabled children, not sectarian schools.” Id., at 12.
We further observed that “[b]y according parents freedom to select a school of their choice, the statute ensures that a government-paid interpreter will be present in a sectarian school only as a result of the private decision of individual parents.” Id., at 10. Our focus again was on neutrality and the principle of private choice, not on the number of program beneficiaries attending religious schools. Id., at 10-11. See, e. g., Agostini, 521 U. S., at 229 (“Zobrest did not turn on the fact that James Zobrest had, at the time of litigation, been the only child using a publicly funded sign-language interpreter to attend a parochial school”). Because the program ensured that parents were the ones to select a religious school as the best learning environment for their handicapped child, the circuit between government and religion was broken, and the Establishment Clause was not implicated.
Mueller, Witters, and Zobrest thus make clear that where a government aid program is neutral with respect to religion, and provides assistance directly to a broad class of citizens who, in turn, direct government aid to religious schools wholly as a result of their own genuine and independent private choice, the program is not readily subject to challenge under the Establishment Clause. A program that shares these features permits government aid to reach religious institutions only by way of the deliberate choices of numerous individual recipients. The incidental advancement of a religious mission, or the perceived endorsement of a religious message, is reasonably attributable to the individual recipient, not to the government, whose role ends with the disbursement of benefits. As a plurality of this Court recently observed:
“[I]f numerous private choices, rather than the single choice of a government, determine the distribution of aid, pursuant to neutral eligibility criteria, then a government cannot, or at least cannot easily, grant special favors that might lead to a religious establishment.” Mitchell, 530 U. S., at 810.
See also id., at 843 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment) (“[W]hen government aid supports a school’s religious mission only because of independent decisions made by numerous individuals to guide their secular aid to that school, ‘no reasonable observer is likely to draw from the facts... an inference that the State itself is endorsing a religious practice or belief’ ” (quoting Witters, 474 U. S., at 493 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment))). It is precisely for these reasons that we have never found a program of true private choice to offend the Establishment Clause.
We believe that the program challenged here is a program of true private choice, consistent with Mueller, Witters, and Zobrest, and thus constitutional. As was true in those cases, the Ohio program is neutral in all respects toward religion. It is part of a general and multifaceted undertaking by the State of Ohio to provide educational opportunities to the children of a failed school district. It confers educational assistance directly to a broad class of individuals defined without reference to religion, i. e., any parent of a school-age child who resides in the Cleveland City School District. The program permits the participation of all schools within the district, religious or nonreligious. Adjacent public schools also may participate and have a financial incentive to do so. Program benefits are available to participating families on neutral terms, with no reference to religion. The only preference stated anywhere in the program is a preference for low-income families, who receive greater assistance and are given priority for admission at participating schools.
There are no “financial incentive[s]” that “ske[w]” the program toward religious schools. Witters, supra, at 487-488. Such incentives “[are] not present... where the aid is allocated on the basis of neutral, secular criteria that neither favor nor disfavor religion, and is made available to both religious and secular beneficiaries on a nondiscriminatory basis.” Agostini, supra, at 231. The program here in fact creates financial disincentives for religious schools, with private schools receiving only half the government assistance given to community schools and one-third the assistance given to magnet schools. Adjacent public schools, should any choose to accept program students, are also eligible to receive two to three times the state funding of a private religious school. Families too have a financial disincentive to choose a private religious school over other schools. Parents that choose to participate in the scholarship program and then to enroll their children in a private school (religious or nonreligious) must copay a portion of the school’s tuition. Families that choose a community school, magnet school, or traditional public school pay nothing. Although such features of the program are not necessary to its constitutionality, they clearly dispel the claim that the program “creates... financial incentive[s] for parents to choose a sectarian school.” Zobrest, 509 U. S., at 10.
Respondents suggest that even without a financial incentive for parents to choose a religious school, the program creates a “public perception that the State is endorsing religious practices and beliefs.” Brief for Respondents Simmons-Harris et al. 37-38. But we have repeatedly recognized that no reasonable observer would think a neutral program of private choice, where state aid reaches religious schools solely as a result of the numerous independent decisions of private individuals, carries with it the imprimatur of government endorsement. Mueller, 463 U. S., at 399; Witters, supra, at 488-489; Zobrest, supra, at 10-11; e.g., Mitchell, supra, at 842-843 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment) (“In terms of public perception, a government program of direct aid to religious schools... differs meaningfully from the government distributing aid directly to individual students who, in turn, decide to use the aid at the same religious schools”). The argument is particularly misplaced here since “the reasonable observer in the endorsement inquiry must be deemed aware” of the “history and context” underlying a challenged program. Good News Club v. Milford Central School, 533 U. S. 98, 119 (2001) (internal quotation marks omitted). See also Capitol Square Review and Advisory Bd. v. Pinette, 515 U. S. 753, 780 (1995) (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Any objective observer familiar with the full history and context of the Ohio program would reasonably view it as one aspect of a broader undertaking to assist poor children in failed schools, not as an endorsement of religious schooling in general.
There also is no evidence that the program fails to provide genuine opportunities for Cleveland parents to select secular educational options for their school-age children. Cleveland schoolchildren enjoy a range of educational choices: They may remain in public school as before, remain in public school with publicly funded tutoring aid, obtain a scholarship and choose a religious school, obtain a scholarship and choose a nonreligious private school, enroll in a community school, or enroll in a magnet school. That 46 of the 56 private schools now participating in the program are religious schools does not condemn it as a violation of the Establishment Clause. The Establishment Clause question is whether Ohio is coercing parents into sending their children to religious schools, and that question must be answered by evaluating all options Ohio provides Cleveland schoolchildren, only one of which is to obtain a program scholarship and then choose a religious school.
Justice Souter speculates that because more private religious schools currently participate in the program, the program itself must somehow discourage the participation of private nonreligious schools. Post, at 70S-705 (dissenting opinion). But Cleveland’s preponderance of religiously affiliated private schools certainly did not arise as a result of the program; it is a phenomenon common to many American cities. See U. S. Dept, of Ed., National Center for Education Statistics, Private School Universe Survey: 1999-2000, pp. 2-4 (NCES 2001-330, 2001) (hereinafter Private School Universe Survey) (cited in Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 24). Indeed, by all accounts the program has captured a remarkable cross-section of private schools, religious and nonreligious. It is true that 82% of Cleveland’s participating private schools are religious schools, but it is also true that 81% of private schools in Ohio are religious • schools. See Brief for State of Florida et al. as Amici Curiae 16 (citing Private School Universe Survey). To attribute constitutional significance to this figure, moreover, would lead to the absurd result that a neutral school-choice program might be permissible in some parts of Ohio, such as Columbus, where a lower percentage of private schools are religious schools, see Ohio Educational Directory (Lodging of Respondents Gatton et al., available in Clerk of Court’s case file), and Reply Brief for Petitioners in No. 00-1751, p. 12, n. 1, but not in inner-city Cleveland, where Ohio has deemed such programs most sorely needed, but where the preponderance of religious schools happens to be greater. Cf. Brief for State of Florida et al. as Amici Curiae 17 (“[T]he percentages of sectarian to nonsectarian private schools within Florida’s 67 school districts... vary from zero to 100 percent”). Likewise, an identical private choice program might be constitutional in some States, such as Maine or Utah, where less than 45% of private schools are religious schools, but not in other States, such as Nebraska or Kansas, where over 90% of private schools are religious schools. Id., at 15-16 (citing Private School Universe Survey).
Respondents and Justice Souter claim that even if we do not focus on the number of participating schools that are religious schools, we should attach constitutional significance to the fact that 96% of scholarship recipients have enrolled in religious schools. They claim that this alone proves parents lack genuine choice, even if no parent has ever said so. We need not consider this argument in detail, since it was flatly rejected in Mueller, where we found it irrelevant that 96% of parents taking deductions for tuition expenses paid tuition at religious schools. Indeed, we have recently found it irrelevant even to the constitutionality of a direct aid program that a vast majority of program benefits went to religious schools. See Agostini, 521 U. S., at 229 (“Nor are we willing to conclude that the constitutionality of an aid program depends on the number of sectarian school students who happen to receive the otherwise neutral aid” (citing Mueller, 463 U. S., at 401)); see also Mitchell, 530 U. S., at 812, n. 6 (plurality opinion) (“[Agostini] held that the proportion of aid benefiting students at religious schools pursuant to a neutral program involving private choices was irrelevant to the constitutional inquiry”); id., at 848 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment) (same) (quoting Agostini, supra, at 229). The constitutionality of a neutral educational aid program simply does not turn on whether and why, in a particular area, at a particular time, most private schools are run by religious organizations, or most recipients choose to use the aid at a religious school. As we said in Mueller, “[s]uch an approach would scarcely provide the certainty that this field stands in need of, nor can we perceive principled standards by which such statistical evidence might be evaluated.” 463 U. S., at 401.
This point is aptly illustrated here. The 96% figure upon which respondents and Justice Souter rely discounts entirely (1) the more than 1,900 Cleveland children enrolled in alternative community schools, (2) the more than 13,000 children enrolled in alternative magnet schools, and (3) the more than 1,400 children enrolled in traditional public schools with tutorial assistance. See supra, at 647-648. Including some or all of these children in the denominator of children enrolled in nontraditional schools during the 1999-2000 school year drops the percentage enrolled in religious schools from 96% to under 20%. See also J. Greene, The Racial, Economic, and Religious Context of Parental Choice in Cleveland 11, Table 4 (Oct. 8,1999), App. 217a (reporting that only 16.5% of nontraditional schoolchildren in Cleveland choose religious schools). The 96% figure also represents but a snapshot of one particular school year. In the 1997-1998 school year, by contrast, only 78% of scholarship recipients attended religious schools. See App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 00-1751, p. 5a. The difference was attributable to two private nonreligious, schools that had accepted 15% of all scholarship students electing instead to register as community schools, in light of larger per-pupil funding for community schools and the uncertain future of the scholarship program generated by this litigation. See App. 59a-62a, 209a, 223a-227a. Many of the students enrolled in these schools as scholarship students remained enrolled as community school students, id., at 145a-146a, thus demonstrating the arbitrariness of counting one type of school but not the other to assess primary effect, e. g., Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §3314.11 (Anderson 1999) (establishing a single “office of school options” to “provide services that facilitate the management of the community schools program and the pilot project scholarship program”). In spite of repeated questioning from the Court at oral argument, respondents offered no convincing justification for their approach, which relies entirely on such arbitrary classifications. Tr. of Oral Arg. 52-60.
Respondents finally claim that we should look to Committee for Public Ed. & Religious Liberty v. Nyquist, 413 U. S. 756 (1973), to decide these cases. We disagree for two reasons. First, the program in Nyquist was quite different from the program challenged here. Nyquist involved a New York program that gave a package of benefits exclusively to private schools and the parents of private school enroll-ees. Although the program was enacted for ostensibly secular purposes, id., at 773-774, we found that its “function” was “unmistakably to provide desired financial support for nonpublic, sectarian institutions,” id., at 783 (emphasis added). Its genesis, we said, was that private religious schools faced “increasingly grave fiscal problems.” Id., at 795. The program thus provided direct money grants to religious schools. Id., at 762-764. It provided tax benefits “unrelated to the amount of money actually expended by any parent on tuition,” ensuring a windfall, to parents of children in religious schools. Id., at 790. It similarly provided tuition reimbursements designed explicitly to “offe[r]... an incentive to parents to send their children to sectarian schools.” Id., at 786. Indeed, the program flatly prohibited the participation of any public school, or parent of any public school enrollee. Id., at 763-765. Ohio’s program shares none of these features.
Second, were there any doubt that the program challenged in Nyquist is far removed from the program challenged here, we expressly reserved judgment with respect to “a case involving some form of public assistance ie.g., scholarships) made available generally without regard to the sectarian-nonsectarian, or public-nonpublic nature of the institution benefited.” Id., at 782-783, n. 38. That, of course, is the very question now before us, and it has since been answered, first in Mueller, 463 U. S., at 398-399 (“[A] program... that neutrally provides state assistance to a broad spectrum of citizens is not readily subject to challenge under the Establishment Clause” (citing Nyquist, supra, at 782-783, n. 38)), then in Witters, 474 U. S., at 487 (“Washington’s program is ‘made available generally without regard to the sectarian-nonsectarian, or public-nonpublic nature of the institution benefited’ ” (quoting Nyquist, supra, at 782-783, n. 38)), and again in Zobrest, 509 U. S., at 12-13 (“[T]he function of the [program] is hardly ‘to provide desired financial support for nonpublic, sectarian institutions’” (quoting Nyquist, supra, at 782-783, n. 38)). To the extent the scope of Nyquist has remained an open question in light of these later decisions, we now hold that Nyquist does not govern neutral educational assistance programs that, like the program here, offer aid directly to a broad class of individual recipients defined without regard to religion.
In sum, the Ohio program is entirely neutral with respect to religion. It provides benefits directly to a wide spectrum of individuals, defined only by financial need and residence in a particular school district. It permits such individuals to exercise genuine choice among options public and private, secular and religious. The program is therefore a program of true private choice. In keeping with an unbroken line of decisions rejecting challenges to similar programs, we hold that the program does not offend the Establishment Clause.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Although the parties dispute the precise amount of state funding received by suburban school districts adjacent to the Cleveland City School District, there is no dispute that any suburban district agreeing to participate in the program would receive a $2,250 tuition grant plus the ordinary allotment of per-pupil state funding for each program student enrolled in a suburban public school. See Brief for Respondents Simmons-Harris et al. 30, n. 11 (suburban schools would receive “on average, approximately, $4,750” per program student); Brief for Petitioners in No. 00-1779, p. 39 (suburban schools would receive “about $6,544” per program student).
The number of available scholarships per covered district is determined annually by the Ohio Superintendent for Public Instruction. §§ 3313.978(A)-(B).
Justice Souter suggests the program is not “neutral” because program students cannot spend scholarship vouchers at traditional public schools. Post, at 697-698 (dissenting opinion). This objection is mistaken: Public schools in Cleveland already receive $7,097 in public funding per pupil — $4,167 of which is attributable to the State. App. 56a. Program students who receive tutoring aid and remain enrolled in traditional public schools therefore direct almost twice as much state funding to their chosen school as do program students who receive a scholarship and attend a private school. Ibid. Justice Souter does not seriously claim that the program differentiates based on the religious status of beneficiaries or providers of services, the touchstone of neutrality under the Establishment Clause. Mitchell v. Helms, 530 U. S. 793, 809 (2000) (plurality opinion); id., at 838 (O'Connor, J., concurring in judgment).
Justice Soutee appears to base this claim on the unfounded assumption that capping the amount of tuition charged to low-income students (at $2,500) favors participation by religious schools. Post, at 704-705 (dissenting opinion). But elsewhere he claims that the program spends too much money on private schools and chides the state legislature for even proposing to raise the scholarship amount for low-income recipients. Post, at 697-698, 710-711, 714-715. His assumption also finds no support in the record, which shows that nonreligious private schools operating in Cleveland also seek and receive substantial third-party contributions. App. 194a-195a; App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 00-1777, p. 119a. Indeed, the actual operation of the program refutes Justice Souter’s argument that few but religious schools can afford to participate: Ten secular private schools operated within the Cleveland City School District when the program was adopted. Reply Brief for Petitioners in No. 00-1777, p. 4 (citing Ohio Educational Directory, 1999-2000 School Year, Alphabetic List of Nonpublic Schools, Ohio Dept, of Ed.). All 10 chose to participate in the program and have continued to participate to this day. App. 281a- 286a. And while no religious schools have been created in response
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue presented is whether the sale of pharmaceutical products to state and local government hospitals for resale in competition with private retail pharmacies is exempt from the proscriptions of the Robinson-Patman Act.
) — I
Petitioner, a trade association of retail pharmacists and pharmacies doing business in Jefferson County, Alabama, commenced this action in 1978 in the District Court for the Northern District of Alabama as the assignee of its members’ claims. Respondents are 15 pharmaceutical manufacturers, the Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama, and the Cooper Green Hospital Pharmacy. The University operates a medical center, including hospitals, and a medical school. Located in the University’s medical center are two pharmacies. Cooper Green Hospital is a county hospital, existing as a public corporation under Alabama law.
The complaint seeks treble damages and injunctive relief under §§4 and 16 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 731, 737, 15 U. S. C. §§ 15 and 26, for alleged violations of §§ 2(a) and (f) of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 730, as amended by the Robinson-Patman Act (Act), 49 Stat. 1526, 15 U. S. C. §§ 13(a) and (f). Petitioner contends that the respondent manufacturers violated § 2(a) by selling their products to the University’s two pharmacies and to Cooper Green Hospital Pharmacy at prices lower than those charged petitioner’s members for like products. Petitioner alleges that the respondent hospital pharmacies knowingly induced such lower prices in violation of § 2(f) and sold the drugs to the general public in direct competition with privately owned pharmacies. Petitioner also alleges that the price discrimination is not exempted from the proscriptions of the Act by 15 U. S. C. § 13c.
Respondents moved to dismiss the complaint on the ground that state purchases are exempt as a matter of law from the sanctions of § 2. In granting respondents’ motions, the District Court expressly accepted as true the allegations that local retail pharmacies had been injured by the challenged price discrimination and that at least some of the state purchases were not exempt under § 13c. 656 F. 2d 92, 98 (CA5 1981) (reprinting District Court’s opinion as Appendix). The District Court held that “governmental purchases are, without regard to 15 U. S. C. § 13c, beyond the intended reach of the Robinson-Patman Price Discrimination Act, at least with respect to purchases for hospitals and other traditional governmental purposes.” Id., at 102. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, in a divided per curiam decision, affirmed “on the basis of the district court’s Memorandum of Opinion.” Id., at 93.
We granted certiorari to resolve this important question of federal law. 455 U. S. 999 (1982). We now reverse.
The issue here is narrow. We are not concerned with sales to the Federal Government, nor with state purchases for use in traditional governmental functions. Rather, the issue before us is limited to state purchases for the purpose of competing against private enterprise — with the advantage of discriminatory prices — in the retail market.
The courts below held, and respondents contend, that the Act exempts all state purchases. Assuming, without deciding, that Congress did not intend the Act to apply to state purchases for consumption in traditional governmental functions, and that such purchases are therefore exempt, we conclude that the exemption does not apply where a State has chosen to compete in the private retail market.
i — f h — i b — i
The Robinson-Patman Act by its terms does not exempt state purchases. The only express exemption is that for nonprofit institutions contained in 15 U. S. C. § 13c. Moreover, as the courts below conceded, “[t]he statutory language — ‘persons’ and ‘purchasers’ — is sufficiently broad to cover governmental bodies. 15 U. S. C. §§12, 13(a, f).” 656 F. 2d, at 99. This concession was compelled by several of this Court’s decisions. In City of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., 435 U. S. 389, 395 (1978), for example, we stated without qualification that “the definition of ‘person’ or ‘persons’ embraces both cities and States.”
Respondents would distinguish City of Lafayette from the case before us because it involved the Sherman Act rather than the Robinson-Patman Act. Such a distinction ignores the specific reference to the Robinson-Patman Act in our discussion of the all-inclusive nature of the term “person.” Id., at 397, n. 14. We do not perceive any reason to construe the word “person” in that Act any differently than we have in the Clayton Act, which it amends, and it is undisputed that the Clayton Act applies to States. See Hawaii v. Standard Oil Co., 405 U. S. 251, 260-261 (1972). In sum, the plain language of the Act strongly suggests that there is no exemption for state purchases to compete with private enterprise.
>
The plain language of the Act is controlling unless a different legislative intent is apparent from the purpose and history of the Act. An examination of the legislative purpose and history here reveals no such contrary intention.
A
Our eases have been explicit in stating the purposes of the antitrust laws, including the Robinson-Patman Act. On numerous occasions, this Court has affirmed the comprehensive coverage of the antitrust laws and has recognized that these laws represent “a carefully studied attempt to bring within [them] every person engaged in business whose activities might restrain or monopolize commercial intercourse among the states.” United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Assn., 322 U. S. 533, 553 (1944). In Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U. S. 773 (1975), the Court observed that “our cases have repeatedly established that there is a heavy presumption against implicit exemptions” from the antitrust laws. Id., at 787 (citing United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U. S. 321, 350-351 (1963); California v. FPC, 369 U. S. 482, 485 (1962)). In City of Lafayette, supra, applying antitrust laws to a city in competition with a private utility, we held that no exemption for local governments would be implied. The Court emphasized the purposes and scope of the antitrust laws: “[T]he economic choices made by public corporations..., designed as they are to assure maximum benefits for the community constituency, are not inherently more likely to comport with the broader interests of national economic well-being than are those of private corporations, acting in furtherance of the interests of the organization and its shareholders.” 435 U. S., at 403. See also id., at 408.
These principles, and the purposes they further, have been helpful in interpreting the language of the Robinson-Patman Act. As Justice Blackmun stated for the Court in Abbott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists Assn., Inc., 425 U. S. 1, 11-12 (1976):
“It has been said, of course, that the antitrust laws, and Robinson-Patman in particular, are to be construed liberally, and that the exceptions from their application are to be construed strictly. United States v. McKesson & Robbins, 351 U. S. 305, 316 (1956); FMC v. Seatrain Lines, Inc., 411 U. S. 726, 733 (1973); Perkins v. Standard Oil Co., 395 U. S. 642, 646-647 (1969). The Court has recognized, also, that Robinson-Patman ‘was enacted in 1936 to curb and prohibit all devices by which large buyers gained discriminatory preferences over smaller ones by virtue of their greater purchasing power.’ FTC v. Broch & Co., 363 U. S. 166, 168 (1960); FTC v. Fred Meyer, Inc., 390 U. S. 341, 349 (1968). Because the Act is remedial, it is to be construed broadly to effectuate its purposes. See Tcherepnin v. Knight, 389 U. S. 332, 336 (1967); Peyton v. Rowe, 391 U. S. 54, 65(1968).”
B
The legislative history falls far short of supporting respondents’ contention that there is an exemption for state purchases of “commodities” for “resale.” There is nothing whatever in the Senate or House Committee Reports, or in the floor debates, focusing on the issue. Some Members of Congress were aware of the possibility that the Act would apply to governmental purchases. Most Members, however, were concerned not with state purchases, but with possible limitations on the Federal Government. The most relevant legislative history is the testimony of the Act’s principal draftsman, H. B. Teegarden, before the House Judiciary Committee. Although the testimony is ambiguous on the application of the Act to state purchases for consumption, one conclusion is certain: Teegarden expressly stated that the Act would apply to the purchases of municipal hospitals in at least some circumstances. Thus, his comments directly contradict the exemption found by the courts below for all such purchasing. In the absence of any other relevant evi-
dence, we find no legislative intention to enable a State, by an unexpressed exemption, to enter private competitive markets with congressionally approved price advantages.
V
Despite the plain language of the Act and its legislative history, respondents nevertheless argue that subsequent legislative events and decisions of District Courts confirm that state purchases are outside the scope of the Act. We turn therefore to these subsequent events.
A
Respondents cite the hearings on the Robinson-Patman Act held in the late 1960’s. Testimony before the House Subcommittee investigating practices in the pharmaceutical industry indicated that the Act did not cover price discrimination in favor of state hospitals, and Federal Trade Commission Chairman Paul Dixon disclaimed any authority over transactions involving state health care programs. It is not at all clear, however, whether Chairman Dixon contemplated cases in which the state agency competed with private retailers, although he was aware of such practices by institutional purchasers. Other statements expressed little more than informed, interested opinions on the issue presented, and are not entitled to the consideration appropriate for the constructions given contemporaneously with the Act’s passage. See supra, at 159-162, and n. 22.
It is clear from the House Subcommittee’s conclusions that it did not focus on the question presented by this case. The Subcommittee found that the difference between drug prices for retailers and government customers “is extremely substantial” and “not always fully explainable by either cost justifiable quantity discounts, economies of scale, or other factors inherent in bulk distribution.” H. R. Rep. No. 1983, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 77 (1968). In the next conclusion, it stated that “[n]umerous acts and policies of individual manufacturers seem... violative of the Robinson-Patman Act... Ibid. Thus, it is quite possible that the Subcommittee considered some state purchasing at discriminatory-prices — about which it had heard testimony — to be unlawful. The Subcommittee Report did include the awkwardly worded statement: “There is no basis apparent... why the mandate of the Robinson-Patman Act should not be applied to discriminatory drug sales favoring nongovernmental institutional purchasers, profit or nonprofit, to the extent there is prescription drug competition at the retail level with disfavored retail druggists.” Id., at 79. This unexceptional opinion, however, simply says that private institutional purchases may not facilitate unfair retail competition through sales at discriminatory prices. The Subcommittee said nothing expressly about the unfair competition at issue in this case.
B
Respondents also argue that, without exception, courts considering the Act’s coverage have concluded that it does not apply to government purchasers. They insist that no court has imposed liability upon a seller or buyer, under either §2(a) or §2(f), when the discriminatory price involved a sale to a State, city, or county. See Brief for Respondent Board of Trustees 31-32. There are serious infirmities in these broad assertions: (i) this Court has never held nor suggested that there is an exemption for state purchases; (ii) the number of judicial decisions even considering the Act’s application to purchases by state agencies is relatively small; (iii) respondents cite no Court of Appeals decision that has expressly adopted their interpretation of § 2 before the decision below; (iv) some of the District Court cases upon which respondents rely are simply inapposite; (v) it is not clear that any published District Court opinion has relied solely on a state purchase exemption to dismiss a Robinson-Patman Act claim alleging injury as a result of government competition in the private market; and (vi) there are several cases that suggest that the Robinson-Patman Act is applicable to state purchases for resale purposes. This judicial track record is in no sense comparable to the unbroken chain of judical decisions upon which this Court previously has relied for ascertaining a construction of the antitrust laws that Congress over a long period of time has chosen to preserve. See cases cited, n. 27, supra.
Respondents also seek support in the interpretations of various commentators and executive officials. But the most authoritative of these sources indicate that the question presented is unsettled; others are not necessarily inconsistent with our holding; and in some cases they support it. Thus, Congress cannot be said to have left untouched a universally held interpretation of the Act.
In sum, it is clear that postenactment developments— whether legislative, judicial, or in commentary — rarely have considered the specific issue before us. There is simply no unambiguous evidence of congressional intent to exempt purchases by a State for the purpose of competing in the private retail market with a price advantage.
I — I >
The Robinson-Patman Act has been widely criticized, both for its effects and for the policies that it seeks to promote. Although Congress is well aware of these criticisms, the Act has remained in effect for almost half a century. And it certainly is “not for [this Court] to indulge in the business of policy-making in the field of antitrust legislation.... Our function ends with the endeavor to ascertain from the words used, construed in the light of the relevant material, what was in fact the intent of Congress.” United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U. S. 600, 606 (1941).
“A general application of the [Robinson-Patman] Act to all combinations of business and capital organized to suppress commercial competition is in harmony with the spirit and impulses of the times which gave it birth.” South-Eastern Underwriters, 322 U. S., at 553. The legislative history is replete with references to the economic evil of large organizations purchasing from other large organizations for resale in competition with the small, local retailers. There is no reason, in the absence of an explicit exemption, to think that Congressmen who feared these evils intended to deny small businesses, such as the pharmacies of Jefferson County, Alabama, protection from the competition of the strongest competitor of them all. To create an exemption here clearly would be contrary to the intent of Congress.
VII
We hold that the sale of pharmaceutical products to state and local government hospitals for resale in competition with private pharmacies is not exempt from the proscriptions of the Robinson-Patman Act. The judgment of the Court of Appeals accordingly is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Section 2(a), 15 U. S. C. § 13(a), provides in relevant part:
“It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, either directly or indirectly, to discriminate in price between different purchasers of commodities of like grade and quality, where either or any of the purchases involved in such discrimination are in commerce, where such commodities are sold for use, consumption, or resale within the United States..., and where the effect of such discrimination may be substantially to lessen competition or tend to create a monopoly in any line of commerce, or to injure, destroy, or prevent competition with any person who either grants or knowingly receives the benefit of such discrimination, or with customers of either of them...
Section 2(f), 15 U. S. C. § 13(f), provides:
“It shall be unlawful for any person engaged in commerce, in the course of such commerce, knowingly to induce or receive a discrimination in price which is prohibited by this section.”
Section 13c provides:
“Nothing in [the Robinson-Patman Act] shall apply to purchases of their supplies for their own use by schools, colleges, universities, public libraries, churches, hospitals, and charitable institutions not operated for profit.”
“State purchases” are defined as sales to and purchases by a State and its agencies.
The District Court, and thus the Court of Appeals, agreed that “[t]he claims against the Board must... be treated as equivalent to claims against the State itself.” 656 F. 2d, at 99. Accordingly, both courts held that the Eleventh Amendment bars petitioner’s claim for damages against the University. Petitioner did not challenge this holding in its appeal from the District Court’s decision.
Respondents argue that application of the Act to purchases by the State of Alabama would present a significant risk of conflict with the Tenth Amendment and that we therefore should avoid any construction of the Act that includes such purchases. See NLRB v. Catholic Bishop of Chicago, 440 U. S. 490, 501 (1979). There is no risk, however, of a constitutional issue arising from the application of the Act in this case: The retail sale of pharmaceutical drugs is not “indisputably” an attribute of state sovereignty. See Hodel v. Virginia Surface Mining & Reclamation Assn., Inc., 452 U. S. 264, 288 (1981). It is too late in the day to suggest that Congress cannot regulate States under its Commerce Clause powers when they are engaged in proprietary activities. See, e. g., Parden v. Terminal Railway of Alabama State Docks Dept., 377 U. S. 184, 187-193 (1964). If the Tenth Amendment protects certain state purchases from the Act’s limitations, such as for consumption in traditional governmental functions, those purchases must be protected on a case-by-case basis. Cf. City of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., 435 U. S. 389, 413, and n. 42 (1978) (plurality opinion).
Special solicitude for the plight of indigents is a traditional concern of state and local governments. If, in special circumstances, sales were made by a State to a class of indigents, the question presented, that we need not decide, would be whether such sales are “in competition” with private enterprise. The District Court correctly assumed that the private and state pharmacies in this case are “competing pharmacies.” 656 F. 2d, at 98. See also n. 8, infra.
The District Court properly assumed, for purposes of making its summary judgment, that at least some of the hospital purchases would not be covered by the § 13c exemption. See n. 3, supra, and accompanying text. Therefore, we need not consider whether this express exemption would support summary judgment in cases against state hospitals purchasing for their own use. See n. 20, infra.
The words “person” and “persons” are used repeatedly in the antitrust statutes. See 15 U. S. C. §§7, 12, 15.
See, e. g., Georgia v. Evans, 316 U. S. 159, 162 (1942) (State is a “person” under § 7 of the Sherman Act); Chattanooga Foundry & Pipe Works v. City of Atlanta, 203 U. S. 390, 396 (1906) (municipality is a “person” within the meaning of § 8 of the Sherman Act). See also Pfizer Inc. v. Government of India, 434 U. S. 308, 318 (1978) (foreign nation is a “person” under § 4 of the Clayton Act).
The Court has not considered it at all “anomalous to require compliance by municipalities with the substantive standards of other federal laws which impose... sanctions upon ‘persons.’” City of Lafayette v. Louisiana Power & Light Co., supra, at 400. See California v. United States, 320 U. S. 577, 585-586 (1944); Ohio v. Helvering, 292 U. S. 360, 370 (1934). One case is of particular relevance. In Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 313 U. S. 450 (1941), the Court considered the applicability to a city of § 1 of the Elkins Act, 32 Stat. 847, as amended, 34 Stat. 587, 49 U. S. C. § 41(1) (repealed 1978), “a statute which essentially is an antitrust provision serving the same purposes as the anti-price-discrimination provisions of the Robinson-Patman Act.” City of Lafayette, supra, at 402, n. 19. The Union Pacific Court expressly found that a municipality was a “person” within the meaning of the statute. 313 U. S., at 462-463. See also City of Lafayette, supra, at 401, n. 19.
The word “purchasers” has a meaning as inclusive as the word “person.” See 80 Cong. Rec. 6430 (1936) (remarks of Sen. Robinson) (“The Clayton Antitrust Act contains terms general to all purchasers. The pending bill does not segregate any particular class of purchasers, or exempt any special class of purchasers”).
The only apparent difference between the scope of the relevant laws is the extent to which the activities complained of must affect interstate commerce. Congress’ decision in the Robinson-Patman Act not to cover all transactions within its reach under the Commerce Clause, see Gulf Oil Corp. v. Copp Paving Co., 419 U. S. 186, 199-201 (1974), does not mean that Congress chose not to cover the same range of “persons” whose conduct “in commerce” is otherwise subject to the Act.
Indeed, the House and Senate Committee Reports specifically state that “[t]he special definitions of section 1 of the Clayton Act will apply without repetition to the terms concerned where they appear in this bill, since it is designed to become by amendment a part of that act.” H. R. Rep. No. 2287, 74th Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 1, p. 7 (1936); S. Rep. No. 1502, 74th Cong., 2d Sess., 3 (1936). See 80 Cong. Rec. 3116 (1936) (remarks of Sen. Logan) (“[M]any have complained because the provisions of the bill apply to ‘any person engaged in commerce.’... The original Clayton Act contains that exact language, and it is carried into the bill under consideration. The language of the Clayton Act was used because it has been construed by the courts”). Given their common purposes, it should not be surprising that the common terms of the Clayton and Robinson-Patman Acts should be construed consistently with each other. See id,., at 8137 (remarks of Rep. Michener) (“The Patman-Robinson bill does not suggest a new policy or a new theory. The Clayton Act was enacted in 1914, and it was the purpose of that act to do just what this law sets out to do”); id., at 3119 (remarks of Sen. Logan) (purpose of Robinson-Patman bill is to strengthen Clayton Act); id., at 6151 (address by Sen. Logan) (same).
Justice O’Connor, in her dissenting opinion, questions our use of antitrust cases to define a word common to the antitrust laws. She would distinguish all of these cases uniformly holding States to be included in the word “persons,” because none has held “that States or local governments are persons for purposes of exposure to liability as purchasers under the provisions of the Clayton Act.” Post, at 177 (emphasis in original). The dissent takes no notice, however, of our decision last Term in Community Communications Co. v. City of Boulder, 455 U. S. 40, 56 (1982), in which the Court stated that the antitrust laws, “like other federal laws imposing civil or criminal sanctions upon ‘persons,’ of course apply to municipalities as well as to other corporate entities.” No authority is cited for the dissent’s distinction between “persons” entitled to sue under the antitrust laws and “persons” subject to suit under those laws.
See, e. g., Pfizer Inc. v. Government of India, supra, at 312-313 (noting “broad scope of the remedies provided by the antitrust laws”) (applying Sherman Act eases to construe Clayton Act); Mandeville Island Farms, Inc. v. American Crystal Sugar Co., 334 U. S. 219, 236 (1948) (“[Sherman] Act is comprehensive in its terms and coverage, protecting all who are made victims of the forbidden practices by whomever they may be perpetrated”) (emphasis added).
See, e. g., National Gerimedical Hospital & Gerontology Center v. Blue Cross of Kansas City, 452 U. S. 378, 388 (1981); City of Lafayette, 435 U. S., at 398, 399; Abbott Laboratories v. Portland Retail Druggists Assn., Inc., 425 U. S. 1, 11-12 (1976); United States v. National Assn. of Securities Dealers, Inc., 422 U. S. 694, 719-720 (1975).
In one important sense, retail competition from state agencies can be more invidious than that from chainstores, the particular targets of the Robinson-Patman Act. Volume purchasing permits any large, relatively efficient, retail organization to pass on cost savings to consumers, and, to that extent, consumers benefit merely from economy of scale. But to the extent that lower prices are attributable to lower overhead, resulting from federal grants, state subsidies, free public services, and freedom from taxation, state agencies merely redistribute the burden of costs from the actual consumers to the citizens at large. An exemption from the Robinson-Patman Act could give state agencies a significant additional advantage in certain commercial markets, perhaps enough to eliminate marginal or small private competitors. Consumers, as citizens, ultimately will pay for the full costs of the drugs sold by the state agencies involved in this case. Because there is no reason to assume that such agencies will provide retail distribution more efficiently than private retail pharmacists, consumers will suffer to the extent that state retail activities eliminate more efficient, private retail distribution systems.
Justice O’Connor’s dissenting opinion repeatedly emphasizes that Congress in 1936 did not focus specifically on the issue presented here. See post, at 180, 182, 187, and n. 10. This may well be true, as the likelihood of state entities competing in the private sector was remote in 1936. It cannot be contended, however, that Congress specifically intended to allow the competition at issue here. In any event, the absence of congressional focus is immaterial where the plain language applies. See, e. g., United States v. South-Eastern Underwriters Assn., 322 U. S. 533, 556-558 (1944); Browder v. United States, 312 U. S. 335, 339 (1941); De Lima v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 1, 197 (1901).
“[Rep.] Lloyd: Would this bill, in your judgment, prevent the granting of discounts to the United States Government?
“Mr. Teegarden: Not unless the present Clayton Act does so....
“[Rep.] Lloyd: For instance, the Government gets huge discounts.... Now, would that discount be barred by this bill?
“Mr. Teegarden: I do not see why it should, unless a discount contrary to the present bill would be barred — that is, the present law — would be barred by that bill.
“Aside from that, my answer would be this: The Federal Government is not in competition with other buyers from these concerns....
“The Federal Government is saved by the same distinction.... They are not in competition with anyone else who would buy.
“[Rep.] Hancock: It would eliminate competitive bidding all along the line, would it not, in classes of goods that would be covered by this bill?
“Mr. Teegarden: You mean competitive bidding on Government orders?
“[Rep.] Hancock: Government, State, city, municipality.
“Mr. Teegarden: No; I think not.
“[Rep.] Michener: If it did do it, you would not want it, would you?
“Mr. Teegarden: No; I would not want it. It certainly does not eliminate competitive bidding anywhere else, and I do not see how it would with the Government.
“[Rep.] Hancock: You would have to bid to the city, county, exactly the same as anybody else; same quantity, same price, same quality?
“Mr. Teegarden: No.
“[Rep.] Hancock: Would they or could they sell to a city hospital any cheaper than they would to a privately-owned hospital, under this bill?
“Mr. Teegarden: I would have to answer it in this way. In the final analysis, it would depend upon numerous questions of fact in a particular case. If the two hospitals are in competition with each other, I should say then that the fact that one is operated by the city does not save it from the bill. If they are not in competition with each other, then they are in a different sphere.
“The facts of the situation are not present upon which to predicate a discrimination, in the nature of the case. I do not see that that question becomes any different under this bill from what it is under the present section 2 of the Clayton Act, for that bill also prohibits discrimination generally in the same terms that this does. But it differs in the breadth of the exceptions. That is the only difference between the two bills.” Hearings on H. R. 8442 et al. before the House Committee on the Judiciary, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 208-209 (1935) (emphasis added) (hereinafter 1935 Hearings).
Justice Stevens agrees that state and local governments may be “purchasers” within the meaning of the Robinson-Patman Act. See post, at 171. He joins in Justice O’Connor’s dissent, however, on the basis of a novel theory: that state and local agencies may never be in “competition” with private parties within the meaning of the Act. See ibid. This is an economic fiction: If in fact a State participates in the private retail pharmaceutical market, it competes with the private participants. Justice Stevens relies on one statement by witness Teegarden in the 1935 House Hearings, but attaches no significance to a further statement by the same witness: “In the final analysis, it would depend upon numerous questions of fact in a particular case. If the two hospitals are in competition with each other, I should say then that the fact that one is operated by the city does not save it from the bill.” See 1935 Hearings, at 209 (emphasis added).
Teegarden subsequently submitted a written brief to the House Committee. He first rejected outright the desirability of any exemptions. See id., at 249. He then posed the question whether “the bill [would] prevent competitive bidding on Governmental purchases below trade price levels.” He stated that “[t]he answer is found in the principle of statutory construction that a statute will not be construed to limit or restrict in any way the rights, prerogatives, or privileges of the sovereign unless it so expressly provides — a principle inherited by American jurisprudence from the common law....” But he also noted that “requiring a showing of effect upon competition... will further preclude any possibility of the bill affecting the Government.” Id., at 250.
All the cases Teegarden cited suggest that this sovereign-exception rule of statutory construction simply means that a government, when it passes a law, gives up only what it expressly surrenders. While the Robinson-Patman Act was pending before Congress, the Court stated that it could “perceive no reason for extending [the presumption against binding the sovereign by its own statute] so as to exempt a business carried on by a state from the otherwise applicable provisions of an act of Congress, all-embracing in scope and national in its purpose, which is as capable of being obstructed by state as by individual action.” United States v. California, 297 U. S. 175, 186 (1936). See California v. Taylor, 353 U. S. 553, 562-563 (1957). In the context of the Robinson-Patman Act, the rule of statutory construction on which Teegarden relied supports, at the most, an exemption for the Federal Government’s purchases. The existence of such an exemption is not before us. Cf. United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U. S. 600, 604-605 (1941) (United States not a “person” under the Sherman Act for purposes of suing for treble damages). Moreover, Teegarden clearly assumed that governmental purchasing would not compete with private purchasing. That assumption, however, is inapplicable here.
Six months after the Act was passed, the Attorney General of the United States responded to an inquiry from the Secretary of War regarding the Act’s application “to government contracts for supplies.” 38 Op. Atty. Gen. 539 (1936). In ruling that such contracts are outside the Act, the Attorney General explained:
“[Statutes regulating rates, charges, etc., in matters affecting commerce do not ordinarily apply to the Government unless it is expressly so provided; and it does not seem to have been the policy of the Congress to make such statutes applicable to the Government....
“The [Robinson-Patman Act] merely amended the [Clayton Act] and, in so far as I am aware, the latter Act has not been regarded heretofore as applicable to Government contracts.” Id., at 540.
Later in the letter, the Attorney General clarified that his reference was to “the Federal Government,” ibid., and gave other reasons “for avoiding a construction that would make the statute applicable to the Government in violation of the apparent policy of the Congress in such matters,” id., at 541. The Attorney General expressly relied upon Emergency Fleet Corp. v. Western Union Telegraph Co., 275 U. S. 415, 425 (1928), in which the Court upheld the granting of favorable telegraph rates to a federal corporation that competed with private enterprise.
The Attorney General’s opinion says nothing about the Act’s applicability to state agencies. Indeed, in the following year, the Attorney General of California expressly concluded that state purchases were within the Act’s proscriptions. See 1932-1939 Trade Cases ¶ 55,156, pp. 415-416 (1937). Two other early State Attorney General opinions simply do not consider whether the Act applies to state purchases for retail sales. See Opinion of Attorney General of Minnesota, 1932-1939 Trade Cases ¶ 55,157, p. 416 (1937); 26 Wis. Op. Atty. Gen. 142 (1937).
Representative Patman “presumed that the [United States] Attorney General’s reasons may be also applied to municipal and public institutions.” W
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit granted.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
While serving a term of imprisonment in a North Carolina penitentiary, the respondent Perry became involved in an altercation with another inmate. A warrant issued, charging Perry with the misdemeanor of assault with a deadly weapon, N. C. Gen. Stat. §14-33 (b)(1) (1969). Under North Carolina law, the District Court Division of the General Court of Justice has exclusive jurisdiction for the trial of misdemeanors. N. C. Gen. Stat. § 7A-272. Following a trial without a jury in the District Court of Northampton County, Perry was convicted of this misdemeanor and given a six-month sentence, to be served after completion of the prison term he was then serving.
Perry then filed a notice of appeal to the Northampton County Superior Court. Under North Carolina law, a person convicted in the District Court has a right to a trial de novo in the Superior Court. N. C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7A-290, 15-177.1. The right to trial dé novo is absolute, there being no need for the appellant to allege error in the original proceeding. When an appeal is taken, the statutory scheme provides that the slate is wiped clean ; the prior conviction is annulled, and the prosecution and the defense begin anew in the Superior Court.
After the filing of the notice of appeal, but prior to the respondent’s appearance for trial de novo in the Superior Court, the prosecutor obtained an indictment from a grand jury, charging Perry with the felony of assault with a deadly weapon with intent to kill and inflict serious bodily injury, N. C. Gen. Stat. § 14-32 (a) (1969). The indictment covered the same conduct for which Perry had been tried and convicted in the District Court. Perry entered a plea of guilty to the indictment in the Superior Court, and was sentenced to a term of five to seven years in the penitentiary, to be served concurrently with the identical prison sentence he was then serving.
A number of months later, the respondent filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina. He claimed that the indictment on the felony charge in the Superior Court constituted double jeopardy and also deprived him of due process of law. In an unreported opinion, the District Court dismissed the petition for failure to exhaust available state remedies. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that resort to the state courts would be futile, because the Supreme Court of North Carolina had consistently rejected the constitutional claims presented by Perry in his petition. 453 F. 2d 856. The case was remanded to the District Court for further proceedings.
On remand, the District Court granted the writ. It held that the bringing of the felony charge after the filing of the appeal violated Perry’s rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, made applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment, Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784. The District Court further held that the respondent had not, by his guilty plea in the Superior Court, waived his right to raise his constitutional claims in the federal habeas corpus proceeding. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment in a brief per curiam opinion. We granted certiorari, 414 U. S. 908, to consider the seemingly important issues presented by this case.
I
As in the District Court, Perry directs two independent constitutional attacks upon the conduct of the State in baling him into court on the felony charge after he took an appeal from the misdemeanor conviction. First, he contends that the felony indictment in the Superior Court placed him in double jeopardy, since he had already been convicted on the lesser included misdemeanor charge in the District Court. Second, he urges that the indictment on the felony charge constituted a penalty for his exercising his statutory right to appeal, and thus contravened the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. We find it necessary to reach only the latter claim.
Perry’s due process arguments are derived substantially from North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711, and its progeny. In Pearce, the Court considered the constitutional problems presented when, following a successful appeal and reconviction, a criminal defendant was subjected to a greater punishment than that imposed at the first trial. While we concluded that such a harsher sentence was not absolutely precluded by either the Double Jeopardy or Due Process Clause, we emphasized that “imposition of a penalty upon the defendant for having successfully pursued a statutory right of appeal or collateral remedy would be ... a violation of due process of law.” Id., at 724. Because “vindictiveness against a defendant for having successfully attacked his first conviction must play no part in the sentence he receives after a new trial,” id., at 725, we held that an increased sentence could not be imposed upon retrial unless the sentencing judge placed certain specified findings on the record.
In Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U. S. 104, the Court was called upon to decide the applicability of the Pearce holding to Kentucky's two-tiered system of criminal adjudication. Kentucky, like North Carolina, allows a misdemeanor defendant convicted in an inferior trial court to seek a trial de novo in a court of general jurisdiction. The appellant in Colten claimed that the Constitution prevented the court of general jurisdiction, after trial de novo, from imposing a sentence in excess of that imposed in the court of original trial. This Court rejected the Pearce analogy. Emphasizing that Pearce was directed at insuring the absence of “vindictiveness” against a criminal defendant who attacked his initial conviction on appeal, the Court found such dangers greatly minimized on the facts presented in Colten. In contrast to Pearce, the court that imposed the increased sentence after retrial in Colten was not the one whose original judgment had prompted an appellate reversal; thus, there was little possibility that an increased sentence on trial de novo could have been motivated by personal vindictiveness on the part of the sentencing judge. Hence, the Court thought the prophylactic rule of Pearce unnecessary in the de novo trial and sentencing context of Colten.
The Pearce decision was again interpreted by this Court last Term in Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U. S. 17, in the setting of Georgia's system under which sentencing responsibility is entrusted to the jury. Upon retrial following the reversal of his original conviction, the defendant in Chaffin was reconvicted and sentenced to a greater term than had been imposed by the initial jury. Concentrating again on the issue of vindictiveness, the Court found no violation of the Pearce rule. It was noted that the second jury was completely unaware of the original sentence, and thus could hardly have sought to “punish” Chaffin for his successful appeal. Moreover, the jury, unlike a judge who had been reversed on appeal, could hardly have a stake in the prior conviction or any motivation to discourage criminal defendants from seeking appellate review. Hence, it was concluded that the danger of vindictiveness under the circumstances of the case was “de minimis,” id., at 26, and did not require adoption of the constitutional rule set out in Pearce.
The lesson that emerges from Pearce, Colten, and Chaffin is that the Due Process Clause is not offended by all possibilities of increased punishment upon retrial after appeal, but only by those that pose a realistic likelihood of “vindictiveness.” Unlike the circumstances presented by those cases, however, in the situation here the tíentral figure is not the judge or the jury, but the prosecutor. The question is whether the opportunities for vindictiveness in this situation are such as to impel the conclusion that due process of law requires a rule analogous to that of the Pearce case. We conclude that the answer must be in the affirmative.
A prosecutor clearly has a considerable stake in discouraging convicted misdemeanants from appealing and thus obtaining a trial de novo in the Superior Court, since such an appeal will clearly require increased expenditures of prosecutorial resources before the defendant's conviction becomes final, and may even result in a formerly convicted defendant’s going free. And, if the prosecutor has the means readily at hand to discourage such appeals — by “upping the ante” through a felony indictment whenever a convicted misdemeanant pursues his statutory appellate remedy — the State can insure that only the most hardy defendants will brave the hazards of a de novo trial.
There is, of course, no evidence that the prosecutor in this case acted in bad faith or maliciously in seeking a felony indictment against Perry. The rationale of our judgment in the Pearce case, however, was not grounded upon the proposition that actual retaliatory motivation must inevitably exist. Rather, we emphasized that “since the fear of such vindictiveness may unconstitutionally deter a defendant’s exercise of the right to appeal or collaterally attack his' first conviction, due process also requires that a defendant be freed of apprehension of such a retaliatory motivation on the part of the sentencing judge.” 395 U. S., at 725. We think it clear that the same considerations apply here. A person convicted of an offense is entitled to pursue his statutory right to a trial de novo, without apprehension that the State will retaliate by substituting a more serious charge for the original one, thus subjecting him to a significantly increased potential period of incarceration. Cf. United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570.
Due. process of law requires that such a potential for vindictiveness must not enter into North Carolina’s two-tiered appellate process. We hold, therefore, that it was not constitutionally permissible for the State to respond to Perry’s invocation of his statutory right to appeal by bringing a more serious charge against him prior to the trial de novo.
II
The remaining question is whether, because of his guilty plea to the felony charge in the Superior Court, Perry is precluded from raising his constitutional claims in this federal habeas corpus proceeding. In contending that such is the case, petitioners rely chiefly on this Court’s decision last Term in Tollett v. Henderson, 411 U. S. 258.
The precise issue presented in Tollett was “whether a state prisoner, pleading guilty with the advice of counsel, may later obtain release through federal habeas corpus by proving only that the indictment to which he pleaded was returned by an unconstitutionally selected grand jury.” Id., at 260. The Court answered that question in the negative. Relying primarily on the guilty-plea trilogy of Brady v. United States, 397 U. S. 742, McMann v. Richardson, 397 U. S. 759, and Parker v. North Carolina, 397 U. S. 790, the Court characterized the guilty plea as “a break in the chain of events which has preceded it in the criminal process.” 411 U. S., at 267. Accordingly, the Court held that when a criminal defendant enters a guilty plea, “he may not thereafter raise independent claims relating to the deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.” Ibid. Rather, a person complaining of such “antecedent constitutional violations,” id., at 266, is limited in a federal habeas corpus proceeding to attacks on the voluntary and intelligent nature of the guilty plea, through proof that the advice received from counsel was not “within the range of competence demanded of attorneys in criminal cases.” See McMann, supra, at 771.
While petitioners’ reliance upon the Tollett opinion is understandable, there is a fundamental distinction between this case and that one. Although the underlying claims presented in Tollett and the Brady trilogy were of constitutional dimensions, none went to the very power of the State to bring the defendant into court to answer the charge brought against him. The defendants in McMann v. Richardson, for example, could surely have been brought to trial without the use of the allegedly coerced confessions, and even a tainted indictment of the sort alleged in Tollett could have been “cured” through a new indictment by a properly selected grand jury. In the case at hand, by contrast, the nature of the underlying constitutional infirmity is markedly different. Having chosen originally to proceed on the misdemeanor charge in the District Court; the State of North Carolina was, under the facts of this case, simply precluded by the Due Process Clause from calling upon the respondent to answer to the more serious charge in the Superior Court. Unlike the defendant in Tollett, Perry is not complaining of “antecedent constitutional violations” or of a “deprivation of constitutional rights that occurred prior to the entry of the guilty plea.” 411 U. S., at 266, 267. Rather, the right that he asserts and that we today accept is the right not to be haled into court at all upon the felony charge. The very initiation of the proceedings against him in the Superior Court thus operated to deny him due process of law.
Last Term in Robinson v. Neil, 409 U. S. 505, in explaining why the Double Jeopardy Clause is distinctive, the Court noted that “its practical result is to prevent a trial from taking place at all, rather than to prescribe procedural rules that govern the conduct of a trial.” Id., at 509. While our judgment today is not based upon the Double Jeopardy Clause, we think that the quoted language aptly describes the due process right upon which our judgment is based. The “practical result” dictated by the Due Process Clause in this case is that North Carolina simply could not permissibly require Perry to answer to the felony charge. That being so, it follows that his guilty plea did not foreclose him from attacking his conviction in the Superior Court proceedings through a federal writ of habeas corpus.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is affirmed. R sQ
See generally State v. Spencer, 276 N. C. 535, 173 S. E. 2d 765; State v. Sparrow, 276 N. C. 499, 173 S. E. 2d 897.
The respondent’s guilty plea was apparently premised on the expectation that any sentence he received in the Superior Court would be served concurrently with the sentence he was then serving, as contrasted with the consecutive sentence imposed in the District Court. That expectation was fulfilled, but it turned out that the guilty plea resulted in increasing the respondent’s potential term of incarceration. Under applicable North Carolina law, the five- to seven-year assault sentence did not commence until the date of the guilty plea, October 29, 1969. By that time, Perry had already served some 17 months of the sentence he was serving at the time of the alleged assault. Thus, the effect of the five- to seven-year concurrent sentence on the assault charge was to increase his potential period of confinement by these 17 months, as opposed to the six-month increase envisaged by the District Court’s consecutive sentence.
The Court of Appeals further instructed the District Court to await the ruling of this Court in Rice v. North Carolina, 434 F. 2d 297 (CA4), cert. granted, 401 U. S. 1008. Rice involved a challenge to the constitutionality of an enhanced penalty received after a criminal defendant had sought a trial de novo under North Carolina’s two-tiered misdemeanor adjudication system. This Court did not reach the merits of this issue in Rice, instead vacating and remanding to the Court of Appeals for consideration as to whether the case had become moot. 404 U. S. 244.
Subsequently, in Colten v. Kentucky, 407 U. S. 104, we dealt with the merits of this issue, and held that the imposition of an increased sentence on trial de novo did not violate either the Due Process or the Double Jeopardy Clause. The District Court in the present case had the benefit of the Colten decision before issuing its opinion granting habeas corpus relief.
This Court has never held that the States are constitutionally-required to establish avenues of appellate review of criminal convictions. Nonetheless, “it is now fundamental that, once established, these avenues must be kept free of unreasoned distinctions that can only impede open and equal access to the courts.” Rinaldi v. Yeager, 384 U. S. 305, 310. See also Griffin v. Illinois, 351 U. S. 12; Douglas v. California, 372 U. S. 353; Lane v. Brown, 372 U. S. 477; Draper v. Washington, 372 U. S. 487; North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711, 724-725; Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U. S. 17, 24 n. 11.
For a more exhaustive list of States employing similar two-tiered procedures, see Colten, supra, at 112 n. 4.
Moreover, even putting to one side the potentiality of increased incarceration, conviction of a “felony” often entails more serious collateral consequences than those incurred through a misdemeanor conviction. See generally Special Project, The Collateral Consequences of a Criminal Conviction, 23 Vand. L. Rev. 929, 955-960; Note, Civil Disabilities of Felons, 53 Va. L. Rev. 403, 406-408. Cf. O’Brien v. Skinner, 414 U. S. 524 (involving New York law under which convicted misdemeanants retain the right to vote).
This would clearly be a different case if the State had shown that it was impossible to proceed on the more serious charge at the outset, as in Diaz v. United States, 223 U. S. 442. In that case the defendant was originally tried and convicted for assault and battery. Subsequent to the original trial, the assault victim died, and the defendant was then tried and convicted for homicide. Obviously, it would not have been possible for the authorities in Diaz to have originally proceeded against the defendant on the more serious charge, since the crime of homicide was not complete until after the victim’s death.
Contrary to the dissenting opinion, our decision today does not “assure that no penalty whatever will be imposed” on respondent. Post, at 39. While the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment bars trial of Perry on the felony assault charges in the Superior Court, North Carolina is wholly free to conduct a trial de novo in the Superior Court on the original misdemeanor assault charge. Indeed, this is precisely the course that Perry has invited, by filing an appeal from the original judgment of the District Court.
The dissenting opinion also seems to misconceive the nature of the due process right at stake here. If this were a case involving simply an increased sentence violative of the Pearce rule, a remand for resentencing would be in order. Our holding today, however, is not that Perry was denied due process by the length of the sentence imposed by the Superior Court, but rather by the very institution of the felony indictment against him. While we reach this conclusion in partial reliance on the analogy of Pearce and its progeny, the due process violation here is not the same as was involved in those cases, and cannot be remedied solely through a resentencing procedure in the Superior Court. Cf. n. 6, supra.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 petition for writ of certiorari is granted. The judgment is reversed. San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, ante, p. 236.
Mr. Justice Clark, Mr. Justice Harlan,'Mr. Justice Whittaker, and Mr. Justice Stewart dissent for the reasons set forth in the concurring opinion in San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, ante, pp. 236, 249.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The authority of the Courts of Appeals to review “all final decisions of the district courts,” 28 U. S. C. § 1291, includes appellate jurisdiction over “a narrow class of decisions that do not terminate the litigation,” but are sufficiently important and collateral to the merits that they should “nonetheless be treated as final,” Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U. S. 863, 867 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). The issue here is whether a refusal to apply the judgment bar of the Federal Tort Claims Act is open to collateral appeal. We hold it is not.
I
The complaint alleges that Susan Hallock owned a computer software business that she and her husband, Richard, operated from home. After information about Richard Hal-lock’s credit card was stolen and used to pay the subscription fee for a child pornography Web site, agents of the United States Customs Service, investigating the Web site, traced the payment to Richard Hallock’s card and got a warrant to search the Halloeks’ residence. With that authority, they seized the Halloeks’ computer equipment, software, and disk drives. No criminal charges were ever brought, but the Government’s actions produced a different disaster. When the computer equipment was returned, several of the disk drives were damaged, all of the stored data (including trade secrets and account files) were lost, and the Halloeks were forced out of business.
In July 2002, Susan Hallock and her company brought an action against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act, invoking the waiver of sovereign immunity, 28 U. S. C. § 1346, and alleging negligence by the customs agents in executing the search. The merits of the claim were never addressed, for the District Court granted the Government’s motion to dismiss, holding that the agents’ activities occurred in the course of detaining goods and thus fell within an exception to the Act’s waiver of sovereign immunity, § 2680(e). Hallock v. United States, 253 F. Supp. 2d 361 (NDNY 2003).
While the suit against the Government was still pending, Susan Hallock filed this action against the individual agents under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U. S. 388 (1971), alleging in her complaint that the agents had damaged her computers and thus deprived her of property including business income in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. After the District Court dismissed the first suit against the Government, the agents moved for judgment in the Bivens action, citing the judgment bar of the Tort Claims Act, that “the judgment in an action under [§] 1346(b) of this title shall constitute a complete bar to any action by the claimant, by reason of the same subject matter, against the employee of the government whose act or omission gave rise to the claim.” § 2676.
The District Court denied the motion, holding that dismissal of the action against the. Government under the Tort Claims Act was solely on a procedural ground, and thus failed to raise the judgment bar. Hallock v. Bonner, 281 F. Supp. 2d 425, 427 (NDNY 2008). The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed, after first finding jurisdiction under the collateral order doctrine. Hallock v. Bonner, 387 F. 3d 147 (2004). We granted certiorari to consider the judgment bar, 545 U. S. 1103 (2005), but now vacate for want of appellate jurisdiction on the part of the Court of Appeals.
II
The collateral order doctrine, identified with Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541 (1949), is “best understood not as an exception to the ‘final decision’ rule laid down by Congress in § 1291, but as a ‘practical construction’ of it.” Digital Equipment, supra, at 867 (quoting Cohen, supra, at 546). Whereas 28 U. S. C. § 1291 “gives courts of appeals jurisdiction over ‘all final decisions’ of district courts” that are not directly appealable to us, Behrens v. Pelletier, 516 U. S. 299, 305 (1996), the collateral order doctrine accommodates a “small class” of rulings, not concluding the litigation, but conclusively resolving “claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action,” ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted). The claims are “too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.” Cohen, supra, at 546.
The requirements for collateral order appeal have been distilled down to three conditions: that an order “ ‘[1] conclusively determine the disputed question, [2] resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and [3] be effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.’ ” Puerto Rico Aqueduct and Sewer Authority v. Metcalf & Eddy, Inc., 506 U. S. 139, 144 (1993) (quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U. S. 463, 468 (1978)). The conditions are “stringent,” Digital Equipment, supra, at 868 (citing Midland Asphalt Corp. v. United States, 489 U. S. 794, 799 (1989)), and unless they are kept so, the underlying doctrine will overpower the substantial finality interests § 1291 is meant to further: judicial efficiency, for example, and the “sensible policy ‘of avoiding] the obstruction to just claims that would come from permitting the harassment and cost of a succession of separate appeals from the various rulings to which a litigation may give rise.’” Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U. S. 368, 374 (1981) (quoting Cobbledick v. United States, 309 U. S. 323, 325 (1940)).
Accordingly, we have not mentioned applying the collateral order doctrine recently without emphasizing its modest scope. See, e. g., Digital Equipment, 511 U. S., at 868 (“[T]he ‘narrow’ exception should stay that way and never be allowed to swallow the general rule that a party is entitled to a single appeal, to be deferred until final judgment has been entered ...” (citation omitted)). And we have meant what we have said; although the Court has been asked many times to expand the “small class” of collaterally appeal-able orders, we have instead kept it narrow and selective in its membership.
A
Prior cases mark the line between rulings within the class and those outside. On the immediately appealable side are orders rejecting absolute immunity, Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731, 742 (1982), and qualified immunity, Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U. S. 511, 530 (1985). A State has the benefit of the doctrine to appeal a decision denying its claim to Eleventh Amendment immunity, Puerto Rico Aqueduct, supra, at 144-145, and a criminal defendant may collaterally appeal an adverse ruling on a defense of double jeopardy, Abney v. United States, 431 U. S. 651, 660 (1977).
The examples admittedly raise the lawyer’s temptation to generalize. In each case, the collaterally appealing party was vindicating or claiming a right to avoid trial, in satisfaction of the third condition: unless the order to stand trial was immediately appealable, the right would be effectively lost. Those seeking immediate appeal therefore naturally argue that any order denying a claim of right to prevail without trial satisfies the third condition. But this generalization is too easy to be sound and, if accepted, would leave , the final order requirement of § 1291 in tatters. We faced this prospect in Digital Equipment, supra, an appeal from an order rescinding a settlement agreement: Petitioner asserted a “ ‘right not to stand trial’ requiring protection by way of immediate appeal,” analogizing the rescission to a denial of immunity. Id., at 869. We said no, however, lest “every right that could be enforced appropriately by pretrial dismissal [be] loosely ... described as conferring a ‘right not to stand trial.’” Id., at 873. Otherwise, “almost every pretrial or trial order might be called ‘effectively unreviewable’ in the sense that relief from error can never extend to rewriting history.” Id., at 872.
“Allowing immediate appeals to vindicate every such right would move § 1291 aside for claims that the district court lacks personal jurisdiction, that the statute of limitations has run, that the movant has been denied his Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial, that an action is barred on claim preclusion principles, that no material fact is in dispute and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, or merely that the com: plaint fails to state a claim. Such motions can be made in virtually every case.” Id., at 873 (citations omitted).
B
Since only some orders denying an asserted right to avoid the burdens of trial qualify, then, as orders that cannot be reviewed “effectively” after a conventional final judgment, the cases have to be combed for some further characteristic that merits appealability under Cohen; and as Digital Equipment explained, that something further boils down to “a judgment about the value of the interests that would be lost through rigorous application of. a final judgment requirement.” 511 U. S., at 878-879 (citing Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U. S. 517, 524 (1988)). See also Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser, 490 U. S. 495, 502 (1989) (SCALIA, J., concurring) (“The importance of the right asserted has always been a significant part of our collateral order doctrine”).
Thus, in Nixon, supra, we stressed the “compelling public ends,” id., at 758, “rooted in . . . the separation of powers,” id., at 749, that would be compromised by failing to allow immediate appeal of a denial of absolute Presidential immunity, id., at 743, 752, n. 32. In explaining collateral order treatment when a qualified immunity claim was at issue in Mitchell, supra, we spoke of the threatened disruption of governmental functions, and fear of inhibiting able people from exercising discretion in public service if a full trial were threatened whenever they acted reasonably in the face of law that is not “clearly established.” Id., at 526. Puerto Rico Aqueduct, 506 U. S. 139, explained the immediate ap-pealability of an order denying a claim of Eleventh Amendment immunity by adverting not only to the burdens of litigation but to the need to ensure vindication of a State’s dignitary interests. Id., at 146. And although the double jeopardy claim given Cohen treatment in Abney, supra, did not implicate a right to be free of all proceedings whatsoever (since prior jeopardy is essential to the defense), we described the enormous prosecutorial power of the Government to subject an individual “to embarrassment, expense and ordeal . . . compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety,” id., at 661-662 (internal quotation marks omitted); the only way to alleviate these consequences of the Government’s superior position was by collateral order appeal.
In each case, some particular value of a high order was marshaled in support of the interest in avoiding trial: honoring the separation of powers, preserving the efficiency of government and the initiative of its officials, respecting a State’s dignitary interests, and mitigating the government’s advantage over the individual. That is, it is not mere avoidance of a trial, but avoidance of a trial that would imperil a substantial public interest, that counts when asking whether an order is “effectively” unreviewable if review is to be left until later. Coopers & Lybrand, 437 U. S., at 468 (internal quotation marks omitted).
C
Does the claim of the customs agents in this case serve such a weighty public objective that the judgment bar should be treated as an immunity demanding the protection of a collateral order appeal? One can argue, of course, that if the Bivens action goes to trial the efficiency of Government will be compromised and the officials burdened and distracted, as in the qualified immunity case: if qualified immunity gets Cohen treatment, so should the judgment bar to further litigation in the aftermath of the Government’s success under the Tort Claims Act. But the cases are different. Qualified immunity is not the law simply to save trouble for the Government and its employees; it is recognized because the burden of trial is unjustified in the face of a colorable claim that the law on point was not clear when the official took action, and the action was reasonable in light of the law as it was. The nub of qualified immunity is the need to induce officials to show reasonable initiative when the relevant law is not “clearly established,” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800, 818 (1982); ef. Saucier v. Katz, 533 U. S. 194, 202 (2001); a quick resolution of a qualified immunity claim is essential.
There is, however, no such public interest at stake simply because the judgment bar is said to be applicable. It is not the preservation of initiative but the avoidance of litigation for its own sake .that supports the judgment bar, and if simply abbreviating litigation troublesome to Government employees were important enough for Cohen treatment, collateral order appeal would be a matter of right whenever the Government lost a motion to dismiss under the Tort Claims Act, or a federal officer lost one on a Bivens action, or a state official was in that position in a case under 42 U. S. C. §1983, or Ex parte Young, 209 U. S. 123 (1908). In effect, 28 U. S. C. § 1291 would fade out whenever the Government or an official lost an early round that could have ended the fight.
Another difference between qualified immunity and the judgment bar lies in the bar’s essential procedural element. While a qualified immunity claim is timely from the moment an official is served with a complaint, the judgment bar can be raised only after a case under the Tort Claims Act has been resolved in the Government’s favor. If a Bivens action alone is brought, there will be no possibility of a judgment bar, nor will there be so long as a Bivens action against officials and a Tort Claims Act against the Government are pending simultaneously (as they were for a time here). In the present case, if Susan Hallock had brought her Bivens action and no other, the agents could not possibly have invoked the judgment bar in claiming a right to be free of trial. The closer analogy to the judgment bar, then, is not immunity but the defense of claim preclusion, or res judicata.
Although the statutory judgment bar is arguably broader than traditional res judicata, it functions in much the same way, with both rules depending on a prior judgment as a condition precedent and neither reflecting a. policy that a defendant should be scot free of any liability. The concern behind both rules is a different one, of avoiding duplicative litigation, “multiple suits on identical entitlements or obligations between the same parties.” 18 C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure § 4402, p. 9 (2d ed. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). But this rule of respecting a prior judgment by giving a defense against relitigation has not been thought to protect values so great that only immediate appeal can effectively vindicate them. As we indicated in Digital Equipment, in the usual case, absent particular reasons for discretionary appeal by leave of the trial court, a defense of claim preclusion is fairly subordinated to the general policy of deferring appellate review to the moment of final judgment. 511 U. S., at 873.
The judgment bar at issue in this case has no claim to greater importance than the typical defense of claim preclusion; and we hold true to form in deciding what Digital Equipment implied, that an order rejecting the defense of judgment bar under 28 U. S. C. § 2676 cries for no immediate appeal of right as a collateral order.
We vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remand the case with instructions to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction.
It is so ordered.
The right to be free of double jeopardy is subject to an analogous condition, that jeopardy have attached in a prior proceeding, Monge v. California, 524 U. S. 721, 728 (1998), a characteristic that distinguishes the Fifth Amendment right from other immunities mentioned above. But, as we explained, double jeopardy deserves immunity treatment under §1291 owing to the enormous advantage of a Government prosecutor who chooses to go repeatedly against an individual.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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, except as to Part IV-B.
The question in this case is whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment entitles a prisoner convicted and incarcerated in the State of Nebraska to certain procedural protections, including notice, an adversary hearing, and provision of counsel, before he is transferred involuntarily to a state mental hospital for treatment of a mental disease or defect.
I
Nebraska Rev. Stat. § 83-176 (2) (1976) authorizes the Director of Correctional Services to designate any available, suitable, and appropriate residence facility or institution as a place of confinement for any state prisoner and to transfer a prisoner from one place of confinement to another. Section 83-180 (1), however, provides that when a designated physician or psychologist finds that a prisoner “suffers from a mental disease or defect” and “cannot be given proper treatment in that facility,” the director may transfer him for examination, study, and treatment to another institution within or without the Department of Correctional Services. Any prisoner so transferred to a mental hospital is to be returned to the Department if, prior to the expiration of his sentence, treatment is no longer necessary. Upon expiration of sentence, if the State desires to retain the prisoner in a mental hospital, civil commitment proceedings must be promptly commenced. § 83-180 (3).
On May 31, 1974, Jones was convicted of robbery and sentenced to a term of three to nine years in state prison. He was transferred to the penitentiary hospital in January 1975. Two days later he was placed in solitary confinement, where he set his mattress on fire, burning himself severely. He was treated in the burn unit of a private hospital. Upon his release and based on findings required by § 83-180 that he was suffering from a mental illness or defect and could not receive proper treatment in the penal complex, he was transferred to the security unit of the Lincoln Regional Center, a state mental hospital under the jurisdiction of the Department of Public Institutions.
Jones then intervened in this case, which was brought by other prisoners against the appropriate state officials (the State) challenging on procedural due process grounds the adequacy of the procedures by which the Nebraska statutes permit transfers from the prison complex to a mental hospital. On August 17, 1976, a three-judge District Court, convened pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2281 (1970 ed.). denied the State’s motion for summary judgment and trial ensued. On September 12, 1977, the District Court declared § 83-180 unconstitutional as applied to Jones, holding that transferring Jones to a mental hospital without adequate notice and opportunity for a hearing deprived him of liberty without due process of law contrary to the Fourteenth Amendment and that such transfers must be accompanied by adequate notice, an adversary hearing before an independent decisionmaker, a written statement by the factfinder of the evidence relied on and the reasons for the decision, and the availability of appointed counsel for indigent prisoners. Miller v. Vitek, 437 F. Supp. 569 (Neb. 1977). Counsel was requested to suggest appropriate relief.
In response to this request, Jones revealed that on May 27, 1977, prior to the District Court’s decision, he had been transferred from Lincoln Regional Center to the psychiatric ward of the penal complex but prayed for an injunction against further transfer to Lincoln Regional Center. The State conceded that an injunction should enter if the District Court was firm in its belief that the section was unconstitutional. The District Court then entered its judgment declaring § 83-180 unconstitutional as applied to Jones and permanently enjoining the State from transferring Jones to Lincoln Regional Center without following the procedures prescribed in its judgment.
We noted probable jurisdiction 434 U. S. 1060 (1978). Meanwhile, Jones had been paroled, but only on condition that he accept psychiatric treatment at a Veterans’ Administration Hospital. We vacated the judgment of the District Court and remanded the case to that court for consideration of the question of mootness. Vitek v. Jones, 436 U. S. 407 (1978). Both the State and Jones at this juncture insisted that the case was not moot. The State represented that because “Jones’ history of mental illness indicates a serious threat to his own safety, as well as to that of others . . . there is a very real expectation” that he would again be transferred if the injunction was removed. App. to Juris Statement 24. Jones insisted that he was receiving treatment for mental illness against his will and that he was continuing to suffer from the stigmatizing consequences of the previous determination that he was mentally ill. On these representations, the District Court found that the case was not moot because Jones “is subject to and is in fact under threat of being transferred to the state mental hospital under § 83-180.” Ibid. The District Court reinstated its original judgment. We postponed consideration of jurisdiction to a hearing on the merits. 441 U. S. 922 (1979). Meanwhile, Jones had violated his parole, his parole had been revoked, and he had been reincarcerated in the penal complex.
II
We agree with the parties in this case that a live controversy exists and that the case is not moot. Jones was declared to be mentally ill pursuant to § 83-180 and was transferred to a mental hospital and treated. He was later paroled but only on condition that he accept mental treatment. He violated that parole and has been returned to the penal complex. On our remand to consider mootness, the District Court, relying on Jones’ history of mental illness and the State’s representation that he represented a serious threat to his own safety as well as to that of others, found that Jones “is in fact under threat of being transferred to the state mental hospital under § 83-180.” We see no reason to disagree with the District Court’s assessment at that time, and the reality of the controversy between Jones and the State has not been lessened by the cancellation of his parole and his return to the state prison, where he is protected from further transfer by the outstanding judgment and injunction of the District Court. The State, believing that the case is not moot, wants the injunction removed by the reversal of the District Court’s judgment. Jones, on the other hand, insists that the judgment of the District Court be sustained and the protection against transfer to a mental hospital, except in accordance with the specified procedures, be retained.
Against this background, it is not “absolutely clear,” absent the injunction, “that the allegedly wrongful behavior could not reasonably be expected to recur.” United States v. Phosphate Export Assn., 393 U. S. 199, 203 (1968); County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U. S. 625, 631 (1979); United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U. S. 629, 633 (1953). Furthermore, as the matter now stands, the § 83-180 determination that Jones suffered from mental illness has been declared infirm by the District Court. Vacating the District Court’s judgment as moot would not only vacate the injunction against transfer but also the declaration that the procedures employed by the State afforded an inadequate basis for declaring Jones to be mentally ill. In the posture of the case, it is not moot.
Ill
On the merits, the threshold question in this case is whether the involuntary transfer of a Nebraska state prisoner to a mental hospital implicates a liberty interest that is protected by the Due Process Clause. The District Court held that it did and offered two related reasons for its conclusion. The District Court first identified a liberty interest rooted in § 83-180 (1), under which a prisoner could reasonably expect that he would not be transferred to a mental hospital without a finding that he was suffering from a mental illness for which he could not secure adequate treatment in the correctional facility. Second, the District Court was convinced that characterizing Jones as a mentally ill patient and transferring him to the Lincoln ^Regional Center had “some stigmatizing” consequences which, together with the mandatory behavior modification treatment to which Jones would be subject at the Lincoln Center, constituted a major change in the conditions of confinement amounting to a “grievous loss” that should not be imposed without the opportunity for notice and an adequate hearing. We agree with the District Court in both respects.
A
We have repeatedly held that state statutes may create liberty interests that are entitled to the procedural protections of the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. There is no “constitutional or inherent right” to parole, Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U. S. 1, 7 (1979), but once a State grants a prisoner the conditional liberty properly dependent on the observance of special parole restrictions, due process protections attach to the decision to revoke parole. Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471 (1972). The same is true of the revocation of probation. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S. 778 (1973). In Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S. 539 (1974), we held that a state-created right to good-time credits, which could be forfeited only for serious misbehavior, constituted a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. We also noted that the same reasoning could justify extension of due process protections to a decision to impose “solitary” confinement because “[it] represents a major change in the conditions of confinement and is normally imposed only when it is claimed and proved that there has been a major act of misconduct.” Id., at 571-572, n. 19. Once a State has granted prisoners a liberty interest, we held that due process protections are necessary “to insure that the state-created right is not arbitrarily abrogated.” Id., at 557.
In Meachum v. Fano, 427 U. S. 215 (1976), and Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U. S. 236 (1976), we held that the transfer of a prisoner from one prison to another does not infringe a protected liberty interest. But in those cases transfers were discretionary with the prison authorities, and in neither case did the prisoner possess any right or justifiable expectation that he would not be transferred except for misbehavior or upon the occurrence of other specified events. Hence, “the predicate for invoking the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment as construed and applied in Wolff v. McDonnell [was] totally nonexistent.” Meachum v. Fano, supra, at 226-227.
Following Meachum v. Fano and Montanye v. Haymes, we continued to recognize that state statutes may grant prisoners liberty interests that invoke due process protections when prisoners are transferred to solitary confinement for disciplinary or administrative reasons. Enomoto v. Wright, 434 U. S. 1052 (1978), summarily aff'g 462 F. Supp. 397 (ND Cal. 1976). Similarly, in Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, supra, we held that state law granted petitioners a sufficient expectancy of parole to entitle them to some measure of constitutional protection with respect to parole decisions.
We think the District Court properly understood and applied these decisions. Section 83-180 (1) provides that if a designated physician finds that a prisoner “suffers from a mental disease or defect” that “cannot be given proper treatment” in prison, the Director of Correctional Services may transfer a prisoner to a mental hospital. The District Court also found that in practice prisoners are transferred to a mental hospital only if it is determined that they suffer from a mental disease or defect that cannot adequately be treated within the penal complex. This “objective expectation, firmly fixed in state law and official Penal Complex practice,” that a prisoner would not be transferred unless he suffered from a mental disease or defect that could not be adequately treated in the prison, gave Jones a liberty interest that entitled him to the benefits of appropriate procedures in connection with determining the conditions that warranted his transfer to a mental hospital. Under our cases, this conclusion of the District Court is unexceptionable.
Appellants maintain that any state-created liberty interest that Jones had was completely satisfied once a physician or psychologist designated by the director made the findings required by §83-180(1) and that Jones was not entitled to any procedural protections. But if the State grants a prisoner a right or expectation that adverse action will not be taken against him except upon the- occurrence of specified behavior, “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.” Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S., at 558. These minimum requirements being a matter of federal law, they are not diminished by the fact that the State may have specified its own procedures that it may deem adequate for determining the preconditions to adverse official action. In Morrissey, Gagnon, and Wolff, the States had adopted their own procedures for determining whether conditions warranting revocation of parole, probation, or good-time credits had occurred; yet we held that those procedures were constitutionally inadequate. In like manner, Nebraska’s reliance on the opinion of a designated physician or psychologist for determining whether the conditions warranting a transfer exist neither removes the prisoner’s interest from due process protection nor answers the question of what process is due under the Constitution.
“The plurality opinion evidently reasons that the nature of appellee’s interest in continued federal employment is necessarily defined and limited by the statutory procedures for discharge and that the constitutional guarantee of procedural due process accords to appellee no procedural protections against arbitrary or erroneous discharge other than those expressly provided in the statute. The plurality would thus conclude that the statute governing federal employment determines not only the nature of appellee’s property interest, but also the extent of the procedural protections to which he may lay claim. It seems to me that this approach is incompatible with the principles laid down in [Board of Regents v.] Roth[, 408 U. S. 564 (1972)] and [Perry v.] Sindermann[, 408 U. S. 593 (1972)]. Indeed, it would lead directly to the conclusion that whatever the nature of an individual’s statutorily created property interest, deprivation of that interest could be accomplished without notice or a hearing at any time. This view misconceives the origin of the right to procedural due process. That right is conferred, not by legislative grace, but by constitutional guarantee. While the legislature may elect not to confer a property interest in federal employment, it may not constitutionally authorize the deprivation of such an interest, once conferred, without appropriate procedural safeguards. As our cases have consistently recognized, the adequacy of statutory procedures for deprivation of a statu-
B
The District Court was also correct in holding that independently of § 83-180 (1), the transfer of a prisoner from a prison to a mental hospital must be accompanied by appropriate procedural protections. The issue is whether after a conviction for robbery, Jones retained a residuum of liberty that would be infringed by a transfer to a mental hospital without complying with minimum requirements of due process.
We have recognized that for the ordinary citizen, commitment to a mental hospital produces “a massive curtailment of liberty,” Humphrey v. Cady, 405 U. S. 504, 509 (1972), and in consequence “requires due process protection.” Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S. 418, 425 (1979); O’Connor v. Donaldson, 422 U. S. 563, 580 (1975) (Burger, C. J., concurring). The loss of liberty produced by an involuntary commitment is more than a loss of freedom from confinement. It is indisputable that commitment to a mental hospital “can engender adverse social consequences to the individual” and that “[w]hether we label this phenomena 'stigma’ or choose to call it something else ... we recognize that it can occur and that it can have a very significant impact on the individual.” Addington v. Texas, supra, at 425-426. See also Parham v. J. R., 442 U. S. 584, 600 (1979). Also, “[a]mong the historic liberties” protected by the Due Process Clause is the “right to be free from, and to obtain judicial relief for, unjustified intrusions on personal security.” Ingraham v. Wright, 430 U. S. 651, 673 (1977). Compelled treatment in the form of mandatory behavior modification programs, to which the District Court found Jones was exposed in this case, was a proper factor to be weighed by the District Court. Cf. Addington v. Texas, supra, at 427.
torily created property interest must be analyzed in constitutional terms. Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254 (1970); Bell v. Burson, 402 U. S. 535 (1971); Board of Regents v. Roth, supra; Perry v. Sindermann, supra.” Id., at 166-167.
The District Court, in its findings, was sensitive to these concerns:
“[T]he fact of greater limitations on freedom of action at the Lincoln Regional Center, the fact that a transfer to the Lincoln Regional Center has some stigmatizing consequences, and the fact that additional mandatory behavior modification systems are used at the Lincoln Regional Center combine to make the transfer a 'major change in the conditions of confinement’ amounting to a 'grievous loss’ to the inmate.” Miller v. Vitek, 437 F. Supp., at 573.
Were an ordinary citizen to be subjected involuntarily to these consequences, it is undeniable that protected liberty interests would be unconstitutionally infringed absent compliance with the procedures required by the Due Process Clause. We conclude that a convicted felon also is entitled to the benefit of procedures appropriate in the circumstances before he is found to have a mental disease and transferred to a mental hospital.
Undoubtedly, a valid criminal conviction and prison sentence extinguish a defendant’s right to freedom from confinement. Greenholtz v. Nebraska Penal Inmates, 442 U. S., at 7. Such a conviction and sentence sufficiently extinguish a defendant’s liberty “to empower the State to confine him in any of its prisons.” Meachum v. Fano, 427 U. S., at 224 (emphasis deleted). It is also true that changes in the conditions of confinement having a substantial adverse impact on the prisoner are not alone sufficient to invoke the protections of the Due Process Clause “[a]s long as the conditions or degree of confinement to which the prisoner is subjected is within the sentence imposed upon him.” Montanye v. Haymes, 427 U. S., at 242.
Appellants maintain that the transfer of a prisoner to a mental hospital is within the range of confinement justified by imposition of a prison sentence, at least after certification by a qualified person that a prisoner suffers from a mental disease or defect. We cannot agree. None of our decisions holds that conviction for a crime entitles a State not only to confine the convicted person but also to determine that he has a mental illness and to subject him involuntarily to institutional care in a mental hospital. Such consequences visited on the prisoner are qualitatively different from the punishment characteristically suffered by a person convicted of crime. Our cases recognize as much and reflect an understanding that involuntary commitment to a mental hospital is not within the range of conditions of confinement to which a prison sentence subjects an individual. Baxstrom v. Herold, 383 U. S. 107 (1966); Specht v. Patterson, 386 U. S. 605 (1967); Humphrey v. Cady, 405 U. S. 504 (1972); Jackson v. Indiana, 406 U. S. 715, 724-725 (1972). A criminal conviction and sentence of imprisonment extinguish an individual’s right to freedom from confinement for the term of his sentence, but they do not authorize the State to classify him as mentally ill and to subject him to involuntary psychiatric treatment without affording him additional due process protections.
In light of the findings made by the District Court, Jones’ involuntary transfer to the Lincoln Regional Center pursuant to § 83-180, for the purpose of psychiatric treatment, implicated a liberty interest protected by the Due Process Clause. Many of the restrictions on the prisoner’s freedom of action at the Lincoln Regional Center by themselves might not constitute the deprivation of a liberty interest retained by a prisoner, see Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U. S., at 572, n. 19; cf. Baxter v. Palmigiano, 425 U. S. 308, 323 (1976). But here, the stigmatizing consequences of a transfer to a mental hospital for involuntary psychiatric treatment, coupled with the subjection of the prisoner to mandatory behavior modification as a treatment for mental illness, constitute the kind of deprivations of liberty that requires procedural protections.
IV
The District Court held that to afford sufficient protection to the liberty interest it had identified, the State was required to observe the following minimum procedures before transferring a prisoner to a mental hospital:
“A. Written notice to the prisoner that a transfer to a mental hospital is being considered;
“B. A hearing, sufficiently after the notice to permit the prisoner to prepare, at which disclosure to the prisoner is made of the evidence being relied upon for the transfer and at which an opportunity to be heard in person and to present documentary evidence is given;
“C. An opportunity at the hearing to present testimony of witnesses by the defense and to confront and cross-examine witnesses called by the state, except upon a finding, not arbitrarily made, of good cause for not permitting such presentation, confrontation, or cross-examination;
“D. An independent decisionmaker;
“E. A written statement by the factfinder as to the evidence relied on and the reasons for transferring the inmate;
“F. Availability of legal counsel, furnished by the state, if the inmate is financially unable to furnish his own; and
“G. Effective and timely notice of all the foregoing rights.” 437 F. Supp., at 575.
A
We think the District Court properly identified and weighed the relevant factors in arriving at its judgment. Concededly the interest of the State in segregating and treating mentally ill patients is strong. The interest of the prisoner in not being arbitrarily classified as mentally ill and subjected to unwelcome treatment is also powerful, however; and as the District Court found, the risk of error in making the determinations required by § 83-180 is substantial enough to warrant appropriate procedural safeguards against error.
We recognize that the inquiry involved in determining whether or not to transfer an inmate to a mental hospital for treatment involves a question that is essentially medical. The question whether an individual is mentally ill and cannot be treated in prison “turns on the meaning of the facts which must be interpreted by expert psychiatrists and psychologists.” Addington v. Texas, 441 U. S., at 429. The medical nature of the inquiry, however, does not justify dispensing with due process requirements. It is precisely “[t]he subtleties and nuances of psychiatric diagnoses” that justify the requirement of adversary hearings. Id., at 430.
Because prisoners facing involuntary transfer to a mental hospital are threatened with immediate deprivation of liberty interests they are currently enjoying and because of the inherent risk of a mistaken transfer, the District Court properly determined that procedures similar to those required by the Court in Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U. S. 471 (1972), were appropriate in the circumstances present here.
The notice requirement imposed by the District Court no more than recognizes that notice is essential to afford the prisoner an opportunity to challenge the contemplated action and to understand the nature of what is happening to him. Wolff v. McDonnell, supra, at 564. Furthermore, in view of the nature of the determinations that must accompany the transfer to a mental hospital, we think each of the elements of the hearing specified by the District Court was appropriate. The interests of the State in avoiding disruption was recognized by limiting in appropriate circumstances the prisoner’s right to call witnesses, to confront and cross examine. The District Court also avoided unnecessary intrusion into either medical or correctional judgments by providing that the independent decisionmaker conducting the transfer hearing need not come from outside the prison or hospital administration. 437 F. Supp., at 574.
B
The District Court did go beyond the requirements imposed by prior cases by holding that counsel must be made available to inmates facing transfer hearings if they are financially unable to furnish their own. We have not required the automatic appointment of counsel for indigent prisoners facing other deprivations of liberty, Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U. S., at 790; Wolff v. McDonnell, supra, at 569-570; but we have recognized that prisoners who are illiterate and uneducated have a greater need for assistance in exercising their rights. Gagnon v. Scarpelli, supra, at 786-787; Wolff v. McDonnell, supra, at 570. A prisoner thought to be suffering from a mental disease or defect requiring involuntary treatment probably has an even greater need for legal assistance, for such a prisoner is more likely to be unable to understand or exercise his rights. In these circumstances, it is appropriate that counsel be provided to indigent prisoners whom the State seeks to treat as mentally ill.
V
Because Mr. Justice Powell, while believing that Jones was entitled to competent help at the hearing, would not require the State to furnish a licensed attorney to aid him, the judgment below is affirmed as modified to conform with the separate opinion filed by Mr. Justice Powell.
So ordered.
Section 83-180 (1) provides:
“When a physician designated by the Director of Correctional Services finds that a person committed to the department suffers from a physical disease or defect, or when a physician or psychologist designated by the director finds that a person committed to the department suffers from a mental disease or defect, the chief executive officer may order such person to be segregated from other persons in the facility. If the physician or psychologist is of the opinion that the person cannot be given proper treatment in that facility, the director may arrange for his transfer for examination, study, and treatment to any medical-correctional facility, or to another institution in the Department of Public Institutions where proper treatment is available. A person who is so transferred shall remain subject to the jurisdiction and custody of the Department of Correctional Services and shall be returned to the department when, prior to the expiration of his sentence, treatment in such facility is no longer necessary.”
Section 83-180 (3) provides:
“When two psychiatrists designated by the Director of Correctional Services find that a person about to be released or discharged from any facility suffers from a mental disease or defect of such a nature that his release or discharge will endanger the public safety or the safety of the offender, the director shall transfer him to, or if he has already been transferred, permit him to remain in, a psychiatric facility in the Department of Public Institutions and shall promptly commence proceedings applicable to the civil commitment and detention of persons suffering from such disease or defect.”
After initially certifying this case as a class action, the District Court decertified the class, but permitted intervention by three individual plaintiffs, including Jones. The District Court subsequently dismissed the claims of all plaintiffs except Jones, who is the sole appellee in this Court.
The statute authorizing the convening of a three-judge court, 28 U. S. C. § 2281 (1970 ed.), was repealed by Pub. L. 94-381, 90 Stat. 1119, effective for actions commenced after August 12, 1976. Because the instant action was filed on November 12, 1975, the three-judge court was properly convened.
Because Jones has not completed serving his sentence, he remains subject to the transfer procedures he challenges, unlike the plaintiff in Weinstein v. Bradford, 423 U. S. 147 (1975), where a challenge to parole procedures was held to be moot because plaintiff had completed his sentence and there was no longer any likelihood whatsoever that he would again be subjected to the parole procedures he challenged.
A majority of the Justices rejected an identical position in Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U. S. 134, 166-167 (1974) (opinion of Powell, J., joined by Blackmun, J.), 177-178 (opinion of White, J.), 210-211 (opinion of Marshall, J., joined by Douglas and BrennaN, JJ.). As Mr. Justice Powell’s opinion observed:
This part is joined only by Mr. Justice BRENNAN, Me. Justice Marshall, and Mr. Justice Stevens.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
D
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Goldberg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This appeal presents the question of whether a person who has testified under subpoena before a congressional committee investigating the operation of the Antitrust Acts has testified in a “proceeding, suit, or prosecution under said Acts” thereby acquiring immunity from prosecution under the Act of February 25, 1903, 32 Stat. 854, 904.
The facts are undisputed. On September 6, 1962, appellee, along with other individuals and corporations, was indicted on charges of conspiring to fix milk prices and to defraud the United States, in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, 26 Stat. 209, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1, and the Conspiracy Act, 62 Stat. 701, 18 U. S. C. § 371. Appellee moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground, inter alia, that the prosecution was barred under the immunity provision of the Act of February 25, 1903, because he had previously testified before a subcommittee of the House Select Committee on Small Business concerning matters covered by the indictment. The Government opposed the motion to dismiss contending that the immunity provision of the Act of February 25, 1903, extends only to judicial proceedings and not to hearings before congressional committees. The District Court for the District of Massachusetts, rejecting the Government’s contention, dismissed the indictment against appellee. The Government appealed the dismissal directly to this Court pursuant to the Criminal Appeals Act, 62 Stat. 844, as amended, 18 U. S. C. § 3731. Probable jurisdiction was noted. 375 U. S. 809.
We hold, for the reasons stated below, that the immunity provision of the Act of February 25, 1903, applies only to persons testifying in judicial proceedings, not to persons testifying before committees or subcommittees of Congress.
The immunity provision in question was enacted as part of an appropriations act which declared:
“That for the enforcement of the provisions of the Act entitled ‘An Act to regulate commerce,’ approved February fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, and all Acts amendatory thereof or supplemental thereto, and of the Act entitled 'An Act to protect trade and commerce against unlawful restraints and monopolies/ approved July second, eighteen hundred and ninety, and all Acts amenda-tory thereof or supplemental thereto, and sections seventy-three, seventy-four, seventy-five, and seventy-six of the Act entitled 'An Act to reduce taxation, to provide revenue for the Government, and other purposes/ approved August twenty-seventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-four, the sum of five hundred thousand dollars, to be immediately available, is hereby appropriated, out of any money in the Treasury not heretofore appropriated, to be expended under the direction of the Attorney-General in the employment of special counsel and agents of the Department of Justice to conduct proceedings, suits, and prosecutions under said Acts in the courts of the United States: Provided, That no person shall be prosecuted or be subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter, or thing concerning which he may testify or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, in any proceeding, suit, or prosecution under said Acts. . . 32
Stat. 903-904. (Emphasis added.)
By any common-sense reading of this statute, the words “any proceeding, suit, or prosecution under said Acts” in the proviso plainly refer to the phrase “proceedings, suits, and prosecutions under said Acts in the courts of the United States,” in the previous clause. The words “under said Acts” confirm that the immunity provision is limited to judicial proceedings, which are brought “under” specific existing acts, such as the Sherman Act or the Commerce Act. Congressional investigations, although they may relate to specific existing acts, are not generally so restricted in purpose or scope as to be spoken of as being brought “under” these Acts.
In Hale v. Henkel, 201 U. S. 43, decided only three years after the passage of the Act of February 25, 1903, this Court construed that Act in accordance with the plain meaning of its words as follows:
“While there may be some doubt whether the examination of witnesses before a grand jury is a suit or prosecution, we have no doubt that it is a ‘proceeding’ within the meaning of this proviso. The word should receive as wide a construction as is necessary to protect the witness in his disclosures, whenever such disclosures are made in pursuance of a judicial inquiry, whether such inquiry be instituted by a grand jury, or upon the trial of an indictment found by them.” Id., at 66. (Emphasis added.)
We conclude, therefore, that as enacted the Act of February 25, 1903, applies only to judicial proceedings.
Appellee does not really dispute this. His basic contention, which is not accepted by any member of the Court, is that the 1906 immunity statute amended the Act of February 25, 1903, to extend immunity to persons who testified in nonjudicial as well as judicial proceedings. He does not contend that the 1906 statute, by its terms, so amended the 1903 Act. He offers the following interpretation of the events leading up to the enactment of the 1906 statute in support of the contention that the 1903 Act was amended by implication to extend to nonjudicial proceedings. In the case of United States v. Armour & Co., 142 F. 808, decided three years after the enactment of the 1903 Act, the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois held that certain defendants had been immunized from prosecution under the Antitrust Laws by giving unsubpoenaed and unsworn testimony in a nonjudicial investigation conducted by the Commissioner of Corporations, an official of the Department of Commerce and Labor. Congressional reaction to this decision was immediate and adverse, and within four months Congress enacted the 1906 immunity statute. This statute specifically limited immunity under existing immunity statutes to persons testifying under oath and in obedience to subpoena. Appellee contends that the purpose of Congress in enacting the 1906 statute was to remedy the objectionable features of the Armour decision, and that since the statute did not “remedy” the court’s holding that immunity could be obtained by testifying in a nonjudicial proceeding, it follows that Congress did not regard that holding as objectionable. He asks us to conclude, therefore, that “proceeding” as used in the immunity provision of the Act of February 25, 1903, must now be read to include nonjudicial as well as judicial proceedings.
This argument erroneously assumes that the Armour decision rested on a construction of “proceeding, suit, or prosecution” in the immunity provision of the Act of February 25, 1903. A reading of that decision reveals, however, that it rested primarily on the Commerce and Labor Act, which contained a specific grant of immunity to persons who testified in investigations, admittedly non judicial, conducted by the Commissioner of Corporations. In deciding the Armour case, the court felt it “necessary to look into the purposes of Congress in passing the commerce and labor act in order that the court may determine what construction will best carry out the legislative intent.” 142 F., at 819. After a detailed analysis of that statute and its history, the court concluded that the Commerce and Labor Act was dispositive of the case and that defendants were entitled to immunity thereunder. Following this conclusion, the judge added a brief paragraph in which he said, without analyzing (or even quoting) the language or history of the Act of February 25, 1903, that he was “of opinion” that the defendants would also be entitled to immunity under that Act as well. Id., at 826. In the very next paragraph, however, the judge again described the opinion as resting on “the construction here given to the commerce and labor law . . . Ibid.
The controversial feature of the Armour decision, and the only one which Congress was interested in remedying, was the holding that unsubpoenaed and unsworn testimony came within “the purposes of Congress in passing the commerce and labor act . . . 142 F., at 819. Congress wanted to be certain that persons anticipating indictment could not immunize themselves from prosecution by volunteering to give unsworn testimony. There was nothing controversial about the court’s holding that immunity could result from testimony given in an investigation conducted by the Commissioner of Corporations, since the Commerce and Labor Act specifically granted immunity for testimony given in such an investigation.
It is not at all significant, therefore, that Congress, while “remedying” the Armour holding that immunity could be obtained from testimony which was unsworn and voluntary, did not “remedy” the holding that immunity could result from testimony given in nonjudicial investigations conducted by the Commissioner of Corporations.
Congress, in enacting the 1906 statute, did not manifest any intent to enlarge the reach of the immunity provision of the Act of February 25, 1903, to include nonjudicial proceedings. The purpose of the 1906 statute was not to define the type of proceeding in which immunity, under existing statutes, could be obtained. Its sole purpose was to define the type of testimony for which immunity, under existing statutes, could be obtained. This is all Congress was asked to do by President Theodore Roosevelt in his message recommending the legislation which became the 1906 statute. In his message the President said:
“It has hitherto been supposed that the immunity conferred by existing laws was only upon persons who, being subpoenaed, had given testimony or produced evidence ....
“But Judge Humphrey [the district judge who decided the Armour case] holds that if the Commissioner of Corporations (and therefore if the Interstate Commerce Commission), in the course of any investigations prescribed by Congress, asks any questions of a person, not called as a witness, or asks any questions of an officer of a corporation, not called as a witness, with regard to the action of the corporation on a subject out of which prosecutions may subsequently arise, then the fact of such questions having been asked operates as a bar to the prosecution of that person or of that officer of the corporation for his own misdeeds. Such interpretation of the law comes measurably near making the law a farce, and I therefore recommend that the Congress pass a declaratory act stating its real intention.” H. R. Doc. No. 706, 59th Cong., 1st Sess.
The limited purpose of the 1906 Act is also apparent from the response made by Senator Knox, the manager of the bill which became the 1906 Act, to a statement made by Senator Daniel, a critic of immunity legislation. Senator Daniel said:
“I suppose that the bill under consideration as it reads now applies only to persons who testify in a judicial proceeding or to those who are responding to some body such as a Congressional committee that has the right to enforce an answer from a witness.
“I should like very much to hear from the patron of this bill some statement as to the present state of the law and as to the benefits to be derived from the bill.”
Senator Knox responded as follows:
“Mr. President, the purpose of this bill is clear, and its range is not very broad. It is not intended to cover all disputed provisions as to the rights of witnesses under any circumstances, except those enumerated in the bill itself. . . .
“Mr. President, the whole purpose of this bill is to define the right of the witness as we thought it was defined in the statute which I have read, and to say, as the statute said, but to say it even more clearly and emphatically, that the immunity shall only extend to witnesses who have been subpoenaed to produce books and papers or subpoenaed to give testimony. The essence of the whole act is found in lines 18, 19, and 20, on page 2, which read that these immunity provisions — only the immunity provisions under the interstate commerce act and under the Commerce and Labor act, not the general immunity that the citizen enjoys in judicial proceedings, but merely in relation to the proceedings of these two great bureaus of the Government — ‘shall extend only to a natural person.’ That is, that a corporation is not to have the benefit of the immunity provisions, but they — ‘shall extend only to a natural person who, in obedience to a subpoena, gives testimony under oath or produces evidence, documentary or otherwise, under oath.’ ” 40 Cong. Rec. 7657-7658.
This Court in United States v. Monia, 317 U. S. 424, 429-430, recognized that “the sole purpose” of the 1906 statute was to limit immunity to persons “who, in obedience to a subpoena, testified or produced evidence under oath,” so that the decision whether or not to grant immunity would be that of the appropriate “Government officials,” rather than of private citizens anticipating indictment.
We conclude, therefore, that the 1906 statute did not, either expressly or implicitly, extend the immunity provision of the Act of February 25, 1903, to include nonjudicial proceedings. The 1906 Act simply limited immunity to persons testifying under oath and in response to subpoena.
Our decision today is based solely on the language and legislative history of the relevant congressional enactments. Congress has extended immunity, with careful safeguards, to persons testifying before congressional committees in certain limited situations not here involved. Where Congress, however, has limited immunity to persons testifying in judicial proceedings, as it has plainly done here, it is not for the courts to extend the scope of the immunity.
The District Court erred, therefore, in holding that appellee’s testimony before a congressional subcommittee had immunized him from prosecution. The judgment dismissing the indictment is reversed and the case remanded for proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The relevant portion of this Act is set forth on pp. 96-97.
The Government concedes that the testimony given before the subcommittee related to matters charged in the indictment.
Congressional hearings are generally conducted under the Legislative Reorganization Act of 1946, 60 Stat. 812, under the rules or regulations of either House, or, as in the present case, under a special resolution. H. Res. 51, 86th Cong., 1st Sess., 105 Cong. Rec. 1785.
This Act, as codified, appears at 15 U. S. C. § 32. The codification, which has not been enacted into positive law, eliminates the appropriation provision of the Act which by its terms was of no effect after June 30, 1904. The codification makes no other change. 61 Stat. 638, 1 U. S. C. §204 (a), declares that the United States Code establishes “prima facie the laws of the United States, general and permanent in their nature . . . Provided, however, That whenever titles of such Code shall have been enacted into positive law the text thereof shall be legal evidence of the laws therein contained, in all the courts . . . .” This Court, in construing that statute has said that “the very meaning of ‘prima facie’ is that the Code cannot prevail over the Statutes at Large when the two are inconsistent.” Stephan v. United States, 319 U. S. 423, 426. Even where Congress bas enacted a codification into positive law, this Court has said that the
“change of arrangement, which placed portions of what was originally a single section in two separated sections cannot be regarded as altering the scope and purpose of the enactment. For it will not be inferred that Congress, in revising and consolidating the laws, intended to change their effect unless such intention is clearly expressed.” Fourco Glass Co. v. Transmirra Corp., 353 U. S. 222, 227, quoting Anderson v. Pacific Coast S. S. Co., 225 U. S. 187, 198-199. Certainly where, as here, the “change of arrangement” was made by a codifier without the approval of Congress, it should be given no weight. “If construction [of a section of the United States Code which has not been enacted into positive law] is necessary, recourse must be had to the original statutes themselves.” Murrell v. Western Union Tel. Co., 160 F. 2d 787, 788. Accordingly, in order to construe the immunity provision of the Appropriations Act of February 25, 1903, we must read it in the context of the entire Act, rather than in the context of the “arrangement” selected by the codifier.
See dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice Black, post, at 113, note 11.
The text of the 1906 statute is set forth infra, note 9.
This conclusion was reached after the taking of testimony. Accordingly, the Government could not appeal the trial court’s directed verdict of acquittal.
The Armour case arose before the creation of independent Departments of Labor and of Commerce.
The full text of the 1906 Act is as follows.
“Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That under the immunity provisions in the Act entitled ‘An Act in relation to testimony before the Interstate Commerce Commission,’ and so forth, approved February eleventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-three, in section six of the Act entitled ‘An Act to establish the Department of Commerce and Labor,’ approved February fourteenth, nineteen hundred and three, and in the Act entitled ‘An Act to further regulate commerce with foreign nations and among the States,’ approved February nineteenth, nineteen hundred and three, and in the Act entitled ‘An Act making appropriations for the legislative, executive, and judicial expenses of the Government for the fiscal year ending June thirtieth, nineteen hundred and four, and for other purposes,’ approved February twenty-fifth, nineteen hundred and three, immunity shall extend only to a natural person who, in obedience to a subpoena, gives testimony under oath or produces evidence, documentary or otherwise, under oath.” 34 Stat. 798, 15 U. S. C. § 33.
See discussion of these events in United States v. Monia, 317 U. S. 424, 428-429.
“An Act To establish the Department of Commerce and Labor” provided in relevant part:
“In order to accomplish the purposes declared in the foregoing part of this section, the said Commissioner shall have and exercise the same power and authority in respect to corporations, joint stock companies and combinations subject to the provisions hereof, as is conferred on the Interstate Commerce Commission in said 'Act to regulate commerce’ and the amendments thereto in respect to common carriers so far as the same may be applicable, including the right to subpoena and compel the attendance and testimony of witnesses and the production of documentary evidence and to administer oaths. All the requirements, obligations, liabilities, and immunities imposed or conferred by said ‘Act to regulate commerce’ and by ‘An Act in relation to testimony before the Interstate Commerce Commission,’ and so forth, approved February eleventh, eighteen hundred and ninety-three, supplemental to said ‘Act to regulate commerce,’ shall also apply to all persons who may be subpoenaed to testify as witnesses or to produce documentary evidence in pursuance of the authority conferred by this section.” 32 Stat. 825, 828.
The Act of February 11, 1893, provides in relevant part:
“That no person shall be excused from attending and testifying or from producing books, papers, tariffs, contracts, agreements and documents before the Interstate Commerce Commission, or in obedience to the subpoena of the Commission, whether such subpoena be signed or issued by one or more Commissioners, or in any cause or proceeding, criminal or otherwise, based upon or growing out of any alleged violation of the act of Congress, entitled, ‘An act to regulate commerce,’ approved February fourth, eighteen hundred and eighty-seven, or of any amendment thereof on the ground or for the reason that the testimony or evidence, documentary or otherwise, required of him, may tend to criminate him or subject him to a penalty or forfeiture. But no person shall be prosecuted or subjected to any penalty or forfeiture for or on account of any transaction, matter or thing, concerning which he may testify, or produce evidence, documentary or otherwise, before said Commission, or in obedience to its subpoena, or the subpoena of either of them, or in any such case or proceeding: Provided, That no person so testifying shall be exempt from prosecution and punishment for perjury committed in so testifying.” 27 Stat. 443-444.
Although Congressman Littlefield referred to this dictum in the debate on the House version of the bill, 40 Cong. Rec. 8738, he did not intimate that the 1903 Act was applicable to congressional investigations or that the purpose of the 1906 Act was to make it so applicable. On the contrary, Congressman Littlefield stated that the sole purpose of the Act was to limit immunity to subpoenaed and sworn testimony. He specifically said, moreover, that the 1906 Act and the Acts which it amended were intended to apply only to a “criminal prosecution . . , [and to investigations conducted by] the Interstate Commerce Commission ... or by the Commissioner of Corporations . . . ,” and that the 1906 Act was intended to assure that no “person shall have the power to offer immunity to a witness except the Government of the United States or some officer acting in behalf thereof.” Id., at 8739. This language, in its context, would not seem to include members or Committees of Congress. See also H. R. Rep. No. 3797, 59th Cong., 1st Sess. Furthermore, even if we were to assume arguendo that the Armour decision was based on a construction of the Act of February 25, 1903, we would be hesitant to accept appellee’s argument that the failure of Congress to overrule that construction resulted in an amendment by implication. Amendments by implication, like repeals by implication, are not favored. See 1 Sutherland, Statutory Construction (3d ed.) 365-366 (citing cases). As this Court said in Jones v. Liberty Glass Co., 332 U. S. 524, 534: “We do not expect Congress to make an affirmative move every time a lower court indulges in an erroneous interpretation. In short, the original legislative language speaks louder than such judicial action.”
See United States v. Monia, supra, at 429.
The Senate version of the bill prevailed in conference and was adopted. See H. R. Rep. No. 5049, 59th Cong., 1st Sess.
Senator Daniel’s supposition that the 1906 Act “applies” to congressional committees was probably based on the erroneous assumption that the 1906 Act, in addition to amending the Acts to which it made specific reference, see note 9, supra, also amended 12 Stat. 333 which provided that: “the testimony of a witness examined and testifying before either House of Congress, or any committee of either House of Congress, shall not be used as evidence in any criminal proceeding against such witness in any court of justice . . . .” This statute was superseded in 1954 by 68 Stat. 745, 18 U. S. C. § 3486.
Although the 1906 amendment referred to the Act of February 25, 1903, along with other immunity statutes, in limiting immunity to persons testifying under oath and in response to subpoena, Senator Knox was correct in suggesting that the Amendment would have little, if any, application to judicial testimony which is commonly sworn and subpoenaed.
In Monia, which involved a grand jury investigation, the appropriate “Government officials” were the Attorney General and his subordinates. In Armour the appropriate government official was the Commissioner of Corporations. Congress may of course designate its own members as appropriate officials, as it has in fact done in certain limited situations not here involved, see note 18, infra.
It is true that the Monia opinion, with regard to the issue raised in that case, considered the 1903 Act as having the same effect as the Interstate Commerce Act. The issue in that case was whether a witness was required to claim his privilege against self-inerimination as a condition of obtaining immunity. It is undisputed that the 1906 Act standardized the rules relating to the types of testimony which would be privileged under the Interstate Commerce Act, the Commerce and Labor Act, and the Act of February 25, 1903. The 1906 Act did not, however, standardize (or alter) the types of proceedings in which immunity could be obtained.
See Immunity Act of 1954, 68 Stat. 745, 18 U. S. C. § 3486.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Petitioner Edward Jerome Harbison was sentenced to death by a Tennessee court in 1983. In 1997, after the state courts rejected challenges to his conviction and sentence, the Federal District Court appointed the Federal Defender Services of Eastern Tennessee to represent him in filing a petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U. S. C. §2254. During the course of that representation, counsel developed substantial evidence relating both to Harbison’s culpability and to the appropriateness of his sentence. Although the courts did not order relief, the evidence proved persuasive to one Circuit Judge. See 408 F. 3d 823, 837-846 (CA6 2005) (Clay, J., dissenting).
Shortly after his habeas corpus petition was denied, Harbison requested counsel for state clemency proceedings. In 2006, the Tennessee Supreme Court held that state law does not authorize the appointment of state public defenders as clemency counsel. State v. Johnson, No. M1987-00072SC-DPE-DD (per curiam), 2006 Tenn. Lexis 1236, *3 (Oct. 6, 2006). Thereafter, Harbison’s federally appointed counsel moved to expand the authorized scope of her representation to include state clemency proceedings. Relying on Circuit precedent construing 18 U. S. C. § 3599, which provides for the appointment of federal counsel, the District Court denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals affirmed. 503 F. 3d 566 (CA6 2007).
We granted certiorari, 554 U. S. 917 (2008), to decide two questions: (1) whether a certificate of appealability (COA) is required to appeal an order denying a request for federally appointed counsel pursuant to §3599, and (2) whether §3599(e)’s reference to “proceedings for executive or other clemency as may be available to the defendant” encompasses state clemency proceedings. We conclude that a COA is not necessary and that §8599 authorizes federally appointed counsel to represent clients in state clemency proceedings.
I
We first consider whether Harbison was required to obtain a COA to appeal the District Court’s order. The State of Tennessee and the United States as amicus curiae agree with Harbison that he was not.
The District Court’s denial of Harbison’s motion to authorize his federal counsel to represent him in state clemency proceedings was clearly an appealable order under 28 U. S. C. § 1291. See, e. g., McFarland v. Scott, 512 U. S. 849 (1994) (reviewing the Court of Appeals’ judgment denying a petition for the appointment of counsel pursuant to the statute now codified at 18 U. S. C. § 3599). The question is whether Harbison’s failure to obtain a COA pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) deprived the Court of Appeals of jurisdiction over the appeal.
Section 2253(c)(1)(A) provides that unless a circuit justice or judge issues a COA, an appeal may not be taken from “the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court.” This provision governs final orders that dispose of the merits of a habeas corpus proceeding — a proceeding challenging the lawfulness of the petitioner’s detention. See generally Slack v. McDaniel, 529 U. S. 473, 484-485 (2000); Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U. S. 74, 78-83 (2005). An order that merely denies a motion to enlarge the authority of appointed counsel (or that denies a motion for appointment of counsel) is not such an order and is therefore not subject to the COA requirement.
II
The central question presented by this case is whether 18 U. S. C. § 3599 authorizes counsel appointed to represent a state petitioner in 28 U. S. C. § 2254 proceedings to represent him in subsequent state clemency proceedings. Although Tennessee takes no position on this question, the Government defends the judgment of the Court of Appeals that the statute does not authorize such representation.
We begin with the language of the statute. Section 3599, titled “Counsel for financially unable defendants,” provides for the appointment of counsel for two classes of indigents, described, respectively, in subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2). The former states:
“[I]n every criminal action in which a defendant is charged with a crime which may be punishable by death, a defendant who is or becomes financially unable to obtain adequate representation or investigative, expert, or other reasonably necessary services at any time either—
“(A) before judgment; or
“(B) after the entry of a judgment imposing a sentence of death but before the execution of that judgment;
“shall be entitled to the appointment of one or more attorneys and the furnishing of such other services in accordance with subsections (b) through (f).”
Subsection (a)(2) states:
“In any post conviction proceeding under section 2254 or 2255 of title 28, United States Code, seeking to vacate or set aside a death sentence, any defendant who is or becomes financially unable to obtain adequate representation or investigative, expert, or other reasonably necessary services shall be entitled to the appointment of one or more attorneys and the furnishing of such other services in accordance with subsections (b) through (f).”
The parties agree that subsections (a)(1) and (a)(2) make two different groups eligible for federally appointed counsel: Subsection (a)(1) describes federal capital defendants, while subsection (a)(2) describes state and federal postconviction litigants, as indicated by its reference to both §2254 and § 2255 proceedings.
After subsections (b) through (d) discuss counsel’s necessary qualifications, subsection (e) sets forth counsel’s responsibilities. It provides:
“Unless replaced by similarly qualified counsel upon the attorney’s own motion or upon motion of the defendant, each attorney so appointed shall represent the defendant throughout every subsequent stage of available judicial proceedings, including pretrial proceedings, trial, sentencing, motions for new trial, appeals, applications for writ of certiorari to the Supreme Court of the United States, and all available post-conviction process, together with applications for stays of execution and other appropriate motions and procedures, and shall also represent the defendant in such competency proceedings and proceedings for executive or other clemency as may be available to the defendant” (Emphasis added.)
Focusing on the italicized clause of subsection (e), Harbison contends that the plain language of the statute dictates the outcome of this case. We are persuaded by his argument.
Under a straightforward reading of the statute, subsection (a) (2) triggers the appointment of counsel for habeas petitioners, and subsection (e) governs the scope of appointed counsel’s duties. See § 3599(a)(2) (stating that habeas petitioners challenging a death sentence shall be entitled to “the furnishing of . . . services in accordance with subsections (b) through (f)”). Thus, once federally funded counsel is appointed to represent a state prisoner in §2254 proceedings, she “shall also represent the defendant in such . . . proceedings for executive or other clemency as may be available to the defendant.” §3599(e). Because state clemency proceedings are “available” to state petitioners who obtain representation pursuant to subsection (a)(2), the statutory-language indicates that appointed counsel’s authorized representation includes such proceedings.
The Government contends that, fairly read, the statute as a whole is intended to furnish representation only in federal proceedings and that all proceedings listed in subsection (e), including clemency proceedings, should be understood to be federal. The absence of the word “federal” in this subsection is not dispositive, it maintains, because subsection (a)(1) likewise does not use the word “federal” yet the parties agree that provision concerns only federal defendants. Just as “federal” is implied by context in subsection (a)(1), so too, the Government says, is it implied in subsection (e). According to the Government, the repeated use of the word “available” supports this reading: Congress contemplated that not all catalogued proceedings would be available to any given client, and clemency proceedings are simply not available to state petitioners because they are ineligible for federal clemency.
The Government’s argument is not convincing. Subsection (a)(1) is properly understood as describing federal defendants because the statute is primarily concerned with federal criminal actions and (a)(1) includes no language suggesting that it applies more broadly. By contrast, subsection (a)(2) refers to state litigants, and it in turn provides that subsection (e) applies to such litigants. There is therefore no basis for assuming that Congress intended “proceedings for executive or other clemency as may be available to the defendant” in subsection (e) to indicate only federal clemency.
To the contrary, the reference to “proceedings for executive or other clemency,” § 3599(e) (emphasis added), reveals that Congress intended to include state clemency proceedings within the statute’s reach. Federal clemency is exclusively executive: Only the President has the power to grant clemency for offenses under federal law. U. S. Const., Art. II, § 2, cl. 1. By contrast, the States administer clemency in a variety of ways. See, e. g., Ga. Const., Art. IV, § 2 (independent board has clemency authority); Nev. Const., Art. 5, § 14 (governor, supreme court justices, and attorney general share clemency power); Fla. Const., Art. IV, §8 (legislature has clemency authority for treasonous offenses); McLaughlin v. Bronson, 206 Conn. 267, 271, 537 A. 2d 1004, 1006-1007 (1988) (“In Connecticut, the pardoning power is vested in the legislature, which has delegated its exercise to the board of pardons” (citation omitted)). Congress’ reference to “other clemency” thus does not refer to federal clemency but instead encompasses the various forms of state clemency.
The Government’s reliance on the word “available” is also misplaced. While it maintains that Congress’ repeated use of the word shows that various § 3599(e) procedures do not apply to particular indigents, the term instead indicates the breadth of the representation contemplated. The directive that counsel “shall represent the defendant throughout every subsequent stage of available judicial proceedings, including ... all available post-conviction process,” for example, hardly suggests a limitation on the scope of representation.
The Government is correct that appointed counsel is not expected to provide each service enumerated in subsection (e) for every client. But that limitation does not follow from the word “available”; it follows from the word “subsequent” and the organization of subsection (e) to mirror the ordinary course of proceedings for capital defendants. Counsel’s responsibilities commence at a different part of subsection (e) depending on whether she is appointed pursuant to subsection (a)(1)(A), (a)(1)(B), or (a)(2). When she is appointed pursuant to (a)(1)(A), she is charged with representing her client in all listed proceedings. When she is appointed pursuant to (a)(1)(B) (i. e., after the entry of a federal death sentence), her representation begins with “appeals.” And when she is appointed pursuant to (a)(2), her representation begins with the §2254 or §2255 “post-conviction process.” Thus, counsel’s representation includes only those judicial proceedings transpiring “subsequent” to her appointment. It is the sequential organization of the statute and the term “subsequent” that circumscribe counsel’s representation, not a strict division between federal and state proceedings.
Ill
In an attempt to overcome the plain language of § 3599, the Government advances two additional arguments that merit discussion. First, it contends that a literal reading of subsection (e) would lead to unacceptable results: It would require a federal lawyer who obtained relief for her client in §2254 proceedings to continue to represent him during his state retrial; similarly, it would require federal counsel to represent her client in any state habeas proceeding following her appointment. Second, the Government claims that the statute’s legislative history shows that Congress did not intend to include state clemency proceedings within § 3599(e)’s coverage. Neither argument is persuasive.
The Government suggests that reading § 3599(e) to authorize federally funded counsel for state clemency proceedings would require a lawyer who succeeded in setting aside a state death sentence during postconviction proceedings to represent her client during an ensuing state retrial. We do not read subsection (e) to apply to state-court proceedings that follow the issuance of a federal writ of habeas corpus. When a retrial occurs after postconviction relief, it is not properly understood as a “subsequent stage” of judicial proceedings but rather as the commencement of new judicial proceedings. Moreover, subsection (a)(2) provides for counsel only when a state petitioner is unable to obtain adequate representation. States are constitutionally required to provide trial counsel for indigent defendants. Thus, when a state prisoner is granted a new trial following §2254 proceedings, his state-furnished representation renders him ineligible for §3599 counsel until the commencement of new §2254 proceedings.
The Government likewise argues that our reading of § 3599(e) would require federally funded counsel to represent her client in any state habeas proceeding occurring after her appointment because such proceedings are also “available post-conviction process.” But as we have previously noted, subsection (e) authorizes counsel to represent her client in “subsequent” stages of available judicial proceedings. State habeas is not a stage “subsequent” to federal habeas. Just the opposite: Petitioners must exhaust their claims in state court before seeking federal habeas relief. See § 2254(b)(1). That state postconviction litigation sometimes follows the initiation of federal habeas because a petitioner has failed to exhaust does not change the order of proceedings contemplated by the statute.
The Government also argues that § 3599(e) should not be interpreted as including state clemency proceedings because it was drafted to apply only to federal defendants. Section 3599 was originally enacted as part of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, § 7001(b), 102 Stat. 4388 (codified at 21 U. S. C. §§848(q)(4)-(10)), which created a federal capital offense of drug-related homicide. In 2006, the death penalty procedures specified in that Act were repealed and recodified without change at 18 U. S. C. §3599. Based on the 1988 legislative history, the Government argues that subsection (e) was not written to apply to state petitioners at all. In its telling, the subsection was drafted when the bill covered only federal defendants; state litigants were added, by means of what is now subsection (a)(2), just a few hours before the bill passed in rushed end-of-session proceedings; and Congress simply did not attend to the fact that this amendment applied what is now subsection (e) to state litigants.
While the legislative history is regrettably thin, the evidence that is available does not support the Government’s argument. State petitioners were a part of the Anti-Drug Abuse Act from the first day the House of Representatives took up the bill. In the amendment authorizing the death penalty for drug-related homicides, Representative George Gekas included a provision that closely resembles the current § 3599(a)(2): “In any post-conviction proceeding under section 225U or 2255 of title 28, United States Code, seeking to vacate or set aside a death sentence, the court shall appoint counsel to represent any defendant who is or becomes financially unable to obtain adequate representation.” 134 Cong. Rec. 22984 (1988) (emphasis added).
Following passage of the Gekas amendment, Representative John Conyers proposed replacing its provisions on appellate and collateral process (including the above-quoted provision) with language comprising the provisions now codified at §§ 3599(a)(1), (b), (c), and (e). Because his amendment introduced the § 3599(e) language and did not refer specifically to § 2254 proceedings, the Government and Justice Scalia argue that Representative Conyers drafted subsection (e) to apply only to federal defendants. But his floor statements evince his particular concern for state prisoners. He explained that his amendment filled a gap because “[w]hile State courts appoint lawyers for indigent defendants, there is no legal representation automatically provided once the case i[s] appealed to the Federal level.” Id., at 22996. He then cited discussions by the Chief Judge of the Eleventh Circuit and the NAACP devoted exclusively to errors found by federal courts during habeas corpus review of state capital cases. Ibid.
In the Senate, Representative Conyers’ language was first replaced with Representative Gekas’ provision for counsel for §2254 and §2255 petitioners, and then a subsequent amendment substituted the text of the Conyers amendment. See id., at 30401,30746. Thereafter, the House amended the bill a final time to insert the language now codified at § 3599(a)(2) while leaving the Conyers language in place. See id., at 33215. The Government argues that this late amendment marked the first occasion on which state prisoners were brought within the bill’s compass. But Representative Gekas' initial amendment explicitly referenced §2254 petitioners, and Representative Conyers’ proposal sought to provide additional protections for all capital defendants. The House’s final amendment is therefore best understood not as altering the bill’s scope, but as clarifying it.
The Government’s arguments about §3599’s history and purposes are laced with the suggestion that Congress simply would not have intended to fund clemency counsel for indigent state prisoners because clemency proceedings are a matter of grace entirely distinct from judicial proceedings. As this Court has recognized, however, “[cjlemency is deeply rooted in our Anglo-American tradition of law, and is the historic remedy for preventing miscarriages of justice where judicial process has been exhausted.” Herrera v. Collins, 506 U. S. 390, 411-412 (1993) (footnote omitted). Far from regarding clemency as a matter of mercy alone, we have called it “the ‘fail safe’ in our criminal justice system.” Id., at 415.
Congress’ decision to furnish counsel for clemency proceedings demonstrates that it, too, recognized the importance of such process to death-sentenced prisoners, and its reference to “other clemency,” § 3599(e), shows that it was familiar with the availability of state as well as federal clemency proceedings. Moreover, Congress’ sequential enumeration suggests an awareness that clemency proceedings are not as divorced from judicial proceedings as the Government submits. Subsection (e) emphasizes continuity of counsel, and Congress likely appreciated that federal habeas counsel are well positioned to represent their clients in the state clemency proceedings that typically follow the conclusion of §2254 litigation.
Indeed, as the history of this case demonstrates, the work of competent counsel during habeas corpus representation may provide the basis for a persuasive clemency application. Harbison’s federally appointed counsel developed extensive information about his life history and cognitive impairments that was not presented during his trial or appeals. She also litigated a claim under Brady v. Maryland, 373 U. S. 83 (1963), based on police records that had been suppressed for 14 years. One Court of Appeals judge concluded that the nondisclosure of these records “undermine[d] confidence in Harbison’s guilty verdict” because the evidence contained therein could have supported a colorable defense that a third party murdered the victim and that Harbison’s codefendant falsely implicated him. 408 F. 3d, at 840 (Clay, J., dissenting). Although the Court of Appeals concluded that Harbison’s Brady claim was procedurally defaulted, the information contained in the police records could be marshaled together with information about Harbison’s background in a clemency application to the Tennessee Board of Probation and Parole and the Governor.
Harbison’s case underscores why it is “entirely plausible that Congress did not want condemned men and women to be abandoned by their counsel at the last moment and left to navigate the sometimes labyrinthine clemency process from their jail cells.” Hain v. Mullin, 436 F. 3d 1168, 1175 (CA10 2006) (en banc). In authorizing federally funded counsel to represent their state clients in clemency proceedings, Congress ensured that no prisoner would be put to death without meaningful access to the “ ‘fail-safe’ ” of our justice system. Herrera, 506 U. S., at 415.
IV
We conclude that a COA is not required to appeal an order denying a motion for federally appointed counsel. We further hold that § 3599 authorizes federally appointed counsel to represent their clients in state clemency proceedings and entitles them to compensation for that representation. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Federal Defender Services of Eastern Tennessee is a nonprofit organization established pursuant to the Criminal Justice Act of 1964, 18 U. S. C. §3006A(g)(2)(B).
We note that §3599 uses the term “defendant” to describe postconviction litigants.
As we discuss below, §3599 was originally enacted as part of a statute creating a new federal capital offense, Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, § 7001(b), 102 Stat. 4388, and it is now codified in Title 18, which principally addresses federal criminal proceedings.
Justice Scaua argues that subsection (e), including the reference to “other clemency,” was drafted to apply only to federal defendants, but this is not correct, as we discuss infra, at 190-193.
The Government suggests that Congress might have referred to “other clemency” to encompass the Executive’s use of other persons to assist him in reviewing clemency applications. But as the Government concedes, see Tr. of Oral Arg. 43 — and as Members of Congress would have known— regardless of what assistance the President seeks, the federal proceeding is one for executive clemency under the Constitution.
We also note that the Government’s proposal to read the word “federal” into § 3599(e) would lead to absurd results. It is clear, for example, that a state inmate faced with an imminent execution might be required to apply for a stay from a state court before seeking such relief in a federal court. On our reading of the statute, federally appointed counsel would be permitted to represent her client pursuant to subsection (e)’s reference to “applications for stays of execution and other appropriate motions and procedures.” But on the Government’s reading, the inmate would have to secure new counsel to file the stay request because his federal counsel would not be authorized to represent him. Such a rigid limit on the authority of appointed federal counsel would be inconsistent with the basic purpose of the statute. Cf. McFarland v. Scott, 512 U. S. 849, 854-857 (1994).
Pursuant to §3599(e)’s provision that counsel may represent her client in “other appropriate motions and procedures,” a district court may determine on a case-by-case basis that it is appropriate for federal counsel to exhaust a claim in the course of her federal habeas representation. This is not the same as classifying state habeas proceedings as “available post-conviction process” within the meaning of the statute.
Despite his reference to “defendants” and “appealed,” Representative Conyers was clearly discussing state prisoners seeking federal habeas relief. Representative Gekas’ amendment similarly referred to postconviction litigants as “defendants,” and the relevant portion of his amendment was titled “Appeal in Capital Cases” even though it incorporated §2254 and §2255 proceedings. 134 Cong. Rec. 22984. As codified, § 3599(a)(2) likewise uses the term “defendant” to refer to habeas petitioners. The Government is incorrect to suggest that the statute’s use of this term illustrates that it was not written to apply to postconviction litigants.
The Government also submits that providing federally funded counsel for state clemency proceedings would raise “unique federalism concerns.” Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 31. But Tennessee’s position belies that claim. Following other States that have litigated the question, Tennessee has expressed “no view” on the statute’s scope because it “has no real stake in whether an inmate receives federal funding for clemency counsel.” Brief for Respondent 7; see also Brief for Current and Former Governors as Amici Curiae 18 (“Contrary to the view of the Solicitor General..., the fact that counsel is appointed by a federal court does not reflect an intrusion on state sovereignty”).
See also Kansas v. Marsh, 548 U. S. 163, 193 (2006) (Scalia, J., concurring) (“Reversal of an erroneous conviction on appeal or on habeas, or the pardoning of an innocent condemnee through executive clemency, demonstrates not the failure of the system but its success. Those devices are part and parcel of the multiple assurances that are applied before a death sentence is carried out”); Dretke v. Haley, 541 U. S. 386, 399 (2004) (Kennedy, J., dissenting) (“Among its benign if too-often ignored objects, the clemency power can correct injustices that the ordinary criminal process seems unable or unwilling to consider”).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Jackson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases present the same issue, a challenge to the constitutionality of the special or so-called “blue ribbon” jury as used by state courts in the State and County of New York.
Such a jury found Fay and Bove guilty of conspiracy to extort and of extortion. Bove was Vice-President of the International Hod Carriers, Building and Common Laborers’ Union of America. Fay was Vice-President of the International Union of Operating Engineers. The City of New York awarded contracts for construction of an extensive project known as the Delaware Water Supply system to several large construction concerns. It was not denied that Fay and Bove collected from these contractors upwards of $300,000. But it was denied that payment was induced by threats to do unlawful injury to person or property. The defense claimed that the payments were voluntary- — bribes, perhaps, but not extortion — -that these men were paid merely for undertaking to assist the contractors to avoid labor trouble, to prevent jurisdictional or unauthorized strikes, and to “handle the labor situation,” and that Fay and Bove rendered service as agreed.
The indictment charged the crimes in seven counts. One was dismissed by the court; the remaining six were submitted to the jury. The jury acquitted the defendants on three of the counts, disagreed on another, and convicted on two counts. The convictions were affirmed on appeal by the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court, which reviews both law and fact, and by the Court of Appeals. No federal question is raised as to the merits of the finding of guilt and we are to assume that the convictions were warranted by the evidence and, except for questions as to the special jury, were regular. While there was challenge to the panel from which this jury was drawn, on ground of denial of federal due process and equal protection, each individual juror was accepted by the defendants without challenge for cause. The challenge to the special jury panel was not discussed by either of the appellate courts of the State but the federal questions were sufficiently and timely raised throughout and were overruled by all state courts. A dual system of juries presents easy possibilities of violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and we took these cases by certiorari to examine the charges of unconstitutionality. 329 U. S. 697.
The question is whether a warranted conviction by a jury individually accepted as fair and unbiased should be set aside on the ground that the make-up of the panel from which they were drawn unfairly narrows the choice of jurors and denies defendants due process of law or equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Federal Constitution. If answered in the affirmative, it means that no conviction by these special juries is constitutionally valid, and all would be set aside if the question had been properly raised at or before trial.
The defendants raise no question as to the constitutionality of the general statutes of New York which prescribe the qualifications, disqualifications and exemptions for ordinary jury service. Neither is any question raised as to the administration of these general statutes by which the population - of New York County, numbering some 1.800.000, is sifted to produce a general jury panel of about 60.000, unless it be that there is discrimination against women. It is from this panel that defendants insist, apart from any objection they may have as to improper exclusion of women even from the general panel, they had a constitutional right to have their trial jury drawn. The statutes advanced as a standard may be roughly summarized:
To qualify as a juror, a person must be an American citizen and a resident of the county; not less than 21 nor more than 70 years old; the owner or spouse of an owner of property of the value of $250; in possession of his or her natural faculties and not infirm or decrepit; not convicted of a felony or a misdemeanor involving moral turpitude; intelligent; of sound mind and good character; well-informed; able to read and write the English language understanding^. From those qualified the following classes are exempt from service: clergymen, physicians, dentists, pharmacists, embalmers, optometrists, attorneys, members of the Army, Navy or Marine Corps, or of the National Guard or Naval Militia, firemen, policemen, ship’s officers, pilots, editors, editorial writers, subeditors, reporters and copy readers.
Women are equally qualified with men, but as they also are granted exemption, a woman drawn may serve or not, as she chooses.
The attack is focused upon the statutes and sifting procedures which shrink the general panel to the special or “blue ribbon” panel of about 3,000.
Special jurors are selected from those accepted for the general panel by the county clerk, but only after each has been subpoenaed for personal appearance and has testified under oath as to his qualification and fitness. The statute prescribes standards for their selection by declaring ineligible and directing elimination of these classes: (1) All who have been disqualified or who claim and are allowed exemption from general service. (2) All who have been convicted of a criminal offense, or found guilty of fraud or misconduct by judgment of any civil court. (3) All who possess such conscientious opinions with regard to the death penalty as would preclude their finding a defendant guilty if the crime charged be punishable with death. (4) All who doubt their ability to lay aside an opinion or impression formed from newspaper reading or otherwise, or to render an impartial verdict upon the evidence uninfluenced by any such opinion or impression, or whose opinion of circumstantial evidence is such as would prevent their finding a verdict of guilty upon such evidence, or who avow such a prejudice against any law of the State as would preclude finding a defendant guilty of a violation of such law, or who avow such a prejudice against any particular defense to a criminal charge as would prevent giving a fair and impartial trial upon the merits of such defense, or who avow that they cannot in all cases give to a defendant who fails to testify as a witness in his own behalf the full benefit of the statutory provision that such defendant’s neglect or refusal to testify as a witness in his own behalf shall not create any presumption against him.
The special jury panel is not one brought into existence for this particular case nor for any special class of offenses or type of accused. It is part of the regular machinery of trial in counties of one million or more inhabitants. In its sound discretion the court may order trial by special jury on application of either party in a civil action and by either the prosecution or defense in criminal cases. The motion may be granted only on a showing that “by reason of the importance or intricacy of the case, a special jury is required” or “the issue to be tried has been so widely commented upon... that an ordinary jury cannot without delay and difficulty be obtained” or that for any other reason “the due, efficient and impartial administration of justice in the particular case would be advanced by the trial of such an issue by a special jury... -”
This special jury statute is not recent nor is the practice under it novel. The progenitor of this statute, like it in all pertinent respects, was enacted in 1896 but was repealed and simultaneously reenacted in substantially its present form in 1901. It was soon attacked as on its face violating the State Constitution. The claim of one convicted by a special jury that it was an unconstitutional body because its restrictive composition denied due process of law, was rejected by the Court of Appeals in a well-considered opinion. People v. Dunn, 157 N. Y. 528, 52 N. E. 572 (1899). The attack then was made from the opposite direction. One convicted by an ordinary jury claimed that it was an unconstitutional body. This claim that the special panel had withdrawn twenty-five hundred “men of presumably superior intelligence,” 162 N. Y. at 362, 56 N. E. at 759, too, was rejected by the Court of Appeals. People v. Meyer, 162 N. Y. 357, 56 N. E. 758 (1900).
Then, in 1901, an attack on the constitutionality of the statute was rejected by this Court. One Hall had been convicted of murder by a special jury and sentenced to death. He sued out a writ of habeas corpus which was denied below. He challenged the special panel and claimed that his conviction by its verdict was a denial of due process of law and of equal protection of the laws in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment because the jury was “taken from a particular body of citizens and not from the general body of the county as was provided in all cases wherein such special jury was not drawn.” This Court affirmed, Hall v. Johnson, 186 U. S. 480, citing among other authorities Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U. S. 172, which upheld a state statute for a “struck jury.”
Since these decisions, the special jury has been in continuous use in New York County in important cases. The District Attorney cites over one hundred murder convictions, on verdict of the special jury, considered by the Court of Appeals which affirmed judgments of death. We are asked, however, to reconsider the question and, in the light of more recent trends of decision and of particular facts about the present operation of the jury system not advanced in support of the argument in the earlier case, to disapprove the special jury system.
We fail to perceive on its face any constitutional offense in the statutory standards prescribed for the special panel. The Act does not exclude, or authorize the clerk to exclude, any person or class because of race, creed, color or occupation. It imposes no qualification of an economic nature beyond that imposed by the concededly valid general panel statute. Each of the grounds of elimination is reasonably and closely related to the juror’s suitability for the kind of service the special panel requires or to his fitness to judge the kind of cases for which it is most frequently utilized. Not all of the grounds of elimination would appear relevant to the issues of the present case. But we know of no right of defendants to have a specially constituted panel which would include all persons who might be fitted to hear their particular and unique case. This panel is for service in a wide variety of cases and its eliminations must be judged in that light. We cannot overlook that one of the features which has tended to discredit jury trials is interminable examination and rejection of prospective jurors. In a metropolis with notoriously congested court calendars we cannot find it constitutionally forbidden to set up administrative procedures in advance of trial to eliminate from the panel those who, in a large proportion of cases, would be rejected by the court after its time had been taken in examination to ascertain the disqualifications. Many of the standards of elimination which the clerk is directed to apply in choice of the panel are those the court would have to apply to excuse a juror on challenge for cause.
These are matters with which local authority must and does have considerable latitude to cope, for they affect the administration of justice which is a local responsibility. For example, in this case the time of the trial court and its entire retinue of attendants was taken while eighty-nine prospective jurors were examined. How many more would have been examined if the clerk had not already eliminated those who admit that they would not give defendants benefit of the rule that their neglect or refusal to testify in their own behalf would not create a presumption against them? Neither of these defendants saw fit to take the witness stand. The defendants themselves have complained of the exceptional publicity given to the charges in this case. How many more jurors would have been examined if the clerk had not already eliminated those who felt themselves subject to influence by publicity? These are practical matters in administering justice in which we will take care not to hamstring local authority by artificial or doctrinaire requirements.
It has consistently been held that a jury is not rendered constitutionally invalid by failure of the statute to set forth any standards for selection. Murray v. Louisiana, 163 U. S. 101, 108; Franklin v. South Carolina, 218 U. S. 161, 167-68; Akins v. Texas, 325 U. S. 398, 403; see also Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 348. We find nothing in the standards New York has prescribed which, on its face, is prohibited by the Constitution. There remain, however, more serious questions as to whether the special jury Act has been so administered as to deny due process to the defendants and whether the dual system of jury panels as administered denied equal protection of the laws.
As to the actual results of application of the statute, the litigants are in controversy. The New York courts, doubtless influenced by the fact that long ago they had upheld similar statutes, made no findings of fact and wrote no opinion on the subject. It is to be regretted that we must deal with questions of fact without aid of findings by the courts whose experience with the system and proximity to the local conditions with which the special jury customs are so interwoven would entitle their findings to very great weight. We would, in any case, be obliged on a constitutional question to reach our own conclusions, after full allowance of weight to findings of the state courts, and in this case must examine the evidence. Norris v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 587, 590; Lisenba v. California, 314 U. S. 219, 237-38; Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U. S. 143, 148.
The allegations of fact upon which defendants ask us to hold these special panels unconstitutional come to three: (1) That laborers, operatives, craftsmen, foremen and service employees were systematically, intentionally and deliberately excluded from the panel. (2) That women were in the same way excluded. (3) That the special panel is so composed as to be more prone to convict than the general panel.
(1) The proof that laborers and such were excluded consists of a tabulation of occupations as listed in the questionnaires filed with the clerk. The table received in evidence is set out in the margin. It is said in criticism of this list that it shows the industry in which these persons work rather than whether they are laborers or craftsmen; that is, “mechanics” may be and probably are also laborers; “bankers” may be clerks. Certainly the tabulation does not show the relation of these jurors to the industry in which they were classified, as, for example, whether they were owners or financially interested, or merely employees. It does not show absence or exclusion of wage earners or of union members, although none listed themselves as “laborers,” for several of these classes are obviously of the employee rather than the entrepreneur character. One of petitioners’ tables showed that 38% of the special panel were “clerical, sales, and kindred workers.” Three of those examined as jurors in this case were members of labor unions. Two were peremptorily challenged by the People and the one accepted by the prosecution was challenged by the defense.
It is sought to give significance to this exhibit showing the breakdown into occupations of some 2,700 special jurors, however, by reference to a tabulation of occupations of some 920,000 employees and persons seeking employment in Manhattan. The comparison is said to show a great disparity between the percentage of jurors of each occupation represented on the jury list of 1945 and the occupational distribution of the number of employed persons or experienced persons seeking employment in Manhattan in 1940. This table was not put in evidence but is reproduced in the margin. Apart from the discrepancy of five years in the dates of the data and the differences in classification of occupations, the two tables do not afford statistical proof that the jury percentages are the result of discrimination. Such a conclusion would be justified only if we knew whether the application of the proper jury standards would affect all occupations alike, of which there is no evidence and which we regard as improbable. The percentage of persons employed or seeking employment in each occupation does not establish even an approximate ratio for those of each occupation that should appear in a fairly selected jury panel. The former is not limited, as the latter must be, to those over 21 or under 70 years of age. It is common knowledge that many employed and seekers of employment in New York are not, as jurors must be, citizens of the United States. How many could not meet the property qualifications? How many could not read and write the English language under standingly? It is only after effect is given to these admittedly constitutional requirements that we would have any figures which determined or even suggested the effect of the additional disqualifications imposed on special jurors.
An occupational comparison of the special panel with the general panel might afford some ground for an opinion on the effect of the particular practices complained of in the composition of the special panel. But no such comparison is offered. Petitioners’ only statement as to the comparative make-up of the general and special panels is as follows: “While the defect of discrimination against women, particularly those who are not members of so-called 'civic conscious’ organizations, permeates both the general and special juries, there is no evidence whatever that laborers, operatives, service employees, craftsmen, and foremen, are excluded from the general jury panel.”What is more to the point is that petitioners adduced no evidence whatever that the occupational composition of the general panel is substantially different from that of the special. If they are. the same, then petitioners’ assertion that Question.23, referred to below, somehow separates the rich from the poor is obviously without merit. It is not unlikely that the requirements of citizenship, property and literacy disqualify a greater proportion of laborers, craftsmen and service employees than of some other classes. Those who are illiterate or, if literate in their own, are unable to speak or write the English language, naturally find employment chiefly in manual work. It is impossible from the defendants’ evidence in this case to find that the distribution of the jury panel among occupations is not the result of the application of legitimate standards of disqualification.
On the other hand, the evidence that there has been no discrimination as to occupation in selection of the panel, while from interested witnesses, whose duty it was to administer the law, is clear and positive and is neither contradicted nor improbable. The testimony of those in charge of the selection, offered by the defendants themselves, is that without occupational discrimination they applied the standards of the statute to all whom they examined. We are unable to find that this evidence is untrue.
(2) As to the exclusion of women, it will be remembered that the law of New York gives to women the privilege to serve but does not impose service as a duty. It is said to have been found impractical to compel large numbers of women, who have an absolute exemption, to come to the clerk’s office for examination since they so generally assert their exemption. Hence, only those who volunteer or are suggested as willing to serve by other women or by organizations, including the League of Women Voters, are subpoenaed for examination. Some effort is made by the officials also to induce women to volunteer. But the evidence does not show that women are excluded from the special jury. In this case three women talesmen were examined. One was pronounced “satisfactory” by both sides and served on the jury.
As to both women and men, it is complained that eliminations resulted unfairly from use of a questionnaire, which asked, “What months of the year between October 1 and June 30 would you prefer to serve (Name two or more months).” Those who stated a preference, and they were many, were excluded from the special panel although they continued eligible for the general panel. The reason given for this is that service on the general panel can be adjusted to such preferences while the special panel, because of the nature of the cases tried before it, may require service at any time and for long periods. We think the phrasing of this question is less than candid in view of this purpose. But we find no evidence that it operates more misleadingly on women than on men, or on one occupation or class than on others. While it does not commend itself, it appears to be an administrative ineptitude of no constitutional significance and of no prejudice to these defendants.
(3) A more serious allegation against the special jury panel is that it is more inclined than the general panel to convict. Extensive studies have been made by the New York State Judicial Council which is under the duty of continuous study of the procedures of the courts and of making recommendations for improvement to the Legislature. It is on studies and criticisms by this official body that petitioners base their charge here that the special jury is a convicting jury in an unconstitutional sense.
In 1937 the Council recommended abolition of struck juries, foreign juries and special juries. It said that, “A well-administered ordinary jury system should produce jurors of as high calibre for every action as the special jury system attempts to provide in exceptional cases.” The recommendation was followed by the Legislature except as to special juries. In 1938 the Judicial Council renewed its recommendation as to these. It summarized that its data “indicate that special juries are prone to convict.” In a study of certain types of homicide cases, it found that, in 1933 and 1934, special juries convicted in eighty-three percent and eighty-two percent of the cases while ordinary juries those years convicted in forty-three percent and thirty-seven percent respectively. It reported that, “The Judicial Council believes that every petit jury should be of uniformly high calibre and capable of giving a fair trial in all cases. To attain this goal, the ordinary jury, as now provided, may be in need of improvement. It is, however, unjust and should be unnecessary to select sup-
posedly special juries in specific cases.” The Council next year reported that the general panel had not been considered adequate, largely because in its selection the standards of the statute had not been followed, and that a complete reexamination of the general panel was undertaken. From time to time the Council renewed its recommendation. In 1945 it proposed that the special jury “be abolished as unnecessary and undesirable.” It said, “It is undisputed that the revised jury system for New York City recommended by the Judicial Council and in operation since 1940 has succeeded in improving the quality of jurors generally by applying to all jurors the high standards which formerly were required only of special jurors. Thus, the necessity for special jurors no longer exists.”
While the Judicial Council has pointed out and investigated the different conviction ratios, it has at no time suggested that the special jury has been inclined to convict except where conviction was warranted. New York extends an appeal on law and fact as matter of right. If there were a tendency to convict improperly, the Judicial Council, which includes the Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals and the Presiding Justice of the Appellate Division, which courts review these cases, would know it. Despite the Council’s desire to abolish this jury, no such reasons were ever assigned. No statistics are produced to show that special juries have been more often reversed on the facts than ordinary ones. Of course, it would be impossible for us to say, even were we to examine the cases in detail, whether the difference in percentage of convictions indicated a too great readiness to convict on the part of special juries or a too great readiness to acquit on the part of ordinary juries, or whether the disparity reflected a difference between the ordinary case and those selected for special jury trial, rather than a reflection of an attitude on the part of either panel. It may result from the greater attention and better counsel which the prosecution gives to these important cases.
These defendants were convicted March 15, 1945, when the statistics offered here as to relative propensity of the two juries to convict were more than ten years old, and when the conditions which may have produced the discrepancy in ratio of convictions had long since been corrected.
The evidence in support of these objections may well, as the Judicial Council thought, warrant a political or social judgment that this special panel in 1945 was “unnecessary and undesirable” and that the Legislature should abolish it. But it is quite another matter to say that this Federal Court has a mandate from the Constitution to disable the special jury by setting aside its convictions. The great disparity between a legislative policy or a political judgment on the one hand and a constitutional or legal judgment on the other, finds striking illustration in the position taken by the highest judicial personages in New York State who joined in the recommendation to abolish the special jury.
Two members of the Council who joined in proposing legislation to abolish the dual system sat in this case and abstained from putting their legislative recommendation into a court decision — they sustained as constitutional the system they would abolish as matter of policy. Our function concerns only constitutionality and we turn to the bearing of federal constitutional provisions on the legal issues.
It is not easy, and it should not be easy, for defendants to have proceedings set aside and held for naught on constitutional grounds when they have accepted as satisfactory all of the individual jurors who sat in their case, the jury exercised such discriminating and dispassionate judgment as to acquit them on three of the five counts submitted, and their conviction on a full judicial review of the facts and law has been found justified. This Court has long dealt and must continue to deal with these controversies from state courts with self-imposed restraints intended to protect itself and the state against irresponsible exercise of its unappealable power.
While this case does not involve any question as to exclusion of Negroes or any other race, the defendants rely largely upon a series of decisions in which this Court has set aside state court convictions of Negroes because Negroes were purposefully and completely excluded from the jury. However, because of the long history of unhappy relations between the two races, Congress has put these cases in a class by themselves. The Fourteenth Amendment, in addition to due process and equal protection clauses, declares that “The Congress shall have power to enforce, by appropriate legislation, the provisions of this Article.” So empowered, the Congress on March 1, 1875, enacted that “no citizen possessing all other qualifications which are or may be prescribed by law shall be disqualified for service as grand or petit juror in any court of the United States, or of any State, on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude;” and made it a crime for any officer to exclude any citizen on those grounds. 18 Stat. 336-37, 8 U. S. C. § 44. For us the majestic generalities of the Fourteenth Amendment are thus reduced to a concrete statutory command when cases involve race or color which is wanting in every other case of alleged discrimination. This statute was a factor so decisive in establishing the Negro case precedents that the Court even hinted that there might be no judicial power to intervene except in matters authorized by Acts of Congress. Referring to the provision empowering Congress to enforce the Fourteenth Amendment, it said that “All of the amendments derive much of their force from this latter provision. It is not said the judicial power of the general government shall extend to enforcing the prohibitions and to protecting the rights and immunities guaranteed. It is not said that branch of the government shall be authorized to declare void any action of a State in violation of the prohibitions. It is the power of Congress which has been enlarged. Congress is authorized to enforce the prohibitions by appropriate legislation.” (Italics in original.) Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 345.
It is significant that this Court never has interfered with the composition of state court juries except in cases where this guidance of Congress was applicable. In an opinion by Mr. Justice Holmes it unanimously made short work of rejecting a claim that the Fourteenth Amendment prohibits the state from excluding from the jury certain occupational groups such as lawyers, preachers, ministers, doctors, dentists, and engineers and firemen of railroad trains. Rawlins v. Georgia, 201 U. S. 638. Cf. Brown v. New Jersey, 175 U. S. 172.
We do not mean that no case of discrimination in jury drawing except those involving race or color can carry such unjust consequences as to amount to a denial of equal protection or due process of law. But we do say that since Congress has considered the specific application of this Amendment to the state jury systems and has found only these discriminations to deserve general legislative condemnation, one who would have the judiciary intervene on grounds not covered by statute must comply with the exacting requirements of proving clearly that in his own case the procedure has gone so far afield that its results are a denial of equal protection or due process.
These rules to confine our use of power to responsible limits have been formulated and applied even in cases where the federal race and color statute applied. Certainly they should apply with equal, if not greater, rigor in cases that are outside the statute.
It is fundamental in questioning the composition of a jury that a mere showing that a class was not represented in a particular jury is not enough; there must be a clear showing that its absence was caused by discrimination, and in nearly all cases it has been shown to have persisted over many years. Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, 322-23; Martin v. Texas, 200 U. S. 316, 320-21; Thomas v. Texas, 212 U. S. 278, 282; Smith v. Texas, 311 U. S. 128; Hill v. Texas, 316 U. S. 400; Akins v. Texas, supra. Also, when discrimination of an unconstitutional kind is alleged, the burden of proving it purposeful and intentional is on the defendant. Tarrance v. Florida, 188 U. S. 519; Martin v. Texas, 200 U. S. 316; Norris v. Alabama, 294 U. S. 587; Snowden v. Hughes, 321 U. S. 1, 8-9; Akins v. Texas, 325 U. S. 398, 400.
Our only source of power or guidance for interfering in this case with the state court jury system is found in the cryptic words of the Fourteenth Amendment, unaided by any word from Congress or any governing precedent in this Court. We consider first the clause which forbids a state to “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” This prohibits prejudicial disparities before the law'. Under it a system which might be constitutionally unobjectionable, if applied to all, may be brought within the prohibition if some have more favorable treatment. The inquiry under this clause involves defendants’ standing before the law relative to that of others accused.
If it were proved that in 1945 an inequality between the special jury’s record of convictions and that of the ordinary jury continued as it was found by the Judicial Council to have prevailed in 1933-34, some foundation would be laid for a claim of unequal treatment. No defendant has a right to escape an existing mechanism of trial merely on the ground that some other could be devised which would give him a better chance of acquittal. But in this case an alternative system actually was provided by the state to other defendants. A state is not required to try all classes of offenses in the same forum. But a discretion, even if vested in the court, to shunt a defendant before a jury so chosen as greatly to lessen his chances while others accused of a like offense are tried by a jury so drawn as to be more favorable to them, would hardly be “equal protection of the laws.” Perhaps it could be shown that the difference in percentages of convictions was not due to a difference in attitude of the jurors but to a difference in the cases that were selected for special jury trial, or to a more intensive preparation and effort by the prosecution in cases singled out for such trial. But a ratio of conviction so disparate, if it continued until 1945, might, in absence of explanation, be taken to indicate that the special jury was, in contrast to its alternate, organized to convict. A defendant could complain of this inequality even if it were shown that a special jury court never had convicted any defendant who did not deserve conviction.
But the defendants have failed to show by any evidence whatever that this disparity in ratio of conviction existed in 1945 when they were tried. They show that it ever existed only by the studies and conclusions of the Judicial Council. The same source shows that it was corrected before these defendants were tried. As we have pointed out, this official body challenged the fairness of this dual system as formerly constituted and as early as 1937 declared that “A well-considered jury system will insure an impartial cross-section of the community on every petit jury,” and set out means to achieve it. We know of no reason why we should ignore or discredit their assurance that by administrative improvements in the selection of the ordinary juries they became the substantial equivalent of the special jury before these trials took place.
We hold, therefore, that defendants have not carried the burden of showing that the method of their trial denied them equal protection of the law.
The defendants’ other objection is grounded on that clause of the Fourteenth Amendment which provides, “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law....” It comprises objections which might be urged against any jury made up as the special jury was, even if it were the only jury in use in the state. It does not depend upon comparison with the jury facilities afforded other defendants.
This Court, however, has never entertained a defendant’s objections to exclusions from the jury except when he was a member of the excluded class. Rawlins v. Georgia, 201 U. S. 638, 640. Cf. Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303. Relief has been held unavailable to a negro who objected that all white persons were purposely excluded from the grand jury that indicted him. Haraway v. State, 203 Ark. 912, 159 S. W. 2d 733. Nevertheless, we need not here decide whether lack of identity with an excluded group would alone defeat an otherwise well-established case under the Amendment.
These defendants rely heavily on arguments drawn from our decisions in Glasser v. United States, 315 U. S. 60; Thiel v. Southern Pacific Co., 328 U. S. 217; and Ballard v. United States, 329 U. S. 187. The facts in the present case are distinguishable in vital and obvious particulars from those in any of these cases. But those decisions were not constrained by any duty of deference to the authority of the State over local administration of justice. They dealt only with juries in federal courts. Over federal proceedings we may exert a supervisory power with greater freedom to reflect our notions of good policy than we may constitutionally exert over proceedings in state courts, and these expressions of policy are not necessarily embodied in the concept of due process.
The due process clause is one of comprehensive generality, and in reducing it to apply in concrete cases there are different schools of thought. One is that its content on any subject is to be determined by the content of certain relevant other Amendments in the Bill of Rights which originally imposed restraints on only the Federal Government but which the Fourteenth Amendment deflected against the states. The other theory is that the clause has an independent content apart from, and in addition to, any and all other Amendments. This meaning is derived from the history, evolution and present nature of our institutions and is to be spelled out from time to time in specific cases by the judiciary.
To treat first of the former doctrine, it steadily has been ruled that the commandments of the Sixth and Seventh Amendments, which require jury trial in criminal and certain civil cases, are not picked up by the due process clause of the Fourteenth so as to become limitations on the states. “This court has ruled that consistently with those amendments trial by jury may be modified by a state or abolished altogether.” Palko v. Connecticut, 302 U. S. 319, 324, and cases there cited. Unless we are now so to change our interpretation as to withdraw from the states the power so lately conceded to be theirs, this would end the matter under the view that the force of the due process clause is exhausted when it has applied the principles of other relevant Amendments.
But this Court has construed it to be inherent in the independent concept of due process that condemnation shall be rendered only after a trial, in which the hearing is a real one, not a sham or pretense. Palko v. Connecticut,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Appellants are beneficiaries of New York decedents’ estates who live in Romania. Their shares of these estates have not been distributed to them, but have been paid into court for their benefit under § 2218 of the New York Surrogate’s Court Procedure Act. Section 2218 authorizes the surrogate to order an alien’s share of a New York estate paid into court when it appears that the alien “would not have the benefit or use or control of the money or other property” constituting the share.
In 1966, appellants filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, challenging what is now § 2218 on the grounds that it denied them due process and equal protection, that it unconstitutionally intruded upon the Federal Government’s conduct of foreign relations, and that it conflicted with federal regulations permitting the payment of federal funds to persons in Romania. Appellants prayed for both temporary and permanent injunctive relief against further operation of the statute, and therefore requested the impaneling of a three-judge court. A single district judge declined to request a three-judge court on the ground that the constitutional questions raised were frivolous, and the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed. This Court granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, and remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for further consideration in the light of Zschernig v. Miller, 389 U. S. 429, decided the same day. 389 U. S. 581 (1968). On remand, the Court of Appeals reversed the original order of the District Court, and remanded the case for consideration by a three-judge court. 391 F. 2d 586 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1968).
Appellants then moved for summary judgment, urging that § 2218 was unconstitutional, either on its face or as applied, under the principles of Zschernig v. Miller, supra. In their motion they requested “the relief demanded in the complaint.” They accompanied their motion with an affidavit, largely consisting of a memorandum of law arguing that the application of § 2218 by the New York courts ran afoul of Zschernig.
Appellees, surrogates of several New York counties, opposed the motion for summary judgment and further requested that the action be dismissed. In their accompanying affidavit, they argued that § 2218 was constitutional on its face and that there was at least a triable issue of fact whether it was being constitutionally applied.
The District Court denied summary judgment, but did not dismiss the action. 299 F. Supp. 1389 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1968). In its opinion it held that §2218 was not unconstitutional on its face under Zschernig, and that the only reported post-Zschernig construction of the statute, Matter of Leikind, 22 N. Y. 2d 346, 239 N. E. 2d 550 (1968), app. docketed, No. 68, O. T. 1969, did not show unconstitutional application.
From the order denying summary judgment, appellants took an appeal to this Court, claiming that we had jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1253, which provides:
“Except as otherwise provided by law, any party may appeal to the Supreme Court from an order granting or denying, after notice and hearing, an interlocutory or permanent injunction in any civil action, suit or proceeding required by any Act of Congress to be heard and determined by a district court of three judges.”
Appellees did not oppose jurisdiction, but rather filed a motion to affirm. We noted probable jurisdiction, 394 U. S. 996 (1969), and received briefs and heard argument confined to the merits. Further examination of the case since oral argument has for the first time raised the question of our jurisdiction, and we have concluded that we lack jurisdiction of the appeal.
A preliminary question is whether the District Court’s order denying summary judgment to a plaintiff who has requested injunctive relief is “an order . . . denying . . . an . . . injunction” within the meaning of § 1253. In construing the analogous provision giving the courts of appeals jurisdiction to hear appeals from interlocutory orders granting or denying injunctions, 28 U. S. C. § 1292 (a)(1), this Court has ruled that a denial of summary judgment is no.t an appealable order denying an injunction, at least where the denial is based upon the existence of a triable issue of fact. Switzerland Assn. v. Horne’s Market, 385 U. S. 23 (1966). However we need not decide whether the same treatment should be given to denials of summary judgment under § 1253, for we conclude that the only interlocutory orders that we have power to review under that provision are orders granting or denying preliminary injunctions. Since in our view the District Court here decided no question of preliminary-injunctive relief, we cannot review its order.
Section 1253, along with the other provisions concerning three-judge district courts, 28 U. S. C. §§ 2281-2284 (a collectivity hereinafter referred to as the Three-Judge Court Act), derives from §266 of the Judicial Code of 1911, 36 Stat. 1162, which in turn derived from § 17 of the Mann-Elkins Act of 1910, 36 Stat. 557. As originally enacted, the Three-Judge Court Act required that no interlocutory injunction restraining the operation of any state statute on constitutional grounds could be issued, except by a three-judge court, and provided that “[a]n appeal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from the order granting or denying . . . an interlocutory injunction in such case.” 36 Stat. 557. The Act grew out of the public furor over what was felt to be the abuse by federal district courts of their injunctive powers in cases involving state economic and social legislation. While broad and radical proposals were made to deal with the problem, including proposals to deprive the federal courts of all jurisdiction to enjoin state officers, Congress compromised on a provision that would deal with what was felt to be the worst abuse— the issuance of temporary restraining orders and preliminary injunctions against state statutes, either ex parte or merely upon affidavits, and subject to limited and ineffective appellate review. See Phillips v. United States, 312 U. S. 246, 250 (1941); Hutcheson, A Case for Three Judges, 47 Harv. L. Rev. 795, 803-810 (1934); Note, The Three-Judge District Court and Appellate Review, 49 Va. L. Rev. 538, 539-543 (1963).
Until 1925, the Act required a three-judge court only on application for an interlocutory (or, as we would say, preliminary) injunction. In that year, the Act was amended to carry the three-judge requirement forward to the issuance of a permanent injunction, 43 Stat. 938, “in order to avoid the anomalous result of having a single judge review the decree of three judges at the final hearing.” Note, 49 Ya. L. Rev., supra, at 543. The provision governing appeal to this Court was correspondingly amended to allow direct appeal from “a final decree granting or denying a permanent injunction . . . .” 43 Stat. 938.
Thus, as of 1925, the provisions of the Three-Judge Court Act relating to appeal to this Court, set out in the Judicial Code, as amended, read as follows:
“An appeal may be taken directly to the Supreme Court of the United States from the order granting or denying, after notice and hearing, an interlocutory injunction in such case. . . .” 36 Stat. 557.
“. . . and a direct appeal to the Supreme Court may be taken from a final decree granting or denying a permanent injunction in such suit.” 43 Stat. 938. (Emphasis added.)
As clearly as language can, this language confined this Court’s review of three-judge court action to (1) final judgments granting or denying permanent injunctions, and (2) interlocutory orders granting or denying preliminary injunctions.
In 1948, the present Judicial Code was enacted, including § 1253 as it now stands. As the language now reads, the Court has appellate jurisdiction over any three-judge court order “granting or denying ... an interlocutory or permanent injunction.” On its face, this language is subject to the construction that interlocutory orders denying permanent as well as preliminary injunctions can be appealed to this Court. However, such a construction would involve *an expansion of this Court’s mandatory appellate jurisdiction over that granted by the clear language of the prior statute. The Reviser’s Note to § 1253 indicates no intent to make such a substantive change; indeed, it refers to the section as merely a consolidation of prior provisions in Title 28, themselves derived from the statute as adopted and amended by Congress.
This Court has more than once stated that its jurisdiction under the Three-Judge Court Act is to be narrowly construed since “any loose construction of the requirements of [the Act] would defeat the purposes of Congress ... to keep within narrow confines our appellate docket.” Phillips v. United States, supra, at 250. See Stainback v. Mo Hock Ke Lok Po, 336 U. S. 368, 375 (1949); Moore v. Fidelity & Deposit Co., 272 U. S. 317, 321 (1926). That canon of construction must be applied with redoubled vigor when the action sought to be reviewed here is an interlocutory order of a trial court. In the absence of clear and explicit authorization by Congress, piecemeal appellate review is not favored, Switzerland Assn. v. Horne’s Market, supra, at 24, and this Court above all others must limit its review of interlocutory orders. Hamilton Shoe Co. v. Wolf Brothers, 240 U. S. 251, 258 (1916). In light of these factors, and the history of the statute as set out above, we cannot but conclude that our jurisdiction over interlocutory orders under § 1253 is confined to orders granting or denying a preliminary injunction.
As we read the record, this is not such an order. Appellants did, in their original complaint, pray for preliminary as well as permanent injunctive relief. And in moving for summary judgment, they requested “the relief demanded in the complaint.” However, they took no practical step toward obtaining such relief. They filed no separate application for a preliminary injunction. In none of their papers, in the District Court or in this Court, have they urged the appropriateness of temporary relief. The District Court in its opinion in no way adverted to the possibility of such relief being granted. Indeed, in the nature of the case, preliminary injunctive relief could never have been a practical possibility. Appellants are seeking the release of funds held in court in New York to beneficiaries outside the jurisdiction of the United States. Any injunction granting relief of this sort must necessarily have been final in its effect, and could hardly have been awarded in the absence of a final determination on the merits in appellants’ favor. Since the order here in question is an interlocutory one, and is not an order granting or denying a preliminary injunction, we must dismiss the appeal from that order for want of jurisdiction.
It is so ordered.
Section 2218 (Supp. 1969), formerly §269-a of the New York Surrogate’s Court Act, reads as follows:
“1. (a) Where it shall appear that an alien legatee, distributee or beneficiary is domiciled or resident within a country to which checks or warrants drawn against funds of the United States may not be transmitted by reason of any executive order, regulation or similar determination of the United States government or any department or agency thereof, the court shall direct that the money or property to which such alien would otherwise be entitled shall be paid into court for the benefit of said alien or the person or persons who thereafter may appear to be entitled thereto. The money or property so paid into court shall be paid out only upon order of the surrogate or pursuant to the order or judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.
“(b) Any assignment of a fund which is required to be deposited pursuant to the provisions of paragraph one (a) of this section shall not be effective to confer upon the assignee any greater right to the delivery of the fund than the assignor would otherwise enjoy.
“2. Where it shall appear that a beneficiary would not have the benefit or use or control of the money or other property due him or where other special circumstances make it desirable that such payment should be withheld the decree may direct that such money or property be paid into court for the benefit of the beneficiary or the person or persons who may thereafter appear entitled thereto. The money or property so paid into court shall be paid out only upon order of the court or pursuant to the order or judgment of a court of competent jurisdiction.
“3. In any such proceeding where it is uncertain that an alien beneficiary or fiduciary not residing within the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico or a territory or possession of the United States would have the benefit or use or control of the money or property due him the burden of proving that the alien beneficiary will receive the benefit or use or control of the money or property due him shall be upon him or the person claiming from, through or under him.”
The Second Circuit originally took the view that denial of summary judgment, where an injunction had been prayed for, was an appealable order denying an injunction under § 1292 (a)(1), Federal Glass Co. v. Loshin, 217 F. 2d 936 (1954) (L. Hand, J.; Frank, J., concurring; Clark, J., dissenting). This was contrary to the majority view that such orders were not appealable, a view best represented by Morgenstern Chemical Co. v. Sobering Corp., 181 F. 2d 160 (C. A. 3d Cir. 1950). The Second Circuit, even before this Court’s decision in Switzerland Assn., supra, had reversed its position. Chappell & Co. v. Frankel, 367 F. 2d 197 (1966) (en banc). See also 6 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶56.21 [2], at 2791-2792 (2d ed. 1966).
In Switzerland Assn., supra, this Court left open the question whether an order denying summary judgment might be appealable as an order denying an injunction when the ground for the denial was other than the existence of a triable issue of fact.
The 1948 revision of the Judicial Code did make one substantive change in the Three-Judge Court Act; it eliminated the requirement, imposed by the 1925 amendment, that a three-judge court should be required to hear an application for a permanent injunction only where an application for a preliminary injunction had originally been made. Reviser’s Note, 28 U. S. C. §2281.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1981 Congress amended the statute authorizing the Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) program to provide that a family receiving nonrecurring lump-sum income is ineligible for benefits for the number of months that the income would satisfy the family’s standard of need. §2304 of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981, 95 Stat. 845, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 602(a)(17) (1982 ed. and Supp. III); see generally Lukhard v. Reed, 481 U. S. 368, 371-373 (1987) (plurality opinion); see also id., at 384-386 (Powell, J., dissenting). In this case the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit held that the Minnesota Department of Human Services (the Department) could not enforce that amendment against respondent, and the class she represents, because it had not given them the notice required by a regulation promulgated by the Secretary of Health and Human Services (the Secretary), 45 CFR §206.10(a)(2)(i) (1987). We granted certiorari to review the Court of Appeals’ interpretation of the Secretary’s regulation as well as its remedial decision in favor of an injunction barring the Department from recouping payments made to respondent during her period of ineligibility. Because we conclude that the regulation was not violated, we do not reach the remedy question.
I
On October 31, 1983, respondent’s husband received a retroactive Social Security disability payment of $5,752. Respondent used the entire lump sum to pay a $3,863.75 arrearage on the family’s home mortgage, an overdue car repair bill of $1,366, and a legal fee of $150, and the remainder to purchase clothing for her children and to pay other bills. Within two days, the entire sum had been expended.
On November 2, 1983, respondent reported the receipt (and the expenditure) of the Social Security payment to her caseworker and was advised that under the 1981 amendment her family would be ineligible for benefits for the next several months. She immediately filed an administrative appeal and her family continued to receive benefits while the appeal waspending. See 45 CFR §205.10(a)(6)(i) (1987). The Appeals Referee decided that the benefits should not be terminated because the Jenkinses had not received any advance notice of the new lump-sum rule, App. 69-73, but the Department’s Deputy Commissioner reversed. Id., at 73-76. While expressing disagreement with the policy implemented by the 1981 amendment, he concluded that the federal statute must be enforced even though the lack of advance notice had produced a “harsh result.”
When the administrative review proceedings terminated in August, the Jenkins family was again eligible for benefits. The Department’s decision, however, meant that benefits had been improperly paid for the period between October 1983 and May 1984. Accordingly, as required by the federal statute, see 42 U. S. C. § 602(a)(22) (1982 ed. and Supp. III); see also 45 CFR § 233.20(a)(13) (1987), in due course the Department ordered recoupment of the wrongfully paid benefits by deducting 1% from each future AFDC monthly payment, in accordance with state law, see Minn. Stat. § 256.73, subd. 6 (1986).
Shortly after the conclusion of the state administrative proceedings, respondent intervened in an action already pending in Federal District Court challenging the Department’s lump-sum policy on various grounds. In her complaint in intervention, App. 14, 20, respondent added an allegation that the Department’s implementation of the new lump-sum rule without adequate notice to AFDC applicants and recipients violated the Secretary’s regulation. The District Court certified a class and entered summary judgment in its favor on the notice issue. Slaughter v. Levine, 598 F. Supp. 1035, 1049-1052 (Minn. 1984).
The District Court awarded two forms of relief. First, it required the Department to prepare a written notice that adequately explained the lump-sum policy and to distribute it to all current AFDC recipients and all future applicants. Id., at 1055. Second, it ordered the Department to notify all class members who had been injured by the Department’s violation that they might apply for corrective payments from their local welfare agencies. Ibid. The court concluded that the Eleventh Amendment prevented it from ordering any repayment of benefits that had been improperly denied, ibid., or from enjoining the Department from recouping overpayments to families like the Jenkinses. Slaughter v. Levine, 621 F. Supp. 509, 513-514 (Minn. 1985). For the-purposes of relief, the District Court determined that members of the class who did not expend any portion of their lump-sum payments before they received notice of the current lump-sum policy had not been injured by the Department’s violation of the federal notice regulation. 598 F. Supp., at 1055.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s judgment insofar as it found a violation of the notice regulation and denied monetary relief to members of the class. Slaughter v. Levine, 801 F. 2d 288 (CA8 1986) (case below). It concluded, however, that the District Court should have enjoined the Department from recouping any amounts that were treated as “overpayments” under the post-1981 policy if they would háve been proper under the pre-1981 lump-sum rule. In explaining its basic holding, the Court of Appeals pointed out that advance notice to lump-sum recipients was necessary to achieve the purposes of the 1981 amendment, and that to impose the new rule on a family that assumed that the old rule was still in effect “would be truly Kafkaesque.” The dissenting judge did not believe that either the statute or the notice regulation conditioned the implementation of the new rule on advance notice to the small percentage of AFDC beneficiaries affected by it. He construed the regulation as simply requiring “the state to publicize generally in written form, and orally as appropriate, the AFDC program and its availability.” Id., at 303 (Fagg, J., dissenting). Because of the significance of the Court of Appeals’ holding for States’ administration of welfare laws, we granted certiorari, 482 U. S. 926 (1987).
II
The Secretary’s notice regulation, which was first adopted in 1971 and later amended in 1978 and 1979, now provides:
“Applicants shall be informed about the eligibility requirements and their rights and obligations under the program. Under this requirement individuals are given information in written form, and orally as appropriate, about coverage, conditions of eligibility, scope of the program, and related services available, and the rights and responsibilities of applicants for and recipients of assistance. Specifically developed bulletins or pamphlets explaining the rules regarding eligibility and appeals in simple, understandable terms are publicized and available in quantity.” 45 CFR § 206.10(a)(2)(i) (1987).
Pursuant to this regulation, the Department has prepared and distributed two brief printed brochures. The first contains four pages and generally describes the AFDC program, the application process, the benefit levels, and the applicant’s basic procedural rights. The pamphlet states that the “information in this brochure will help you decide if you wish to apply for AFDC, but it is not intended to cover all program rules. ... You are urged to contact your welfare office for specific information as to the eligibility rules and limitations for AFDC. Since these can and do change from time to time, you should inquire with your welfare office for up-to-date information.” App. 29.
The second brochure is a six-page booklet entitled “Monthly Reporting: What AFDC Households Must Know”; it explains the recipient’s duty to report all of the household income each month. Although some of the intricacies of the AFDC program are explained, it does not comment specifically on the lump-sum rule. In addition to using pamphlets such as these, the Department relies on its caseworkers to provide applicants and recipients with oral advice about the aspects of the program that are relevant to specific situations.
When the 1981 amendment was enacted, the Department did not prepare a new pamphlet. It did, however, on September 18, 1981, send a letter to all AFDC recipients advising them that there had been 19 major changes in the AFDC program. The paragraph commenting on the new lump-sum rule was not a model of clarity, but presumably it at least alerted the reader to the existence of the new rule. Since the letter was just mailed to those already receiving AFDC benefits, however, it did not provide any notice to a family that did not apply for benefits until a later date. Such a family might not learn about the operation of the lump-sum rule until it reported the receipt of a payment to a caseworker; if, as was true in the Jenkins’ case, the money had already been spent, it would obviously be too late for the family to budget the use of that money to replace its normal AFDC checks.
The question for us to decide is not whether advance written notice is desirable, or, indeed, whether such notice is necessary to accomplish the purposes of the 1981 statute. The question is whether the pre-existing regulation was intended to forestall the implementation of a congressionally mandated program change until the state agencies provided all AFDC recipients with notice of the change. Although such a rule might well represent sound policy, we do not believe that a fair reading of the text of §206.10(a)(2)(i) conveys that message.
It is true that the regulation requires that individuals be given “information in written form, and orally as appropriate, about. . . conditions of eligibility,” but that is hardly how one would write a command stating that every such condition must be identified and explained before it may be enforced. The reference to “information” in both written and oral form “about” various aspects of the program seems to require instead merely a general descriptive statement regarding AFDC benefits. Thus, the plain language of the regulation does not require that information be disseminated regarding every specific change in eligibility requirements.
Indeed, it is doubtful whether the notice requirement even applies to AFDC recipients, The notice provision appears in a section that contains various rules regarding “[application, determination of eligibility and furnishing of assistance,” 45 CFR § 206.10 (1987). The section speaks to how one may apply for benefits, general conditions of eligibility, the time frame within which States must determine eligibility, basic rules about the furnishing of assistance to recipients, and general procedures for redetermining eligibility due to changed circumstances. The regulation in question in this case, § 206.10(a)(2)(i), both on its face and in context of the section as a whole, quite plainly speaks to how general information about the program must be provided to individuals seeking assistance, that is, to program applicants. See § 206.10(b)(1) (defining “applicant”). The very next provision in the section, in fact, states that “[procedures shall be adopted which are designed to assure that recipients make timely and accurate reports of any change in circumstances which may affect their eligibility or the amount of assistance.” § 206.10(a)(2)(ii) (emphasis added). In other words, the drafters of this regulation wrote separately about two types of information that must be communicated: in § 206.10 (a)(2)(i) about providing applicants with program information, and in § 206.10(a)(2)(ii) about developing procedures for recipients themselves to provide information about changed circumstances that might affect their benefits. The requirement of § 206.10(a)(2)(i) that information be given to applicants in “written form, and orally as appropriate,” seems in fact to require no mailing of information at all, but rather simply explains that printed information about access to AFDC benefits, such as pamphlets, booklets, and flyers, be available, and that such information may be transmitted orally as well.
Respondent contends that the notice provision applies to recipients of AFDC benefits as well as applicants. She points to §206.10(a)(1)(iii), which provides that “[a]n applicant may be assisted, if he so desires, by an individual(s) of his choice (who need not be a lawyer) in the various aspects of the application process and the redetermination of eligibility and may be accompanied by such individual(s) in contacts with the agency and when so accompanied may also be represented by them.” Since “redetermination of eligibility” involves “a review of factors affecting AFDC eligibility and payment amount,” § 206.10(b)(4), and thus clearly applies to recipients, respondent contends that “applicant” is used in § 206.10(a)(1)(iii) to include recipients as well, and therefore must have the same inclusive meaning throughout §206.10, including the notice provision.
We are unpersuaded. The term “recipients” is used in various other provisions in the section, and appears simply to have been inadvertently omitted at this juncture. The definition of the term “applicant,” understood in the context of eligibility “redetermination,” makes this omission apparent. An “applicant” is “a person who has, directly, or through his authorized representative, or where incompetent or incapacitated, through someone acting responsibly for him, made application for public assistance from the agency administering the program, and whose application has not been terminated.” § 206.10(b)(1). Since redetermination of benefits affects only those who have already been “determined to be eligible,” § 206.10(a)(9), and an “applicant,” by definition, has not yet been determined to be eligible, it would therefore be impossible for an applicant’s case to be redetermined. Thus, it is plain that § 206.10(a)(1)(iii) omitted the word “recipient” when referring to redetermination.
Thus, a reading of the plain language of the notice provision and other provisions in the same section reveals that only applicants, and not recipients, are addressed by the requirement that individuals be given information about the program. Further, even as to applicants, the notice provision requires only that general program information be available, in “written form” and “orally as appropriate.”
The Secretary, who is responsible for enforcing the regulation, does not agree with the strict interpretation adopted by the District Court. Rather, he believes that it is generally appropriate to rely on an oral explanation of the consequences of receiving a lump-sum payment when the recipient reports it to the family’s caseworker. We recognize that the Secretary had not taken a position on this question until this litigation. However, when it is the Secretary’s regulation that we are construing, and when there is no claim in this Court that the regulation violates any constitutional or statutory mandate, we are properly hesitant to substitute an alternative reading for the Secretary’s unless that alternative reading is compelled by the regulation’s plain language or by other indications of the Secretary’s intent at the time of the regulation’s promulgation.
Finally, respondent’s emphasis on the harsh result in this particular case is actually, in large part, a criticism of the lump-sum rule itself. The record indicates that even if respondent had known about the rule, she would have been hard pressed not to use most of the $5,752 payment to avoid a foreclosure of the mortgage on the family home and to make promised payments to other creditors. Further, even though the rule, combined with the absence of advance notice, may have produced a “Kafkaesque” result for the Jenkins family, it is not irrational to assume that most needy families will realize that the receipt of a large lump sum may affect their future eligibility for benefits, and that it would be prudent to inform their caseworkers of the development before spending the money. Moreover, the harshness of the result is somewhat mitigated by the fact that the family’s benefits continued during the administrative appeal and that the recoupment process only subtracts 1% of each monthly AFDC check, and the further fact that if AFDC benefits are actually terminated, a family may be immediately eligible for another form of public assistance, albeit a less generous one. In all events, since the regulation was written long before the lump-sum rule was enacted, it clearly was not designed to forestall the harsh consequences suffered by the Jenkinses.
In the final analysis, our decision rests on our agreement with the Secretary and the dissenting judge in the Court of Appeals that the regulation simply requires the State to publish a general description of the basic structure of the AFDC program and its availability. We would require a much more precise mandate to the States to permit courts to interfere with the workings of governmental benefits programs by ordering the taking of certain affirmative steps.
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 Kennedy took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
The statute was amended again in § 2632 of the Deficit Reduction Act of 1984, 98 Stat. 1141, to give States the option of recalculating the period of ineligibility caused by receipt of a lump sum in three situations not relevant here.
Examples of “lump-sum income” are provided in the federal regulation that implements Congress’ directive:
“When the AFDC assistance unit’s income, after applying applicable disregards, exceeds the State need standard for the family because of receipt of nonrecurring earned or unearned lump sum income (including for AFDC, title II and other retroactive monthly benefits, and payments in the nature of a windfall, e. g., inheritances or lottery winnings, personal injury and worker compensation awards, to the extent it is not earmarked and used for the purpose for which it is paid, i. e., monies for back medical bills resulting from accidents or injury, funeral and burial costs, replacement or repair of resources, etc.), the family will be ineligible for aid for the full number of months derived by dividing the sum of the lump sum income and other income by the monthly need standard for a family of that size. ...” 45 CFR § 233.20(a)(3)(ii)(F) (1987).
Under the lump-sum rule that had been in effect prior to 1981, the family had an incentive to spend the entire amount in October to avoid having any unspent amount treated as a “resource” in future months because excessive resources, like excessive income, would make the family ineligible for AFDC benefits. See Lukhard v. Reed, 481 U. S. 368, 371-373 (1987) (plurality opinion).
As the Appeals Referee later stated in his findings of fact (which were adopted on appeal by the Deputy Commissioner, see App. 73):
“The need standard for the [Jenkins] family unit is $724 per month. Because of recoupment of a past overpayment, it did not actually receive that amount each month. It received $688 each month. The County Agency considered that through its error, overpayments were made in the amount of $724 monthly for the months of October and November, 1983. It determined that eligibility would not exist through the month of March, 1984, and that if eligibility existed for April, 1984, it would not be for a full grant.” Id., at 71.
He stated, in part:
“While the County Agency should have advised the Petitioner of the lump sum rule and how any Worker’s Compensation or Disability payments would be treated, the question does arise regarding whether the recipients could have acted any differently if they had known.
“The Federal policy regarding the treatment of lump sum payments is punitive and ignores the basic purposes of the AFDC Program. We do not like the Order in this case and would do anything to avoid the harsh result. The State Agency must comply with Federal Regulations as those regulations have been interpreted by legal counsel. Neither our legal counsel nor State Agency staff believes this is a good policy, but we have verified our interpretation with the Federal Agency on numerous occasions. The effect of the Federal policy is to deprive children of the minimum support available in an already insufficient AFDC grant. It does not please us to affirm the termination of the Petitioner’s grant, but we see no alternative within current Federal policy.” Id., at 75 (emphasis in original).
The original plaintiffs contended that the policy (1) violates the Social Security Act because it fails to take into account the actual availability of lump-sum funds in determining AFDC eligibility, (2) violates the Act because it is improperly applied to those members of the class who cannot, despite good-faith efforts, make their lump sums last for the entire period of-ineligibility, (3) creates an irrational, irrebuttable presumption that the lump-sum payment would be available for use by the family during the entire period of ineligibility, (4) violates due process because it applies without advance notice, (5) results in the “punishment” of needy children for their parents’ improvidence, and (6) violates equal protection principles by treating an AFDC recipient more harshly than a family that received, and spent, a lump sum immediately before applying for an AFDC grant. See Complaint, 1 Record A-12 — A-15. The District Court rejected each of these arguments, except (4), which it did not reach due to its holding that advance notice was required by the Secretary’s regulation. Slaughter v. Levine, 598 F. Supp. 1035, 1045-1049, 1052-1055 (Minn. 1984). The Department had also filed a third-party complaint against the Secretary, claiming that 42 U. S. C. § 602(a)(17) (1982 ed. and Supp. III) does not apply to unavailable lump sums, and that HHS’ lump-sum regulations are invalid to the extent that they require States to consider unavailable lump sums; these claims were rejected. 598 F. Supp., at 1045-1049. The Department also asked for, and was granted, a District Court order that the Secretary pay the federal share of any benefits paid to class members as a result of the court’s decision. Slaughter v. Levine, 605 F. Supp. 1242, 1249-1250 (Minn. 1985). The Secretary filed an appeal from this order, but subsequently withdrew it. See Slaughter v. Levine, 801 F. 2d 288, 294, n. 8 (CA8 1986) (ease below).
It defined the class as follows:
“[T]hose individuals in the State of Minnesota who are otherwise eligible for AFDC benefits and who have been, or will be, found ineligible for AFDC benefits for a predetermined number of months as a consequence of receipt of lump sum income by one of the members of an AFDC assistance unit of which they have been a member, and whose lump sum has or will become unavailable to them in whole or in part prior to their re-eligibility for benefits.” 598 F. Supp., at 1041.
Because the remaining named plaintiff from the initial complaint had not spent any of her lump-sum funds prior to receipt of notice of the Department’s policy, plaintiffs’ counsel conceded that she was not an adequate representative of the class. For that reason, although respondent was an intervenor, she became the class representative. See 605 F. Supp., at 1245-1247, and n. 3.
“[A] lump-sum recipient without notice of the new rule is very likely to spend most or all of a lump sum before learning of the rule’s strict budgeting requirements, particularly when the recipient is familiar with the prior policy. Consequently, the net result of failing to give adequate advance notice of the new lump-sum rule is to frustrate the very goal Congress sought to further in enacting the rule: encouraging recipients to budget lump sums so that they serve to replace the family’s monthly AFDC check.” 801 F. 2d, at 295-296 (footnote omitted).
importance of advance notice is heightened by the fact that the effects of the lump-sum rule on an AFDC recipient can be peculiarly drastic. In general, the AFDC program’s income-and-asset-related eligibility requirements reduce or cut off eligibility only if the resource is actually available to the recipient. However, the new lump-sum rule diverges from the norm, cutting off eligibility without regard, except in very limited circumstances, to whether the lump sum is actually available. Thus, under the operation of most eligibility requirements, there is no point at which a family will not have either the basic support provided by the AFDC program or other financial resources that equal or surpass the AFDC standard of need. In contrast, under the lump-sum rule, where a family exhausts its lump sum before its ineligibility period expires, the family may well be left for months with insufficient resources to provide for basic necessities. To impose this situation on a family that had no advance notice of the new lump-sum rule and operated on the altogether reasonable assumption that the old policy still governed would be truly Kafkaesque.” Id., at 296 (footnotes omitted).
The first change described in the letter was the new lump-sum rule. The letter stated:
“Lump Sum Money: When a family receives lump-sum money such as an inheritance, a Social Security back payment, insurance settlement, gift, etc., the money will be deducted from the AFDC grant, whether or not it hás already been spent. If the lump sum added to other family income totals more than the AFDC maximum for that size family, the family will be ineligible for the month in which the lump sum was received (and possibly for a number of following months), whether or not the money is spent before the period of ineligibility has gone by. If the family already received an AFDC grant that month, the grant would be ‘recouped’ by the welfare agency.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 97-98.
Respondent objects that the Department did not raise this contention below. Although it did not elaborate on the point, the Department did, though, comment that “[b]asically, [the regulation] is directed toward new applicants, requiring that the state publicize the availability of the AFDC program through the use of pamphlets.” Brief for Appellant in No. 85-5143-MN (CA8), p. 24 (emphasis added). Moreover, the Department raised the argument in the petition for a writ of certiorari, see Pet. for Cert. 11, and respondent did not object, in her brief in opposition, that the Department had not raised the claim below. Thus, in accordance with our rule that “[n]onjurisdictional defects of this sort should be brought to our attention no later than in respondent’s brief in opposition to the petition for certiorari,” Oklahoma City v. Tuttle, 471 U. S. 808, 816 (1985) (emphasis in original), “we consider it within our discretion to deem the defect waived.” Ibid. Finally, the issue in this case, as raised by respondent’s complaint, is the meaning of the notice provision of the federal regulations. Whether or not the provision covers recipients as well as applicants is germane to that interpretive quest, regardless of whether one of the parties points us in that direction.
Petitioner also points out that although the notice provision originally referred simply to “applicants,” see 36 Fed. Reg. 3860, 3864 (1971), in 1978 it underwent a temporary metamorphosis. The Secretary published a notice of proposed rulemaking, 41 Fed. Reg. 56832 (1976), to respond to “reports from recipient group representatives that some State and local agencies have not made printed or oral information about the public assistance programs available to persons seeking information unless they are applicants.” 43 Fed. Reg. 6949 (1978). Accordingly, the notice provision was “revised to specify that information concerning the program shall be provided to any person who requests it, and applicants and all persons who inquire about the programs shall be informed of the eligibility requirements and the rights and obligations of individuals under the programs.” Id., at 6950. The next year, without explanation, the notice provision was shifted back to its original, and current, form. See 44 Fed. Reg. 17940, 17943 (1979). We agree with petitioner that this history provides strong support for the conclusion that the current provision does not extend beyond applicants. It also tends to buttress our reasoning in the text that the notice provision was intended simply as a requirement that general program information be made available to applicants upon request, and not as a mandate to States to provide specific, unrequested information about particular changes in eligibility requirements to current benefits recipients, or, as we also discuss in the text, to applicants.
The Secretary’s comments accompanying the regulations as originally promulgated strongly support this conclusion. As originally proposed in 1970, the redetermination provision read “[a]n applicant or recipient may be assisted if he so desires by other individuals of his choice in the various aspects of the application process and the redetermination of eligibility . . . .” 35 Fed. Reg. 18402 (1970) (emphasis added). When the provision was adopted several months later, the reference to “recipients” was eliminated, even though the reference to “redetermination of eligibility” was retained. 36 Fed. Reg. 3860, 3864 (1971). The Secretary’s explanatory comments continued to acknowledge the distinction between applicants and recipients, but did not explain the deletion of the term “recipients” from the text of the rule itself: “[Njotice of proposed rule making was published ... to provide that applicants for and recipients of public assistance may be accompanied by other individuals in their contacts with the agency, if they so wish.” Id., at 3860. Thus, the history of these regulations supports the conclusion in the text that the word “recipient” was inadvertently omitted when referring to redetermination, and, accordingly, that “applicant,” as used in the notice provision, means simply “applicant,” and nothing more.
The lump-sum rule is only one of many conditions of eligibility for AFDC benefits that are meticulously described in 40 pages of the Code of Federal Regulations and in 66 pages of Minnesota’s recently revised AFDC rules and regulations. See 45 CFR pt. 233 (1987); Minn. Rules, ch. 9500.2000 et seq. (1987). The conditions are subject to frequent alteration, with many changes such as the new lump-sum rule affecting only a small minority of AFDC recipients. Unquestionably it would be wise (assuming that it were feasible and not too expensive) to precede every such change with adequate advance notice, but the regulation itself does not unambiguously impose any such requirement on state welfare agencies.
In rebutting the argument that the Secretary’s views are due deference from us, respondent points to the Secretary’s response to an interrogatory put to him by petitioner’s predecessor as third-party plaintiff, a response upon which the Court of Appeals relied:
“Federal regulations at 45 CFR §206.10(a)(2)(i) and (ii) require a State agency to inform AFDC applicants and recipients about eligibility requirements and their rights and obligations under the AFDC Program. Under these requirements, States are fully expected to establish policies to ensure that individuals are provided information in written form, and orally as appropriate, about coverage, conditions of eligibility, scope of the program and related services available. This would include generally advising applicants and recipients of their obligation to report receipt of lump sum income, the operation of the lump sum rule, and the effect on eligibility for assistance.” App. 89 (emphasis added).
While the highlighted sentence indeed indicates that individuals must be advised to report receipt of lump-sum income, it does not specify whether such advisement must be made in specific mailings— i. e., a letter to recipients telling them to report receipt of lump-sum income as soon as it is received and before the normal monthly reporting, if necessary — or whether such advisement could be satisfied through the general notice telling individuals to report all of their income, including lump-sum income, on a usual, monthly basis. In fact, in response to a separate interrogatory, the Secretary explained:
“A State has considerable latitude in the development of procedures it shall adopt to ensure effective administration of the AFDC program. Provisions at Jp5 CFR §206.10(a)(2)(i) do not require a State to publicize the lump sum rule or any other eligibility requirements in specifically developed pamphlets or bulletins.” Id., at 90-91 (emphasis added).
'This second answer tends to support our reading of the first answer, namely, that it is inconclusive on the question whether States must notify individuals in advance to report lump-sum income immediately upon its receipt, or, for that matter, whether States must notify individuals in advance about the effect of the new lump-sum rule.
Respondent deems this case particularly harsh because of an earlier incident involving her family. When the Department sent its September 1981 letter explaining the new lump-sum rule, the Jenkinses were receiving AFDC benefits, and received a lump-sum payment later that year. However, because of obligations incurred in other litigation, the Department had not yet implemented the new lump-sum rule, and respondent’s lump-sum payment was treated under the old rule. Accordingly, respondent contends, she had every reason to believe that the old lump-sum rule was still in effect when her husband received the October 1983 Social Security payment. However, respondent fails to note during this argument that she swore to an affidavit that stated: “The welfare department apparently says that I got a letter in September of 1981 explaining the new lump sum rule. I have been shown a copy, of the letter, and don’t remember receiving it.” Id., at 111. Respondent cannot have it both ways: Either she received the letter and can argue that, because the new lump-sum rule was not applied to her late 1981 lump-sum payment, she had good cause to believe the new rule was not going to go into effect; or, she did not receive the letter and cannot invoke this equitable argument. Respondent’s affidavit admission forecloses the former argument.
The latter argument — that respondent did not receive the 1981 letter (or that she received it but did not understand it) and that therefore she acted in 1983 under the general assumption that, absent notice of the new lump-sum rule, the old lump-sum rule was still in effect — carried some weight with both the District Court and the Court of Appeals. See Slaughter v. Levine, 598 F. Supp., at 1050-1051; Slaughter v. Levine, 801 F. 2d, at 295-296. We are sympathetic with the plight of those AFDC recipients in this situation, and can only reiterate that our decision today is an endorsement of neither the new lump-sum rule nor the absence of notice thereof. Instead, our authority is merely to determine whether the pertinent provision of the regulations requires advance written notice to individuals explaining the workings of the new lump-sum rule. As we have explained, 45 CFR § 206.10(a)(2)(i) (1987) simply does not provide the specific mandate that respondent seeks.
Our decision, of course, means that the Department may recoup the overpayment made to 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. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Because of petitioner’s disbarment by the Supreme Court of Louisiana, the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Louisiana struck him from its roll of attorneys, and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed the order. 228 F. 2d 617. The case raises an important question regarding disbarment by a federal court on the basis of disbarment by a state court and so we granted certiorari. 351 U. S. 961.
A proceeding for disbarment of a lawyer is always painful. The circumstances of this case make it puzzling as well as painful. The facts are few and clear. It is undisputed that petitioner, in 1935, forged a promissory note and collected its proceeds. Criminal prosecution and action for disbarment were duly initiated but both were aborted because the petitioner was “suffering under an exceedingly abnormal mental condition, some degree of insanity” at the time of this behavior, to such a degree that he was committed to an insane asylum and was under a decree of interdiction until 1948. Years after, criminal prosecution was unsuccessfully revived, State v. Theard, 212 La. 1022, 34 So. 2d 248. The disbarment proceedings, which led to the order in the federal court now under review, got under way in 1950 and the Supreme Court of Louisiana, acting on the findings of a committee of the Louisiana State Bar Association, overruled exceptions to the petition for disbarment. In so doing, the court met the plea of insanity against the claim of misconduct with the statement that it did not “view the mental deficiency of a lawyer at the time of his misconduct to be a valid defense to his disbarment.” Louisiana State Bar Association v. Theard, 222 La. 328, 334, 62 So. 2d 501, 503. The next year, “after issue had been joined,” the Supreme Court of Louisiana appointed a Commissioner to take evidence and to report to that court his findings of fact and conclusions of law. The Commissioner did so and reported to the Supreme Court this fact that we deem vital to the issue before us: “It must then, from the record, be held that the respondent was suffering under an exceedingly abnormal mental condition, some degree of insanity.” 225 La. 98, 104, 105, 72 So. 2d 310, 312. The Commissioner deemed himself, however, bound by “the law of the case” as announced by the Supreme Court in 222 La. 328, 334, 62 So. 2d 501, 503, supra, according to which it was immaterial to disbarment that the petitioner “was probably suffering from amnesia and other mental deficiencies at the time of his misdeeds.” Ibid. The Supreme Court of Louisiana in its second decision approved the Commissioner’s view about “the law of the case,” and added that, were the doctrine otherwise, it would not change its previous ruling. 225 La. 98, 108, 72 So. 2d 310, 313.
The state proceedings thus establish that petitioner was disbarred in 1954 for an action in 1935, although at the time of the fatéful conduct he was concededly in a condition of mental irresponsibility so pronounced that for years he was in an insane asylum under judicial restraint. The proceedings also establish that as an active practitioner for six years preceding disbarment, after recovering his capacity, including the argument of thirty-six cases before the Louisiana Supreme Court and the Court of Appeals for the Parish of Orleans, no charge of misconduct or impropriety was brought against him.
It is not for this Court, except within the narrow limits for review open to this Court, as recently canvassed in Konigsberg v. California, 353 U. S. 252, and Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U. S. 232, to sit in judgment on Louisiana disbarments, and we are not in any event sitting in review of the Louisiana judgment. While a lawyer is admitted into a federal court by way of a state court, he is not automatically sent out of the federal court by the same route. The two judicial systems of courts, the state judicatures and the federal judiciary, have autonomous control over the conduct of their officers, among whom, in the present context, lawyers are included. The court’s control over a lawyer’s professional life derives from his relation to the responsibilities of a court. The matter was compendiously put by Mr. Justice Cardozo, while Chief Judge of the New York Court of Appeals. “ ‘Membership in the bar is a privilege burdened with conditions’ (Matter of Rouss, [221 N. Y. 81, 84, 116 N. E. 782, 783]). The appellant was received into that ancient fellowship for something more than private gain. He became an officer of the court, and, like the court itself, an instrument or agency to advance the ends of justice.” People ex rel. Karlin v. Culkin, 248 N. Y. 465, 470-471, 162 N. E. 487, 489. The power of disbarment is necessary for the protection of the public in order to strip a man of the implied representation by courts that a man who is allowed to hold himself out to practice before them is in “good standing” so to do.
The rules of the various federal courts, more particularly the District Court which disbarred this petitioner, have provisions substantially like the present Rule 8 of this Court dealing with disbarment. “Where it is shown to the court that any member of its bar has been disbarred from practice in any State, Territory, District, Commonwealth, or Possession, or has been guilty of conduct unbecoming a member of the bar of this court, he will be forthwith suspended from practice before this court. He will thereupon be afforded the opportunity to show good cause, within forty days, why he should not be disbarred.” Disbarment being the very serious business that it is, ample opportunity must be afforded to show cause why an accused practitioner should not be disbarred. If the accusation rests on disbarment by a state court, such determination of course brings title deeds of high respect. But it is not conclusively binding on the federal courts. The recognition that must be accorded such a state judgment and the extent of the responsibility that remains in the federal judiciary were authoritatively expounded in Selling v. Radford, 243 U. S. 46. The short of it is that disbarment by federal courts does not automatically flow from disbarment by state courts. Of the conditions that qualify such a state court judgment, the one here relevant is that some “grave reason existed which should convince us that to allow the natural consequences of the judgment to have their effect would conflict with the duty which rests upon us not to disbar except upon the conviction that, under the principles of right and justice, we were constrained so to do.” Id., at 51.
We do not think that “the principles of right and justice” require a federal court to enforce disbarment of a man eighteen years after he had uttered a forgery when concededly he “was suffering under an exceedingly abnormal mental condition, some degree of insanity.” Neither considerations relating to “the law of the case,” cf. Messenger v. Anderson, 225 U. S. 436, 444, nor the temptation to get bogged down in the quagmire of controversy about the M’Naghten rule, require automatic acceptance by a federal court of the state disbarment in the circumstances of this case. The District Court apparently felt itself so bound. This we deem error. The case must therefore be remanded to that court for disposition of the motion for disbarment under that court’s Rule 1 (f) of its General Rules, in accordance with the standards defined in Selling v. Radford, supra, and this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The Chief Justice and Mr. Justice Black concur in the result.
Mr. Justice Whittaker 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:
|
F
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Burton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented here is whether the Railway Labor Act of May 20, 1926, 44 Stat. 577, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 151 et seq., applies to the State Belt Railroad, a common carrier owned and operated by the State of California and engaged in interstate commerce. For the reasons hereafter stated, we hold that it does.
The operations of the State Belt Railroad have been described by this Court in Sherman v. United States, 282 U. S. 25; United States v. California, 297 U. S. 175; and California v. Latimer, 305 U. S. 255. It parallels the San Francisco waterfront, serves wharves and industrial plants, and connects with car ferries, steamship docks and three interstate railroads. It is a common carrier engaged in interstate commerce and files tariffs with the Interstate Commerce Commission.
For over 65 years, the Belt Railroad has been owned by the State of California. It is operated by the Board of State Harbor Commissioners for San Francisco Harbor, composed of three Commissioners appointed by the Governor. Its employees number from 125 to 255 and are appointed in accordance with the civil service laws of the State. These laws prescribe procedures for hirings, promotions, layoffs and dismissals, and authorize the State Personnel Board to fix rates of pay and overtime.
On September 1,1942, the Board of State Harbor Commissioners entered into a collective-bargaining agreement with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen and the Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen as the representatives of the Belt Railroad’s operating employees. This agreement established procedures for promotions, layoffs and dismissals. It also fixed rates of pay and overtime. Those procedures and rates differed from their counterparts under the state civil service laws.
The collective-bargaining agreement conformed to the Railway Labor Act and was observed by the parties at least until January 1948. At that time, a successor Harbor Board instituted litigation in the state courts of California in which it contended that the Railway Labor Act had no application to the Belt Railroad, and that the wages and working conditions of the Railroad’s employees were governed by the State’s civil service laws rather than by the agreement. This contention was rejected by a local trial court and by the California District Court of Appeal. State v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 222 P. 2d 27. It was, however, accepted by the Supreme Court of California, with one justice dissenting, 37 Cal. 2d 412, 422, 232 P. 2d 857, 864, certiorari denied, 342 U. S. 876.
Shortly thereafter, five employees of the Belt Railroad instituted the present action in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against the ten members of the National Railroad Adjustment Board, First Division, and its executive secretary. The employees alleged that they had filed with the First Division, pursuant to § 3, First (i), of the Railway Labor Act, claims relating to their classifications, extra pay and seniority rights under the agreement. They charged that the five carrier members of the Division had refused to consider these claims on the ground that the Board was without jurisdiction, because, under the above decision of the Supreme Court of California, the Belt Railroad was not subject to the Railway Labor Act. The employees alleged that this refusal created an impasse in the ten-member Division and they sought a court order requiring action on their claims. The United States, answering on behalf of the First Division and its executive secretary, supported the complaint and prayer for relief. The carrier members, answering through their own attorneys, opposed the complaint, as did the present petitioner, the State of California, which intervened as a party defendant.
The District Court granted California’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. 132 F. Supp. 356. The Court of Appeals reversed. 233 F. 2d 251. It held that the Railway Labor Act applied to the Belt Railroad, and remanded the cause to the District Court with directions to enter a decree granting the relief sought. We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict between the United States Court of Appeals and the California Supreme Court as to the applicability of the Railway Labor Act to a railroad owned and operated by a State. 352 U. S. 940. We invited the Solicitor General to file a brief as amicus curiae and, in doing so, he urged that the Railway Labor Act was applicable to the State Belt Railroad.
The Railway Labor Act of 1926, 44 Stat. 577, evolved from legislative experimentation beginning in 1888. The evolution of this railroad labor code was marked by a continuing attempt to bring about self-adjustment of disputes between rail carriers and their employees. To this end, specialized machinery of mediation and arbitration was established. The 1926 Act — unique in that it had been agreed upon by the majority of the railroads and their employees — incorporated practically every device previously used in settling disputes between carriers and their employees. These included (1) conferences between the parties; (2) appeal to a Board of Adjustment; (3) recourse to the permanent Board of Mediation; (4) submission of the controversy to a temporary Board of Arbitration; and (5) the establishment of an Emergency Board of Investigation appointed by the President.
Dissatisfaction with the operation of this legislation led to its 1934 amendments. 48 Stat. 1185. One of the most significant changes was the creation of the National Railroad Adjustment Board composed of equal numbers of carrier representatives and representatives of unions national in scope. The Board was divided into four divisions, each with jurisdiction over particular crafts or classes and their disputes. § 3. This arrangement made available a National Board to settle disputes in case the carrier and its employees could not agree upon a system, group or regional board. The National Board was given jurisdiction over “minor disputes,” meaning those involving the interpretation of collective-bargaining agreements in a particular set of facts. Either party to such a dispute could bring the other before the Board in what was, in fact, compulsory arbitration. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Chicago River & I. R. Co., 353 U. S. 30. Provisions were made for the enforcement of a Board order against a carrier in a United States District Court. § 3, First (p).
Section 2, Fourth, of the 1934 amendments insured to railroad employees the right to organize their own unions and the right of a majority of any craft or class of employees to select the representative of that craft or class. Section 2, Ninth, authorized the newly created National Mediation Board to hold representation elections and to certify the representative with which the carrier must deal. Section 2, Fourth, provided that the employees shall have the right to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing. On numerous occasions, this Court has recognized that the Railway Labor Act protects and promotes collective bargaining. Virginian R. Co. v. System Federation No. 40, 300 U. S. 515, 548-549, 553; Switchmen’s Union v. National Mediation Board, 320 U. S. 297, 300, 302; Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 321 U. S. 342, 346-347; Steele v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 323 U. S. 192, 202; Railway Employes’ Dept. v. Hanson, 351 U. S. 225, 233, 235.
If the Railway Labor Act applies to the Belt Railroad, then the carrier’s employees can invoke its machinery established for adjustment of labor controversies, and the National Railway Adjustment Board has jurisdiction over respondents’ claims. Moreover, the Act’s policy of protecting collective bargaining comes into conflict with the rule of California law that state employees have no right to bargain collectively with the State concerning terms and conditions of employment which are fixed by the State’s civil service laws. This state civil service relationship'is the antithesis of that established by collectively bargained contracts throughout the railroad industry. “ [E]ffective collective bargaining has been generally conceded to include the right of the representatives of the unit to be consulted and to bargain about the exceptional as well as the routine rates, rules, and working conditions.” Order of Railroad Telegraphers v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., supra, at 347. If the Federal Act applies to the Belt Railroad, then the policy of the State must give way.
“. . . a State may not prohibit the exercise of rights which the federal Acts protect. Thus, in Hill v. Florida, 325 U. S. 538, the State enjoined a labor union from functioning until it had complied with certain statutory requirements. The injunction was invalidated on the ground that the Wagner Act included a ‘federally established right to collective bargaining’ with which the injunction conflicted.” Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 348 U. S. 468, 474.
Under the Railway Labor Act, not only would the employees of the Belt Railroad have a federally protected right to bargain collectively with their employer, but the terms of the collective-bargaining agreement that they have negotiated with the Belt Railroad would take precedence over conflicting provisions of the state civil service laws. In Railway Employes’ Dept. v. Hanson, 351 U. S. 225, 232, involving § 2, Eleventh, of the Railway Labor Act, which permits the negotiation of union-shop agreements notwithstanding any law of any State, we stated that “A union agreement made pursuant to the Railway Labor Act has, therefore, the imprimatur of the federal law upon it and, by force of the Supremacy Clause of Article VI of the Constitution, could not be made illegal nor vitiated by any provision of the laws of a State.”
We turn now to the applicability of the Railway Labor Act to the Belt Railroad. Section 1, First, of that Act defines generally the carriers to which it applies as “any carrier by railroad, subject to the Interstate Commerce Act . . . (Emphasis supplied.) The Interstate Commerce Act, 24 Stat. 379, as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 1 (1), applies to all common carriers by railroad engaged in interstate transportation. The Belt Railroad concededly is a common carrier engaged in interstate transportation. It files its tariffs with the Interstate Commerce Commission, and the Commission has treated it and other state-owned interstate rail carriers as subject to its jurisdiction. See California Canneries Co. v. Southern Pacific Co., 51 I. C. C. 500, 502-503; United States v. Belt Line R. Co., 56 I. C. C. 121; Texas State Railroad, 34 I. C. C. Val. R. 276. Finally, this Court has recognized that practice. United States v. California, 297 U. S. 175, 186. See also, New Orleans v. Texas & P. R. Co., 195 F. 2d 887, 889.
With the exception of the Supreme Court of California’s holding in State v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 37 Cal. 2d 412, 232 P. 2d 857, federal statutes regulating interstate railroads, or their employees, have consistently been held to apply to publicly owned or operated railroads. Yet none of these statutes referred specifically to public railroads as being within their coverage. In United States v. California, supra, the United States sought to recover a statutory penalty for the State’s operation of this Belt Railroad in violation of the Safety Appliance Act, 27 Stat. 531-532, as amended, 45 U. S. C. §§ 2, 6. That Act applied to “any common carrier engaged in interstate commerce by railroad . . . .” (Emphasis supplied.) The State contended there, as it does here, that the Act was inapplicable to the Belt Railroad because a federal statute is presumed not to restrict a constituent sovereign State unless it expressly so provides. This Court said that this presumption “is an aid to consistent construction of statutes of the enacting sovereign when their purpose is in doubt, but it does not require that the aim of a statute fairly to be inferred be disregarded because not explicitly stated.” 297 U. S., at 186. See also, California v. United States, 320 U. S. 577, 585-586; Case v. Bowles, 327 U. S. 92, 98-100. The Court then held unequivocally that the Safety Appliance Act was applicable to the Belt Railroad. “We can perceive no reason for extending it [the presumption] so as to exempt a business carried on by a state from the otherwise applicable provisions of an act of Congress, all-embracing in scope and national in its purpose, which is as capable of being obstructed by state as by individual action.” 297 U. S., at 186.
Likewise, three courts have ruled that the Federal Employers’ Liability Act, 35 Stat. 65, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 51, the coverage of which corresponded to that of the Safety Appliance Act, was applicable to public railroads. Mathewes v. Port Utilities Commission, 32 F. 2d 913 (D. C. E. D. S. C.); Higginbotham v. Public Belt Railroad Commission, 192 La. 525, 188 So. 395 (Sup. Ct. La.); Maurice v. State, 43 Cal. App. 2d 270, 110 P. 2d 706 (Cal. Dist. Ct. of App.) (involving the Belt Railroad now before us). Similarly, a Federal Court of Appeals has held that the Carriers Taxing Act of 1937, 50 Stat. 435, as amended, 45 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 261 (a companion measure of the Railroad Retirement Act of 1937, 50 Stat. 307, as amended, 45 U. S. C. § 228a), the coverage of which was identical with that of the Railway Labor Act, was applicable to this Belt Railroad. California v. Anglim, 129 F. 2d 455. At least two federal courts have taken the position that the Railway Labor Act is applicable to railroads owned or operated by the public. National Council v. Sealy, 56 F. Supp. 720, 722-723, aff’d, 152 F. 2d 500, 502; New Orleans Public Belt R. Commission v. Ward, 195 F. 2d 829; and see the opinion of the Attorney General of California, n. 9, supra.
Nothing in the legislative history of the Railway Labor Act indicates that it should be treated differently from the above-mentioned railway statutes, insofar as its applicability to a state-owned 'railroad is concerned. Congress apparently did not discuss the applicability of the Railway Labor Act to a state-owned railroad. This omission is readily explainable in view of the limited operations of publicly owned railroads. We are told by the parties that there are today 30 publicly owned railroads, all of which are switching or terminal roads, and only 11 of which are operated directly by the public. The fact that Congress chose to phrase the coverage of the Act in all-embracing terms indicates that state railroads were included within it. In fact, the consistent congressional pattern in railway legislation which preceded the Railway Labor Act was to employ all-inclusive language of coverage with no suggestion that state-owned railroads were not included.
The State contends that doubts are created about congressional intent to make the Railway Labor Act applicable to state-owned railroads by the fact that in certain other federal statutes governing employer-employee relationships, Congress has expressly exempted employees of the United States or of a State. We believe, however, that this argument cuts the other way. When Congress wished to exclude state employees, it expressly so provided. Its failure to do likewise in the Railway Labor Act indicates a purpose not to exclude state employees.
The Railway Labor Act is essentially an instrument of industry-wide government. See Elgin, J. & E. R. Co. v. Burley, 325 U. S. 711, 749, 751 (dissenting opinion). The railroad world for which the Act was designed has been described as “a state within a state. Its population of some three million, if we include the families of workers, has its own customs and its own vocabulary, and lives according to rules of its own making. . . . This state within a state has enjoyed a high degree of internal peace for two generations; despite the divergent interests of its component parts, the reign of law has been firmly established.” Garrison, The National Railroad Adjustment Board; A Unique Administrative Agency, 46 Yale L. J. 567, 568-569 (1937). Congress has not only carved this singular industry out of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. § 182, but it has provided, by the Railway Labor Act, techniques peculiar to that industry. An extended period of congressional experimentation in the field of railway labor legislation resulted in the Railway Labor Act and produced its machinery for conciliation, mediation, arbitration and adjustments of disputes. A primary purpose of this machinery of railway government is “To avoid any interruption to commerce or to the operation of any carrier engaged therein . . . .” 48 Stat. 1186 (§ 2), 45 U. S. C. § 151a. See Slocum v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 339 U. S. 239, 242. Like the Safety Appliance Act, the Railway Labor Act is “all-embracing in scope and national in its purpose, which is as capable of being obstructed by state as by individual action.” United States v. California, 297 U. S. 175, 186. The fact that, under state law, the employees of the Belt Railroad may have no legal right to strike reduces, but does not eliminate, the possibility of a work stoppage. It was to meet such a possibility that the Act’s “reign of law” was established. A terminal railroad facility like the Belt Railroad is a vital link in the national transportation system. Its continuous operation is important to the national flow of commerce.
The fact that the Act’s application will supersede state civil service laws which conflict with its policy of promoting collective bargaining does not detract from the conclusion that Congress intended it to apply to any common carrier by railroad engaged in interstate transportation, whether or not owned or operated by a State. The principal unions in the railroad industry are national in scope, and their officials are intimately acquainted with the problems, traditions and conditions of the railroad industry. Bargaining collectively with these officials has often taken on a national flavor, and agreements are uniformly negotiated for an entire railroad system. “[Breakdowns in collective bargaining will typically affect a region or the entire nation.” Lecht, Experience under Railway Labor Legislation (1955), 4. It is by no means unreasonable to assume that Congress, aware of these characteristics of labor relations in the interconnected system which comprises our national railroad industry, intended that collective bargaining, as fostered and protected by the Railway Labor Act, should apply to all railroads. Congress no doubt concluded that a uniform method of dealing with the labor problems of the railroad industry would tend to eliminate inequities, and would promote a desirable mobility within the railroad labor force.
Finally, the State suggests that Congress has no constitutional power to interfere with the “sovereign right” of a State to control its employment relationships on a state-owned railroad engaged in interstate commerce. In United States v. California, supra, this Court said that the State, although acting in its sovereign capacity in operating this Belt Railroad, necessarily so acted “in subordination to the power to regulate interstate commerce, which has been granted specifically to the national government.” 297 U. S., at 184. “California, by engaging in interstate commerce by rail, has subjected itself to the commerce power, and is liable for a violation of the Safety Appliance Act, as are other carriers . . . .” Id., at 185. That principle is no less applicable here. If California, by engaging in interstate commerce by rail, subjects itself to the commerce power so that Congress can make it conform to federal safety requirements, it also has subjected itself to that power so that Congress can regulate its employment relationships. See also, California v. United States, 320 U. S. 577, 586; cf. Railway Employes’ Dept. v. Hanson, 351 U. S. 225, 233-238.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals accordingly is
Affirmed.
The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
See West’s Cal. Ann. Codes, Constitution, Art. XXIV; West’s Cal. Ann. Codes, Government, § 18000 et seq.
Petitioner expressly excluded from the questions presented by its petition for certiorari the following issues involved in the decision of the Court of Appeals: whether the adjudication in the state courts was res judicata in the federal courts, whether the collective-bargaining agreement had been approved by the Department of Finance of the State and, therefore, met the requirements of California law in that respect, and whether the California Personnel Board, rather than the National Railroad Adjustment Board, had jurisdiction over respondents’ claims.
In its briefs before this Court, California suggests that the collective-bargaining agreement is invalid because the Board of State Harbor Commissioners lacked authority to negotiate the contract, some of the terms of which are in conflict with the state civil service laws. The Court of Appeals, however, held that this contention had been waived because it was not briefed there by the State and not mentioned in the State’s oral argument. We, accordingly, do not recognize this contention here. The same argument was rejected by the California District Court of Appeal in the earlier state court litigation, State v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 222 P. 2d 27, 31-33, and the Supreme Court of California apparently did not reject that position of the appellate court, 37 Cal. 2d 412, 421-422, 232 P. 2d 857, 863-864. Thus, even if the State’s present suggestion were before us, we would feel constrained to accept the ruling of the District Court of Appeal.
Act of 1888, 25 Stat. 501; Erdman Act of 1898, 30 Stat. 424; Newlands Act of 1913, 38 Stat. 103; Adamson Act of 1916, 39 Stat. 721, see Wilson v. New, 243 U. S. 332; General Order No. 8, February 21, 1918, signed by W. G. McAdoo, Director General of Railroads (formulating the Federal Government’s labor policy after it took over the railroads in December 1917), Hines, War History of American Railroads (1928), 304-305, see also, p. 155 et seq.; Title III of the Transportation Act of 1920, 41 Stat. 469.
See S. Rep. No. 606, 69th Cong., 1st Sess. 2; 67 Cong. Rec. 463.
The purposes of the Act were stated as follows:
“Sec. 2. ... (1) To avoid any interruption to commerce or to the operation of any carrier engaged therein; (2) to forbid any limitation upon freedom of association among employees or any denial, as a condition of employment or otherwise, of the right of employees to join a labor organization; (3) to provide for the complete independence of carriers and of employees in the matter of self-organization to carry out the purposes of this Act; (4) to provide for the prompt and orderly settlement of all disputes concerning rates of pay, rules, or working conditions; (5) to provide 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.” 48 Stat, 1186-1187.
Another significant amendment to the Railway Labor Act came in 1951 when Congress authorized union-shop agreements, notwithstanding any state law. § 2, Eleventh, 64 Stat. 1238. See Railway Employes’ Dept. v. Hanson, 351 U. S. 225.
Nutter v. Santa Monica, 74 Cal. App. 2d 292, 168 P. 2d 741; Los Angeles v. Los Angeles Building Council, 94 Cal. App. 2d 36, 210 P. 2d 305; State v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 37 Cal. 2d 412, 417-418, 232 P. 2d 857, 861.
For cases upholding the supremacy of federal statutes relating to railroads in interstate commerce, see Napier v. Atlantic C. L. R. Co., 272 U. S. 605 (Boiler Inspection Act); Southern R. Co. v. Railroad Commission of Indiana, 236 U. S. 439 (Safety Appliance Act); Erie R. Co. v. New York, 233 U. S. 671 (Hours of Service Act); Second Employers’ Liability Cases, 223 U. S. 1 (Employers’ Liability Act). Cf. Terminal Railroad Assn. v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, 318 U. S. 1, to the effect that the Railway Labor Act did not preclude a State from establishing minimum health and safety regulations in the interests of railway employees. That case did not concern a conflict between federally protected collective bargaining and inconsistent state laws.
On October 30, 1944, the Attorney General of California rendered an opinion in which he concluded that the State Belt Railroad was subject to the Railway Labor Act, that the Board of Harbor Commissioners must bargain collectively with the Railroad’s employees, and that the terms of the existing collective-bargaining agreement supersede conflicting provisions of the state civil service laws. 4 Op. Atty. Gen. Cal. (1944) 300-306; Rhyne, Labor Unions and Municipal Employe Law (1946), 247-251. See also, Long Island R. Co. v. Department of Labor, 256 N. Y. 498, 515-517, 177 N. E. 17, 23-24.
Although the coverage of the Act of 1888, 25 Stat. 501, the Erdman Act of 1898, 30 Stat. 424, and the Newlands Act of 1913, 38 Stat. 103, was not related to the Interstate Commerce Act, those Acts by their terms applied to any carriers by railroad engaged in interstate transportation. The cross-reference to the Interstate Commerce Act, found in the Railway Labor Act, came with the Adamson Act of 1916, 39 Stat. 721, and was carried forward to Title III of the Transportation Act of 1920, 41 Stat. 469. A House Committee reporting on the bill which was to become Title III of the Transportation Act stated that “Section 300 defines the term 'carrier’ so that disputes of the railroads and express and sleeping-car companies, engaged in interstate commerce, are subject to the provisions of the title.” (Emphasis supplied.) H. R. Rep. No. 456, 66th Cong., 1st Sess. 24.
The statutes cited are the National Labor Relations Act of 1935, 49 Stat. 449, as amended by the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947, 61 Stat. 137, 29 U. S. C. § 152 (2); the War Labor Disputes Act of 1943, 57 Stat. 164, 50 U. S. C. App. (1946 ed.) § 1502 (d); the Eair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 52 Stat. 1060, 29 U. S. C. §203 (d), and the re-employment provisions of the Universal Military Training and Service Act, 62 Stat. 614-615, 50 U. S. C. App. §459 (b).
When Congress desired to make exceptions to the broad coverage of the Railway Labor Act, it expressly stated that intent in a proviso to the Act’s definition of the term “carrier”:
“Section 1. . . .
“First. . . . Provided, however, That the term ‘carrier’ shall not include any street, interurban, or suburban electric railway, unless such railway is operating as a part of a general steam-railroad system of transportation, but shall not exclude any part of the general steam-railroad system of transportation now or hereafter operated by any other motive power. The Interstate Commerce Commission is hereby authorized and directed upon request of the Mediation Board or upon complaint of any party interested to determine after hearing whether any line operated by electric power falls within the terms of this proviso. The term ‘carrier’ shall not include any company by reason of its being engaged in the mining of coal, the supplying of coal to a carrier where delivery is not beyond the mine tipple, and the operation of equipment or facilities therefor, or in any of such activities.” 48 Stat. 1185-1186, 54 Stat. 785-786, 45 U. S. C. § 151, First.
In United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, this Court ruled that the general term “employer,” as used in the restrictive provisions of the Norris-LaGuardia Act, 47 Stat. 70, and § 20 of the Clayton Act, 38 Stat. 738, did not include the Federal Government, and that an injunction could issue in a federal court to prevent a union and its officers from precipitating a strike in the bituminous coal mines which, at the time, were being operated by the Government. That case is not a guide here since the statutes there involved differ widely in history and purpose from the Railway Labor Act. See Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Chicago River & I. R. Co., 353 U. S. 30, 39-42.
See the Los Angeles Building Council ease, n. 7, supra.
Lecht, Experience under Railway Labor Legislation (1955), 4, 70-71, 158, 161, 167-168, 177, 192, 209, 225, 233.
Congress clearly had considerations such as these in mind in 1951 when it authorized union-shop agreements, notwithstanding any state law. See n. 6, supra. The House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce stated that—
“It will be noted that the proposed paragraph eleventh would authorize agreements notwithstanding the laws of any State. For the following reasons, among others, it is the view of the committee that if, as a matter of national policy, such agreements are to be permitted in the railroad and airline industries it would be wholly impracticable and unworkable for the various States to regulate such agreements. Railroads and airlines are direct instrumentalities of interstate commerce; the Railway Labor Act requires collective bargaining on a system-wide basis; agreements are uniformly negotiated for an entire railroad system and regulate the rates of pay, rules of working conditions of employees in many States; the duties of many employees require the constant crossing of State lines; many seniority districts under labor agreements, extend across State lines, and in the exercise of their seniority rights employees are frequently required to move from one State to another.” H. R. Rep. No. 2811, 81st Cong., 2d Sess. 5.
The contention of the State that the Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution of the United States would bar an employee of the Belt Railroad from enforcing an award by the National Railroad Adjustment Board in a suit against the State in a United States District Court under §3, First (p), of the Act is not before us under the facts 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.
Per Curiam.
In 1971 the petitioner Marco DeFunis, Jr., applied for admission as a first-year student at the University of Washington Law School, a state-operated institution. The size of the incoming first-year class was to be limited to 150 persons, and the LaW School received some 1,600 applications for these 150 places. DeFunis was eventually notified that he' had been denied admission. He thereupon commenced this suit in a Washington trial court, contending that' the. procedures and criteria employed by the Law School Admissions Committee invidiously discriminated against him on account of his race in violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution.
DeFunis brought the suit on behalf of himself alone, and not.as the representative of any class, against the various respondents, who are officers, faculty members, and members of the Board of Regents of the University of Washington. He asked the' trial court to issue a mandatory injunction commanding the respondents to admit him as a member of the first-year class entering in- September 1971, on the ground that the Law School admissions policy had resulted in the unconstitutional denial of his application for admission. The trial court agreed with his claim and granted, the requested relief. DeFunis was, accordingly, admitted to the Law School and began his legal studies there in the fall of 1971. On appeal, the Washington Supreme. Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and held that the Law School admissions policy did not violate the Constitution. By this time DeFunis was in his second year at the Law School.
He then petitioned this Court for a writ of certiorari, and Mr. Justice Douglas, as Circuit Justice, stayed the judgment of the Washington Supreme Court pending the “final disposition of the case by this Court.” By virtue, of this stay, DeFunis has remained in law school, and was in the first term of his third and final year when this Court first considered his certiorari petition in the fall of 1973. Because of our concern that DeFunis’ third-year standing in the Law School might have rendered this case moot, we requested the parties to brief the question of mootness before we acted on the petition. In response, both sides contended that the case was not moot. The respondents indicated that, if the decision of the Washington Supreme Court were permitted to stand, the petitioner could complete the term for which he was then enrolled but would have to apply to the faculty for permission to continue in the school before he could register for another term.
We granted the petition for certiorari on November 19, 1973. 414 U. S. 1038. The case was in due course orally argued on February 26, 1974.
In response to questions raised from the bench during the oral argument, counsel for the petitioner has informed the Court that DeFunis has now registered “for his final quarter in law school.” Counsel for the respondents have made clear that the Law School will not in anyway seek to abrogate this registration. In light of DeFunis’ recent registration for the last quarter of his final law school year, and the Law School’s assurance that his registration is fully effective, the insistent question again arises whether this case is not moot, and to that question we now turn.
The starting point for analysis is the familiar proposition that “federal courts are without power to decide questions that cannot affect the rights of litigants in the case before them.” North Carolina v. Rice, 404 U. S. 244 246 (1971). The inability of the federal judiciary “to review moot cases derives from the requirement of Art. Ill of the Constitution under which the exercise of judicial power depends upon the existence of a case or controversy.” Liner v. Jafco, Inc., 375 U. S. 301, 306 n. 3 (1964); see also Powell v. McCormack, 395 U. S. 486, 496 n. 7 (1969); Sibron v. New York, 392 U. S. 40, 50 n. 8 (1968). Although as a matter of Washington state law it appears that this case would be saved from mootness by “the great public interest in the continuing issues raised by this appeal,” 82 Wash. 2d 11, 23 n. 6, 507 P. 2d 1169, 1177 n. 6 (1973), the fact remains that under Art. Ill “[e]ven in cases arising in the state-courts, the question of mootness is a federal one which a federal coürt must resolve, before it assumes jurisdiction.” North Carolina v. Rice, supra, at 246.
. The resporidents have represented that, without regard toy the ultimate resolution of the issues in this case, DeFunis will remain a student in the Law School for the duration of any term in which he has already enrolled. Since he has now registered for his final term, it is evident that he will be given an opportunity to complete all academic and other requirements for graduation,' and, if he does so, will receive his diploma regardless of any decision this Court might reach on the merits of this case. In short, all parties agree that DeFunis is now entitled to complete his legal studies at the University of Washington and to receive his degree from that institution. A determination by this Court of the legal issues tendered by the parties is no longer necessary to compel that result, and could not serve to prevent it. DeFunis did not cast his suit as a class action, and the only remedy he requested was an injunction commanding his admission to the Law. School. He was not only accorded that remedy, but he now has also been irrevocably admitted to the final term of the final year of the Law School course. The controversy between the parties has thus clearly ceased to be “definite and concrete” and no longer “touch [es] the legal relations of parties having adverse legal interests.” Aetna Life Ins. Co. v. Haworth, 300 U. S. 227, 240-241 (1937).
It matters not that these circumstances partially stem from a policy decision on the part of the respondent Law School authorities. The respondents, through their counsel, the Attorney General of the State, have professionally represented that in no event will the status of DeFunis now be affected by any view this Court might express on the merits of this controversy. And it has been the settled practice of the Court, in contexts no less significant, fully to accept representations such as these as parameters for decision. See Gerende v. Election Board, 341 U. S. 56 (1951); Whitehill v. Elkins, 389 U. S. 54, 57-58 (1967); Ehlert v. United States, 402 U. S. 99. 107 (1971); cf. Law Students Research Council v. Wadmond, 401 U. S. 154, 162-163 (1971).
There is a line of decisions in this Court standing for the proposition that the “voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not deprive the tribunal of power to hear and determine the case, i. e., does not make the case moot.” United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U. S. 629; 632 (1953); United States v. Trans-Missouri Freight Assn., 166 U. S. 290, 308-310 (1897); Walling v. Helmerich & Payne, Inc., 323 U. S. 37, 43 (1944); Gray v. Sanders, 372 U. S. 368, 376 (1963); United States v. Phosphate Export Assn., 393 U. S. 199, 202-203 (1968). These decisions.and the doctrine they reflect would be quite relevant if the question of mootness here had arisen by reason of a unilateral change in the admissions procedures of the Law School. For it was the admissions procedures that-were the target of this' litigation, and a voluntary cessation of the admissions practices complained of could make this case moot only if it could be said with assurance “that 'there is no reasonable expectation-that the wrong will be repeated.’” United States v. W. T. Grant Co., supra, at 633. Otherwise, “[t]he defendant is free to return to his old ways,” id., at 632, and this fact would be enough to prevent mootness because of the “public interest in having the legality of the practices settled.” Ibid. But mootness in-the present case depends not at all upon a “voluntary cessation” of the admissions practices that were the subject of' this litigation. It depends, instead, upon the simple fact that DeFunis is now in the final quarter of the final year of his course of study, and the settled and unchallenged policy of the Law School to permit him to complete the term for which he is now enrolled.
It might also be suggested that this case presents a question that is “capable of repetition, yet evading review,” Southern Pacific Terminal Co. v. ICC, 219 U. S. 498, 515 (1911); Roe v. Wade, U. S. 113, 125 (1973), and is thus amenable to federal adjudication even though it might otherwise be considered moot. But DeFunis will never again be requirgd to run the gantlet of the Law School’s admission process, and so the question is certainly not “capable of repetition” so far as he is concerned. Moreover, just because this particular case did not reach the Court until the eve of the petitioner’s graduation from law school, it hardly follows that the issue he raises will in the future evade review. If the admissions procedures of the Law School remain unchanged, there is.no reason to suppose that a subsequent case attacking those procedures will not come with relative speed to this Court, now that the Supreme Court of Washington has spoken. This case, therefore, in no way presents the exceptional situation in which the Southern Pacific Terminal doctrine might permit a departure from “[t]he usual rule in federal cases . . . that an actual controversy must exist at stages of appellate or certiorari review, and not simply at the date the action is initiated.” Roe v. Wade, supra, at 125; United States v. Munsingwear, Inc., 340 U. S. 36 (1950).
Because the petitioner will complete his law school studies at the end of the term for which he has now registered regardless of any decision 'this Court might reach on the merits of this litigation, we conclude that the Court cannot, consistently with the limitations of Art. Ill of the Constitution, consider the substantive constitutional issues tendered by the parties. Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Washington is vacated, and the ;cause is remanded for such proceedings as by that court'may be deemed appropriate.
It is so ordered.
Also included as petitioners are DeFunis’ parents and his wife. Hereafter, the singular form “petitioner" is used.
By contrast, in their response to the petition for certiorari, the respondents had stated that DeFunis “will complete his third year [of law school] and be awarded his J. D. degree at the end of the 1973-74 academic year regardless of the outcome of this appeal.”
In their memorandum on the question of mootness, counsel for the respondents unequivocally stated: “If Mr. DeFunis registers for the spring quarter under the existing order of this court during •the registration period from February 20, 1974, to March 1, 1974, that registration would not be canceled unilaterally by the university” regardless of the outcome of this litigation.”
In response to an inquiry from .the Court, counsel for the respondents has advised that some changes have been made in the admissions procedures “for the applicants seeking admission to the University of Washington law school for the academic year commencing September, 1974.” The respondents’ counsel states, however, that “[these] changes do not affect the policy challenged by the petitioners ... in that . . . special consideration still is given to applicants from ‘certain ethnic groups.’ ”
It is suggested in dissent that "[a]ny number of unexpected events — illnéss, economic necessity, even academic failure — might prevent his graduation at the end of the term.” Post, at 348. “B.ut such speculative contingencies afford no basis for our passing on 'the substantive issues [the petitioner] would have us decide,” Hall v. Beals, 396 U. S. 45, 49 (1969), in the absence of "evidence that this is á prospect. of 'immediacy and reality.’ ” Golden v. Zwickler, 394 U. S. 103, 109 (1969); Maryland Casualty Co. v. Pacific Coal & Oil Co., 312 U. S. 270, 273 (1941).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
tional prohibition, but merely said to be in excess of the authority delegated to him by the Congress. Wheeldin v. Wheeler, 373 U. S. 647 (1963). Finally, we cannot accept respondents’ formulation of the question as whether the availability of money damages is necessary to enforce the Fourth Amendment. For we have here no explicit congressional declaration that persons injured by a federal officer’s violation of the Fourth Amendment may not recover money damages from the agents, but must instead be remitted to another remedy, equally effective in the view of Congress. The question is merely whether petitioner, if he can demonstrate an injury consequent upon the violation by' federal agents of his Fourth Amendment rights, is entitled to redress his injury through a particular remedial mechanism normally available in the federal courts. Cf. J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U. S. 426, 433 (1964); Jacobs v. United States, 290 U. S. 13, 16 (1933). “The very essence of civil liberty certainly consists in the right of every individual to claim the protection of the laws, whenever he receives an injury.” Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137, 163 (1803). Having concluded that petitioner’s complaint states a cause of action under the Fourth Amendment, supra, at 390-395, we hold that petitioner is entitled to recover „ money damages for any injuries he has suffered as a result of the agents’ violation of the Amendment.
II
In addition to holding that petitioner’s complaint had failed to state facts making out a cause of action, the District Court ruled that in any event respondents were' immune from liability by virtue of their official position. 276 F. Supp., at 15. This question was not passed upon by the Court of Appeals, and accordingly we do not consider it here. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
At issue is the constitutionality of a 1993 Colorado statute that regulates speech-related conduct within 100 feet of the entrance to any health eare facility. The specific section of the statute that is challenged, Colo. Rev. Stat. § 18-9-122(3) (1999), makes it unlawful within the regulated areas for any person to “knowingly approach” within eight feet of another person, without that person’s consent, “for the purpose of passing a leaflet or handbill to, displaying a sign to, or engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling with such other person....” Although the statute prohibits speakers from approaching unwilling listeners, it does not require a standing speaker to move away from anyone passing by. Nor does it place any restriction on the content of any message that anyone may wish to communicate to anyone else, either inside or outside the regulated areas. It does, however, make it more difficult to give unwanted advice, particularly in the form of a handbill or leaflet, to persons entering or leaving medical facilities.
The question is whether the First Amendment rights of the speaker are abridged by the protection the statute provides for the unwilling listener.
* — {
Five months after the statute was enacted, petitioners filed a complaint in the District Court for Jefferson County, Colorado, praying for a declaration that § 18-9-122(3) was facially invalid and seeking an injunction against its enforcement. They stated that prior to the enactment of the statute, they had engaged in “sidewalk counseling” on the public ways and sidewalks within 100 feet of the entrances to facilities where human abortion is practiced or where medical personnel refer women to other facilities for abortions. “Sidewalk counseling” consists of efforts “to educate, counsel, persuade, or inform passersby about abortion and abortion alternatives by means of verbal or written speech, including conversation and/or display of signs and/or distribution of literature.” They further alleged that such activities frequently entail being within eight feet of other persons and that their fear of prosecution under the new statute caused them “to he chilled in the exercise of fundamental constitutional rights.”
Count 5 of the complaint claimed violations of the right to free speech protected by the First Amendment to the Federal Constitution, and Count 6 alleged that the impairment of the right to distribute written materials was a violation of the right to a free press. The complaint also argued that the statutory consent requirement was invalid as a prior restraint tantamount to a licensing requirement, that the statute was vague and overbroad, and that it was a content-based restriction that was not justified by a compelling state interest. Finally, petitioners contended that §18-9-122(3) was content based for two reasons: The content of the speech must be examined to determine whether it “constitutes oral protest, counseling and education”; and that it is “viewpoint-based” because the statute “makes it likely that prosecution will occur based on displeasure with the position taken by the speaker.”
In their answers to the complaint, respondents admitted virtually all of the factual allegations. They filed a motion for summary judgment supported by affidavits, which included a transcript of the hearings that preceded the enactment of the statute. It is apparent from the testimony of both supporters and opponents of the statute that demonstrations in front of abortion clinics impeded access to those clinics and were often confrontational. Indeed, it was a common practice to provide escorts for persons entering and leaving the clinics both to ensure their access and to provide protection from aggressive counselors who sometimes used strong and abusive language in face-to-face encounters. There was also evidence that emotional confrontations may adversely affect a patient’s medical care. There was no evidence, however, that the “sidewalk counseling” conducted by petitioners in this case was ever abusive or confrontational.
The District Judge granted respondents’ motion and dismissed the complaint. Because the statute had not actually been enforced against petitioners, he found that they only raised a facial challenge. He agreed with petitioners that their sidewalk counseling was conducted in a “quintessential” public forum, but held that the statute permissibly imposed content-neutral “time, place, and manner restrictions” that were narrowly tailored to serve a significant government interest, and left open ample alternative channels of communication. Relying on Ward v. Rock Against Rac ism, 491 U. S. 781, 791 (1989), he noted that “ ‘[t]he principal inquiry in determining content neutrality... is whether the government has adopted a regulation of speech because of disagreement with the message it conveys.’ ” He found that the text of the statute “applies to all viewpoints, rather [than] only certain viewpoints,” and that the legislative history made it clear that the State had not favored one viewpoint over another. He concluded that the “free zone” created by the statute was narrowly tailored under the test announced in Ward, and that it left open ample alternative means of communication because signs and leaflets may be seen, and speech may be heard, at a distance of eight feet. Noting that petitioners had stated in their affidavits that they intended to “continue with their protected First Amendment activities,” he rejected their overbreadth challenge because he believed “the statute will do little to deter protected speech.” Finally, he concluded that the statute was not vague and that the prior restraint doctrine was inapplicable because the “statute requires no license or permit scheme prior to speaking.”
The Colorado Court of Appeals affirmed for reasons similar to those given by the District Judge. It noted that even though only seven percent of the patients receiving services at one of the clinics were there to obtain abortion services, all 60,000 of that clinic’s patients “were subjected to the same treatment by the protesters.” It also reviewed our then-recent decision in Madsen v. Women’s Health Center, Inc., 512 U. S. 753 (1994), and concluded that Madsen’s reasoning supported the conclusion that the statute was content neutral.
In 1996, the Supreme Court of Colorado denied review, and petitioners sought a writ of certiorari from our Court. While their petition was pending, we decided Schenck v. Pro-Choice Network of Western N. Y, 519 U. S. 357 (1997). Because we held in that case that an injunctive provision creating a speech-free “floating buffer zone” with a 15-foot radius violates the First Amendment, we granted certiorari, vacated the judgment of the Colorado Court of Appeals, and remanded the case to that court for further consideration in light of Schenck. 519 U. S. 1145 (1997).
On remand the Court of Appeals reinstated its judgment upholding the statute. It noted that in Schenck we had “expressly declined to hold that a valid governmental interest in ensuring ingress and egress to a medical clinic may never be sufficient to justify a zone of separation between individuals entering and leaving the premises and protesters” and that our opinion in Ward provided the standard for assessing the validity of a content-neutral, generally applicable statute. Under that standard, even though a 15-foot floating buffer might preclude protesters from expressing their views from a normal conversational distance, a lesser distance of eight feet was sufficient to protect such speech on a public sidewalk.
The Colorado Supreme Court granted certiorari and affirmed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. In a thorough opinion, the court began by commenting on certain matters that were not in dispute. It reviewed the history of the statute in detail and concluded that it was intended to protect both the “citizen’s ‘right to protest’ or counsel against certain medical procedures” and also to ensure “that government protects a ‘person’s right to obtain medical counseling and treatment.’” It noted that both the trial court and the Court of Appeals had concluded that the statute was content neutral, that petitioners no longer contended otherwise, and that they agreed that the question for decision was whether the statute was a valid time, place, and manner restriction under the test announced in Ward?
The court identified two important distinctions between this case and Schenck. First, Schenck involved a judicial decree and therefore, as explained in Madsen, posed “greater risks of censorship and discriminatory application than do general ordinances.” Second, unlike the floating buffer zone in Schenck, which would require a protester either to stop talking or to get off the sidewalk whenever a patient came within 15 feet, the “knowingly approaches” requirement in the Colorado statute allows a protester to stand still while a person moving toward or away from a health care facility walks past her. Applying the test in Ward, the court concluded that the statute was narrowly drawn to further a significant government interest. It rejected petitioners’ contention that it was not narrow enough because it applied to all health care facilities in the State. In the court’s view, the comprehensive coverage of the statute was a factor that supported its content neutrality. Moreover, the fact that the statute was enacted, in part, because the General Assembly “was concerned with the safety of individuals seeking wide-ranging health care services, not merely abortion counseling and procedures,” added to the substantiality of the government interest that it served. Finally, it concluded that ample alternative channels remain open because petitioners, and
“indeed, everyone, are still able to protest, counsel, shout, implore, dissuade, persuade, educate, inform, and distribute literature regarding abortion. They just cannot knowingly approach within eight feet of an individual who is within 100 feet of a health care facility entrance without that individual’s consent. As articulated so well... in Ward, [‘the fact that § 18-9-122(3)] may reduce to some degree the potential audience for [petitioners’] speech is of no consequence, for there has been no showing that the remaining avenues of communication are inadequate.’”
Because of the importance of the case, we granted certio-rari. 527 U. S. 1068 (1999). We now affirm.
Before confronting the question whether the Colorado statute reflects an acceptable balance between the constitutionally protected rights of law-abiding speakers and the interests of unwilling listeners, it is appropriate to examine the competing interests at stake. A brief review of both sides of the dispute reveals that each has legitimate and important concerns.
The First Amendment interests of petitioners are clear and undisputed. As a preface to their legal challenge, petitioners emphasize three propositions. First, they aeeu-rately explain that the areas protected by the statute encompass all the public ways within 100 feet of every entrance to every health care facility everywhere in the State of Colorado. There is no disagreement on this point, even though the legislative history makes it clear that its enactment was primarily motivated by activities in the vicinity of abortion climes. Second, they correctly state that their leafletting, sign displays, and oral communications are protected by the First Amendment. The fact that the messages conveyed by those communications may be offensive to their recipients does not deprive them of constitutional protection. Third, the public sidewalks, streets, and ways affected by the statute are “quintessential” public forums for free speech. Finally, although there is debate about the magnitude of the statutory impediment to their ability to communicate effectively with persons in the regulated zones, that ability, particularly the ability to distribute leaflets, is unquestionably lessened by this statute.
On the other hand, petitioners do not challenge the legitimacy of the state interests that the statute is intended to serve. It is a traditional exercise of the States’ “police powers to protect the health and safety of their citizens.” Medtronic, Inc. v. Lohr, 518 U. S. 470, 475 (1996). That interest may justify a special focus on unimpeded access to health care facilities and the avoidance of potential trauma to patients associated with confrontational protests. See Modsen v. Women's Health Center, Inc., 512 U. S. 753 (1994); NLRB v. Baptist Hospital, Inc., 442 U. S. 773 (1979). Moreover, as with every exercise of a State’s police powers, rules that provide specific guidance to enforcement authorities serve the interest in evenhanded application of the law. Whether or not those interests justify the particular regulation at issue, they are unquestionably legitimate.
It is also important when conducting this interest analysis to recognize the significant difference between state restrictions on a speaker’s right to address a willing audience and those that protect listeners from unwanted communication. This statute deals only with the latter.
The right to free speech, of course, includes the right to attempt to persuade others to change their views, and may not be curtailed simply because the speaker’s message may be offensive to his audience. But the protection afforded to offensive messages does not always embrace offensive speech that is so intrusive that the unwilling audience cannot avoid it. Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U. S. 474, 487 (1988). Indeed, “[i]t may not be the content of the speech, as much as the deliberate ‘verbal or visual assault,’ that justifies proscription.” Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U. S. 205, 210-211, n. 6 (1975) (citation and brackets omitted). Even in a public forum, one of the reasons we tolerate a protester’s right to wear a jacket expressing his opposition to government policy in vulgar language is because offended viewers can “effectively avoid further bombardment of their sensibilities simply by averting their eyes.” Cohen v. California, 408 U. S. 15, 21 (1971).
The recognizable privacy interest in avoiding unwanted communication varies widely in different settings. It is far less important when “strolling through Central Park” than when “in the confines of one’s own home,” or when persons are “powerless to avoid” it. Id., at 21-22. But even the interest in preserving tranquility in “the Sheep Meadow” portion of Central Park may at times justify official restraints on offensive musical expression. Ward, 491 U. S., at 784, 792. More specific to the facts of this case, we have recognized that “[t]he First Amendment does not demand that patients at a medical facility undertake Herculean efforts to escape the cacophony of political protests.” Madsen, 512 U. S., at 772-778.
The unwilling listener’s interest in avoiding unwanted communication has been repeatedly identified in our cases. It is an aspect of the broader “right to be let alone” that one of our wisest Justices characterized as “the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men.” Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928) (Brandeis, J., dissenting). The right to avoid unwelcome speech has special force in the privacy of the home, Rowan v. Post Office Dept., 397 U. S. 728, 738 (1970), and its immediate surroundings, Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U. S., at 485, but can also be protected in confrontational settings. Thus, this comment on the right to free passage in going to and from work applies equally — or perhaps with greater force — to access to a medical facility:
“How far may men go in persuasion and communication and still not violate the right of those whom they would influence? In going to and from work, men have a right to as free a passage without obstruction as the streets afford, consistent with the right of others to enjoy the same privilege. We are a social people and the accosting by one of another in an inoffensive way and an offer by one to communicate and discuss information with a view to influencing the other’s action are not regarded as aggression or a violation of that other’s rights. If, however, the offer is declined, as it may rightfully be, then persistence, importunity, following and dogging become unjustifiable annoyance and obstruction which is likely soon to savor of intimidation. From all of this the person sought to be influenced has a right to be free, and his employer has a right to have him free.” American Steel Foundries v. Tri-City Central Trades Council, 257 U. S. 184, 204 (1921).
We have since recognized that the “right to persuade” discussed in that case is protected by the First Amendment, Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88 (1940), as well as by federal statutes. Yet we have continued to maintain that “no one has a right to press even ‘good’ ideas on an unwilling recipient.” Rowan, 397 U. S., at 738. None of our decisions has minimized the enduring importance of “a right to be free” from persistent “importunity, following and dogging” after an offer to communicate has been declined. While the freedom to communicate is substantial, “the right of every person ‘to be let alone’ must be placed in the scales with the right of others to communicate.” Id., at 736. It is that right, as well as the right of “passage without obstruction,” that the Colorado statute legitimately seeks to protect. The restrictions imposed by the Colorado statute only apply to communications that interfere with these rights rather than those that involve willing listeners.
The dissenters argue that we depart from precedent by recognizing a “right to avoid unpopular speech in a public forum,” post, at 771 (opinion of Kennedy, J.); see also post, at 749-754 (opinion of Scalia, J.). We, of course, are not addressing whether there is such a “right.” Rather, we are merely noting that our eases have repeatedly recognized the interests of unwilling listeners in situations where “the degree'of captivity makes it impractical for the unwilling viewer or auditor to avoid exposure. See Lehman v. [Shaker Heights, 418 U. S. 298 (1974)].” Erznoznik, 422 U. S., at 209. We explained in Erznoznik that “[t]his Court has considered analogous issues — pitting the First Amendment rights of speakers against the privacy rights of those who may be unwilling viewers or auditors — in a variety of contexts. Such cases demand delicate balancing.” Id., at 208 (citations omitted). The dissenters, however, appear to consider recognizing any of the interests of unwilling listeners — let alone balancing those interests against the rights of speakers — to be unconstitutional. Our cases do not support this view.
III
All four of the state court opinions upholding the validity of this statute concluded that it is a content-neutral time, place, and manner regulation. Moreover, they all found support for their analysis in Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U. S. 781 (1989). It is therefore appropriate to comment on the “content neutrality’ of the statute. As we explained in Ward:
“The principal inquiry in determining content neutrality, in speech eases generally and in time, place, or manner eases in particular, is whether the government has adopted a regulation of speech because of disagreement with the message it conveys.” Id., at 791.
The Colorado statute passes that test for three independent reasons. First, it is not a “regulation of speech.” Father, it is a regulation of the places where some speech may occur. Second, it was not adopted “because of disagreement with the message it conveys.” This conclusion is supported not just by the Colorado courts’ interpretation of legislative history, but more importantly by the State Supreme Court’s unequivocal holding that the statute’s “restrictions apply equally to all demonstrators, regardless of viewpoint, and the statutory language makes no reference to the content of the speech.” Third, the State’s interests in protecting access and privacy, and providing the police with clear guidelines, are unrelated to the content of the demonstrators’ speech. As we have repeatedly explained, government regulation of expressive activity is “content neutral” if it is justified without reference to the content of regulated speech. See ibid, and eases cited.
Petitioners nevertheless argue that the statute is not content neutral insofar as it applies to some oral communication. The statute applies to all persons who “knowingly approach” within eight feet of another for the purpose of leafletting or displaying signs; for such persons, the content of their oral statements is irrelevant. With respect to persons who are neither leafletters nor sign carriers, however, the statute does not apply unless their approach is “for the purpose of... engaging in oral protest, education, or counseling.” Petitioners contend that an individual near a health care facility who knowingly approaches a pedestrian to say “good morning” or to randomly recite lines from a novel would not be subject to the statute’s restrictions. Because the content of the oral statements made by an approaching speaker must sometimes be examined to determine whether the knowing approach is covered by the statute, petitioners argue that the law is “content-based” under our reasoning in Carey v. Brown, 447 U. S. 455, 462 (1980).
Although this theory was identified in the complaint, it is not mentioned in any of the four Colorado opinions, all of which concluded that the statute was content neutral. For that reason, it is likely that the argument has been waived. Additionally, the Colorado attorney general argues that we should assume that the state courts tacitly construed the terms “protest, education, or counseling” to encompass “all communication.” Instead of relying on those arguments, however, we shall explain why petitioners’ contention is without merit and why their reliance on Carey v. Brown is misplaced.
It is common in the law to examine the content of a communication to determine the speaker’s purpose. Whether a particular statement constitutes a threat, blackmail, an agreement to fix prices, a copyright violation, a public offering of securities, or an offer to sell goods often depends on the precise content of the statement. We have never held, or suggested, that it is improper to look at the content of an oral or written statement in order to determine whether a rule of law applies to a course of conduct. With respect to the conduct that is the focus of the Colorado statute, it is unlikely that there would often be any need to know exactly what words were spoken in order to determine whether "sidewalk counselors” are engaging in “oral protest, education, or counseling” rather than pure social or random conversation.
Theoretically, of course, eases may arise in which it is necessary to review the content of the statements made by a person approaching within eight feet of an unwilling listener to determine whether the approach is covered by the statute. But that review need be no more extensive than a determination whether a general prohibition of “picketing” or “demonstrating” applies to innocuous speech. The regulation of such expressive activities, by definition, does not cover social, random, or other everyday communications. See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 600, 1710 (1993) (defining “demonstrate” as “to make a public display of sentiment for or against a person or cause” and “picket” as an effort “to persuade or otherwise influence”). Nevertheless, we have never suggested that the kind of cursory examination that might be required to exclude casual conversation from the coverage of a regulation of picketing would be problematic.
• In Carey v. Brown we examined a general prohibition of peaceful picketing that contained an exemption for picketing a place of employment involved in a labor dispute. We concluded that this statute violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, because it discriminated between lawful and unlawful conduct based on the content of the pieketers’ messages. That discrimination was impermissible because it accorded preferential treatment to expression concerning one particular subject matter — labor disputes — while prohibiting discussion of all other issues. Although our opinion stressed that “it is the content of the speech that determines whether it is within or without the statute’s blunt prohibition,” 447 U. S., at 462, we. appended a footnote to that sentence explaining that it was the fact that the statute placed a prohibition on discussion of particular topics, while others were allowed, that was constitutionally repugnant. Regulation of the subject matter of messages, though not as obnoxious as viewpoint-based regulation, is also an objectionable form of content-based regulation. Consolidated Edison Co. ofN. Y. v. Public Serv. Comm’n of N. Y, 447 U. S. 530, 538 (1980).
The Colorado statute’s regulation of the location of protests, education, and counseling is easily distinguishable from Carey. It places no restrictions on — and clearly does not prohibit — either a particular viewpoint or any subject matter that may be discussed by a speaker. Rather, it simply establishes a minor place restriction on an extremely broad category of communications with unwilling listeners. Instead of drawing distinctions based on the subject that the approaching speaker may wish to address, the statute applies equally to used car salesmen, animal rights activists, fundraisers, environmentalists, and missionaries. Each can attempt to educate unwilling listeners on any subject, but without consent may not approach within eight feet to do so.
The dissenters, nonetheless, contend that the statute is not “content neutral.” As Justice Scalia points out, the vice of content-based legislation in this context is that “it lends itself” to being “'used for invidious thought-control purposes.’ ” Post, at 743. But a statute that restricts certain categories of speech only lends itself to invidious use if there is a significant number of communications, raising the same problem that the statute was enacted to solve, that fall outside the statute’s scope, while others fall inside. E. g., Police Dept. of Chicago v. Mosley, 408 U. S. 92 (1972). Here, the statute’s restriction seeks to protect those who enter a health care facility from the harassment, the nuisance, the persistent importuning, the following, the dogging, and the implied threat of physical touching that can accompany an unwelcome approach within eight feet of a patient by a person wishing to argue vociferously face-to-face and perhaps thrust an undesired handbill upon her. The statutory phrases, “oral protest, education, or counseling,” distinguish speech activities likely to have those consequences from speech activities (such as Justice Scalia’s “happy speech,” post, at 743) that are most unlikely to have those consequences. The statute does not distinguish among speech instances that are similarly likely to raise the legitimate concerns to which it responds. Hence, the statute cannot be struck down for failure to maintain “content neutrality,” or for “underbreadth.”
Also flawed is Justice Kennedy’s theory that a statute restricting speech becomes unconstitutionally content based because of its application “to the specific locations where [that] discourse occurs,” post, at 767. A statute prohibiting solicitation in airports that was motivated by the aggressive approaches of Hare Krishnas does not become content based solely because its application is confined to airports — “the specific locations where [that] discourse occurs.” A statute making it a misdemeanor to sit at a lunch counter for an hour without ordering any food would also not be “content based” even if it were enacted by a racist legislature that hated civil rights protesters (although it might raise separate questions about the State’s legitimate interest at issue). See ibid.
Similarly, the contention that a statute is “viewpoint based” simply because its enactment was motivated by the conduct of the partisans on one side of a debate is without support. Post, at 768-769 (Kennedy, J., dissenting). The antipicketing ordinance upheld in Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U. S. 474 (1988), a decision in which both of today’s dissenters joined, was obviously enacted in response to the activities of antiabortion protesters who wanted to protest at the home of a particular doctor to persuade him and others that they viewed his practice of performing abortions to be murder. We nonetheless summarily concluded that the statute was content neutral. Id., at 482.
Justice Kennedy further suggests that a speaker who approaches a patient and “chants in praise of the Supreme Court and its abortion decisions,” or hands out a simple leaflet saying, “ We are for abortion rights,’ ” would not be subject to the statute. Post, at 769. But what reason is there to believe the statute would not apply to that individual? She would be engaged in “oral protest” and “education,” just as the abortion opponent who expresses her view that the Supreme Court decisions were incorrect would be “protest[ing]” the decisions and “educat[ing]” the patient on the issue. The close approach of the latter, more hostile, demonstrator may be more likely to risk being perceived as a form of physical harassment; but the relevant First Amendment point is that the statute would prevent both speakers, unless welcome, from entering the 8-foot zone. The statute is not limited to those who oppose abortion. It applies to the demonstrator in Justice Kennedy’s example. It applies to all “protest,” to all “counseling,” and to all demonstrators whether or not the demonstration concerns abortion, and whether they oppose or support the woman who has made an abortion decision. That is the level of neutrality that the Constitution demands.
The Colorado courts correctly concluded that §18-9-122(3) is content neutral.
IV
We also agree with the state courts’ conclusion that § 18-9-122(3) is a valid time, place, and manner regulation under the test applied in Ward because it is “narrowly tailored.” We already have noted that the statute serves governmental interests that are significant and legitimate and that the restrictions are content neutral. We are likewise persuaded that the statute is “narrowly tailored” to serve those interests and that it leaves open ample alternative channels for communication. As we have emphasized on more than one occasion, when a content-neutral regulation does not entirely foreclose any means of communication, it may satisfy the tailoring requirement even though it is not the least restrictive or least intrusive means of serving the statutory goal.
The three types of communication regulated by § 18-9-122(3) are the display of signs, leafletting, and oral speech. The 8-foot separation between the speaker and the audience should not have any adverse impact on the readers’ ability to read signs displayed by demonstrators. In fact, the separation might actually aid the pedestrians’ ability to see the signs by preventing others from surrounding them and impeding their view. Furthermore, the statute places no limitations on the number, size, text, or images of the placards. And, as with all of the restrictions, the 8-foot zone does not affect demonstrators with signs who remain in place.
With respect to oral statements, the distance certainly can make it more difficult for a speaker to be heard, particularly if the level of background noise is high and other speakers are competing for the pedestrian’s attention. Notably, the statute places no limitation on the number of speakers or the noise level, including the use of amplification equipment, although we have upheld such restrictions in past cases. See, e. g., Madsen, 512 U. S., at 772-773. More significantly, this statute does not suffer from the failings that compelled us to reject the “floating buffer zone” in Schenck, 519 U. S., at 377. Unlike the 15-foot zone in Schenck, this 8-foot zone allows the speaker to communicate at a “normal conversational distance.” Ibid. Additionally, the statute allows the speaker to remain in one place, and other individuals can pass within eight feet of the protester without causing the protester to violate the statute. Finally, here there is a “knowing” requirement that protects speakers “who thought they were keeping pace with the targeted individual” at the proscribed distance from inadvertently violating the statute. Id., at 378, n. 9.
It is also not clear that the statute’s restrictions will necessarily impede, rather than assist, the speakers’ efforts to communicate their messages. The statute might encourage the most aggressive and vociferous protesters to moderate their confrontational and harassing conduct, and thereby make it easier for thoughtful and law-abiding sidewalk counselors like petitioners to make themselves heard. But whether or not the 8-foot interval is the best possible accommodation of the competing interests at stake, we must accord a measure of deference to the judgment of the Colorado Legislature. See Madsen, 512 U. S., at 769-770. Once again, it is worth reiterating that only attempts to address unwilling listeners are affected.
The burden on the ability to distribute handbills is more serious because it seems possible that an 8-foot interval could hinder the ability of a leafletter to deliver handbills to some unwilling recipients. The statute does not, however, prevent a leafletter from simply standing near the path of oncoming pedestrians and proffering his or her material, which the pedestrians can easily accept. And, as in all leafletting situations, pedestrians continue to be free to decline the tender. In Heffron v. International Soc. for Krishna Consciousness, Inc., 452 U. S. 640 (1981), we upheld a state fair regulation that required a religious organization desiring to distribute literature to conduct that activity only at an assigned location — in that case booths. As in this case, the regulation primarily burdened the distributors’ ability to communicate with unwilling readers. We concluded our opinion by emphasizing that the First Amendment protects the right of every citizen to “‘reach the minds of willing listeners and to do so there must be opportunity to win their attention.’ Kovacs v. Cooper, 386 U. S. 77, 87 (1949).” Id., at 655. The Colorado statute adequately protects those rights.
Finally, in determining whether a statute is narrowly tailored, we have noted that “[w]e must, of course, take account of the place to which the regulations apply in determining whether these restrictions burden more speech than necessary.” Madsen, 512 U. S., at 772. States and municipalities plainly have a substantial interest in controlling the activity around certain public and private places. For example, we have recognized the special governmental interests surrounding schools, courthouses, polling places, and private homes. Additionally, we previously have noted the unique concerns that surround health care facilities:
“ ‘Hospitals, after all, are not factories or mines or assembly plants. They are hospitals, where human ailments are treated, where patients and relatives alike often are under emotional strain and worry, where pleasing and comforting patients are principal facets of the day’s activity, and where the patient and [her] family... need a restful, uncluttered, relaxing, and helpful atmosphere.’ ” Ibid, (quoting NLRB v. Baptist Hospital, Inc., 442 U. S., at 783-784, n. 12).
Persons who are attempting to enter health care facilities — for any purpose — are often in particularly vulnerable physical and emotional conditions. The State of Colorado has responded to its substantial and legitimate interest in protecting these persons from unwanted encounters, confrontations, and even assaults by enacting an exceedingly modest restriction on the speakers’ ability to approach.
Justice Kennedy, however, argues that the statute leaves petitioners without adequate means of communication. Post, at 780. This is a considerable overstatement. The statute seeks to protect those who wish to enter health care facilities, many of whom may be under special physical or emotional stress, from close physical approaches by demonstrators. In doing so, the statute takes a prophylactic approach; it forbids all unwelcome demonstrators to come closer than eight feet. We recognize that by doing so, it will sometimes inhibit a demonstrator whose approach in fact would have proved harmless. But the statute’s prophylactic aspect is justified by the great difficulty of protecting, say, a pregnant woman from physical harassment with legal rules that focus exclusively on the individual impact of each instance of behavior, demanding in each ease an accurate characterization (as harassing or not harassing) of each individual movement within the 8-foot boundary. Such individualized characterization of each individual movement is often difficult to make accurately. A bright-line prophylactic rule may be the best way to provide protection, and, at the same time, by offering clear guidance and avoiding subjectivity, to protect speech itself.
As we explained above, the 8-foot restriction on an unwanted physical approach leaves ample room to communicate a message through speech. Signs, pictures, and voice itself can cross an 8-foot gap with ease. If the clinics in Colorado resemble those in Schenck, demonstrators with leaflets might easily stand
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
E
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
• Nearly 50 years ago, this Court in Graver Tank & Mfg. Co. v. Linde Air Products Co., 339 U. S. 605 (1950), set out the modern contours of what is known in patent law as the “doctrine of equivalents.” Under this doctrine, a product or process that does not literally infringe upon the express terms of a patent claim may nonetheless be found to infringe if there is “equivalence” between the elements of the accused product or process and the claimed elements of the patented invention. Id., at 609. Petitioner, which was found to have infringed upon respondent’s patent under the doctrine of equivalents, invites us to speak the death of that doctrine. We decline that invitation. The significant disagreement within the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit concerning the application of Graver Tank suggests, however, that the doctrine is not free from confusion. We therefore will endeavor to clarify the proper scope of the doctrine.
h — 1
The essential facts of this case are few. Petitioner Warner-Jenkinson Co. and respondent Hilton Davis Chemical Co. manufacture dyes. Impurities in those dyes must be removed. Hilton Davis holds United States Patent No. 4,560,746 (’746 patent), which discloses an improved purification process involving “ultrafiltration.” The ’746 process filters impure dye through a porous membrane at certain pressures and pH levels, resulting in a high purity dye product.
The ’746 patent issued in 1985. As relevant to this case, the patent claims as its invention an improvement in the ul-trafiltration process as follows:
“In a process for the purification of a dye... the improvement which comprises: subjecting an aqueous solution... to ultrafiltration through a membrane having a nominal pore diameter of 5-15 Angstroms under a hydrostatic pressure of approximately 200 to 400 p.si.g., at a pH from approximately 6.0 to 9.0, to thereby cause separation of said impurities from said dye....” App. 36-37 (emphasis added).
The inventors added the phrase “at a pH from approximately 6.0 to 9.0” during patent prosecution. At a minimum, this phrase was added to distinguish a previous patent (the “Booth” patent) that disclosed an ultrafiltration process operating at a pH above 9.0. The parties disagree as to why the low-end pH limit of 6.0 was included as part of the claim.
In 1986, Warner-Jenkinson developed an ultrafiltration process that operated with membrane pore diameters assumed to be 5-15 Angstroms, at pressures of 200 to nearly 500 p. s. i. g., and at a pH of 5.0. Warner-Jenkinson did not learn of the ’746 patent until after it had begun commercial use of its ultrafiltration process. Hilton Davis eventually learned of Warner-Jenkinson’s use of ultrafiltration and, in 1991, sued Warner-Jenkinson for patent infringement.
As trial approached, Hilton Davis conceded that there was no literal infringement, and relied solely on the doctrine of equivalents. Over Warner-Jenkinson’s objection that the doctrine of equivalents was an equitable doctrine to be applied by the court, the issue of equivalence was included among those sent to the jury. The jury found that the ’746 patent was not invalid and that Warner-Jenkinson infringed upon the patent under the doctrine of equivalents. The jury also found, however, that Warner-Jenkinson had not intentionally infringed, and therefore awarded only 20% of the damages sought by Hilton Davis. The District Court denied Warner-Jenkinson’s post-trial motions, and entered a permanent injunction prohibiting Warner-Jenkinson from practicing ultrafiltration below 500 p. s. i. g. and below 9.01 pH. A fractured en banc Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit affirmed. 62 F. 3d 1512 (1995).
The majority below held that the doctrine of equivalents continues to exist and that its touchstone is whether substantial differences exist between the accused process and the patented process. Id., at 1521-1522. The court also held that the question of equivalence is for the jury to decide and that the jury in this case had substantial evidence from which it could conclude that the Warner-Jenkinson process was not substantially different from the ultrafiltration process disclosed in the ’746 patent. Id., at 1525.
There were three separate dissents, commanding a total of 5 of 12 judges. Four of the five dissenting judges viewed the doctrine of equivalents as allowing an improper expansion of claim scope, contrary to this Court’s numerous holdings that it is the claim that defines the invention and gives notice to the public of the limits of the patent monopoly. Id., at 1537-1538 (opinion of Plager, J.). The fifth dissenter, the late Judge Nies, was able to reconcile the prohibition against enlarging the scope of claims and the doctrine of equivalents by applying the doctrine to each element of a claim, rather than to the accused product or process “overall.” Id., at 1574. As she explained it: “The ‘scope’ is not enlarged if courts do not go beyond the substitution of equivalent elements.” Ibid. All of the dissenters, however, would have found that a much narrowed doctrine of equivalents may be applied in whole or in part by the court. Id., at 1540-1542 (opinion of Plager, J.); id., at 1579 (opinion of Nies, J.).
We granted certiorari, 516 U. S. 1145 (1996), and now reverse and remand.
II
In Graver Tank we considered the application of the doctrine of equivalents to an accused chemical composition for use in welding that differed from the patented welding material by the substitution of one chemical element. 339 U. S., at 610. The’ substituted element did not fall within the literal terms of the patent claim, but the Court nonetheless found that the “question which thus emerges is whether the substitution [of one element for the other]... is a change of such substance as to make the doctrine of equivalents inapplicable; or conversely, whether under the circumstances the change was so insubstantial that the trial court’s invocation of the doctrine of equivalents was justified.” Ibid. The Court also described some of the considerations that go into applying the doctrine of equivalents:
“What constitutes equivalency must be determined against the context of the patent, the prior art, and the particular circumstances of the case. Equivalence, in the patent law, is not the prisoner of a formula and is not an absolute to be considered in a vacuum. It does not require complete identity for every purpose and in every respect. In determining equivalents, things equal to the same thing may not be equal to each other and, by the same token, things for most purposes different may sometimes be equivalents. Consideration must be given to the purpose for which an ingredient is used in a patent, the qualities it has when combined with the other ingredients, and the function which it is intended to perform. An important factor is whether persons reasonably skilled in the art would have known of the interchangeability of an ingredient not contained in the patent with one that was.” Id., at 609.
Considering those factors, the Court viewed the difference between the chemical element claimed in the patent and the substitute element to be “colorable only,” and concluded that the trial court’s judgment of infringement under the doctrine of equivalents was proper. Id., at 612.
A
Petitioner’s primary argument in this Court is that the doctrine of equivalents, as set out in Graver Tank in 1950, did not survive the 1952 revision of the Patent Act, 35 U. S. C. § 100 et seq., because it is inconsistent with several aspects of that Act. In particular, petitioner argues: (1) The doctrine of equivalents is inconsistent with the statutory requirement that a patentee specifically “claim” the invention covered by a patent, § 112; (2) the doctrine circumvents the patent reissue process — designed to correct mistakes in drafting or the like — and avoids the express limitations on that process, §§251-252; (3) the doctrine is inconsistent with the primacy of the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) in setting the scope óf a patent through the patent prosecution process; and (4) the doctrine was implicitly rejected as a general matter by Congress’ specific and limited inclusion of the doctrine in one section regarding “means” claiming, §112, ¶6. All but one of these arguments were made in Graver Tank in the context of the 1870 Patent Act, and failed to command a majority.
The 1952 Patent Act is not materially different from the 1870 Act with regard to claiming, reissue, and the role of the PTO. Compare, e. g., 35 U. S. C. § 112 (“The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention”) with the Consolidated Patent Act of 1870, ch. 230, § 26, 16 Stat. 198, 201 (the applicant “shall particularly point out and distinctly claim the part, improvement, or combination which he claims as his invention or discovery”). Such minor differences as exist between those provisions in the 1870 and the 1952 Acts have no bearing on the result reached in Graver Tank, and thus provide no basis for our overruling it. In the context of infringement, we have already held that pre-1952 precedent survived the passage of the 1952 Act. See Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 365 U. S. 336, 342 (1961) (new section defining infringement “left intact the entire body of case law on direct infringement”). We see no reason to reach a different result here.
Petitioner’s fourth argument for an implied congressional negation of the doctrine of equivalents turns on the reference to “equivalents” in the “means” claiming provision of the 1952 Act. Section 112, ¶ 6, a provision not contained in the 1870 Act, states:
“An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.” (Emphasis added.)
Thus, under this new provision, an applicant can describe an element of his invention by the result accomplished or the function served, rather than describing the item or element to be used (e. g., “a means of connecting Part A to Part B,” rather than “a two-penny nail”). Congress enacted §112, ¶ 6, in response to Halliburton Oil Well Cementing Co. v. Walker, 329 U. S. 1 (1946), which rejected claims that “do not describe the invention but use ‘conveniently functional language at the exact point of novelty.’” Id., at 8 (citation omitted). See In re Donaldson Co., 16 F. 3d 1189, 1194 (CA Fed. 1994) (Congress enacted predecessor of § 112,¶ 6, in response to Halliburton); In re Fuetterer, 319 F. 2d 259, 264, n. 11 (CCPA 1963) (same); see also 2 D. Chisum, Patents §8.04[2], pp. 63-64 (1996) (discussing 1954 commentary of then-Chief Patent Examiner P. J. Federico). Section 112, ¶ 6, now expressly allows so-called “means” claims, with the proviso that application of the broad literal language of such claims must be limited to only those means that are “equiva-len[t]” to the actual means shown in the patent specification. This is an application of the doctrine of equivalents in a restrictive role, narrowing the application of broad literal claim elements. We recognized this type of role for the doctrine of equivalents in Graver Tank itself. 339 U. S., at 608-609. The added provision, however, is silent on the doctrine of equivalents as applied where there is no literal infringement.
Because § 112, ¶ 6, was enacted as a targeted cure to a specific problem, and because the reference in that provision to “equivalents” appears to be no more than a prophylactic against potential side effects of that cure, such limited congressional action should not be overread for negative implications. Congress in 1952 could easily have responded to Graver Tank as it did to the Halliburton decision. But it did not. Absent something more compelling than the dubious negative inference offered by petitioner, the lengthy history of the doctrine of equivalents strongly supports adherence to our refusal in Graver Tank to find that the Patent Act conflicts with that doctrine. Congress can legislate the doctrine of equivalents out of existence any time it chooses. The various policy arguments now made by both sides are thus best addressed to Congress, not this Court.
B
We do, however, share the concern of the dissenters below that the doctrine of equivalents, as it has come to be applied since Graver Tank, has taken on a life of its own, unbounded by the patent claims. There can be no denying that the doctrine of equivalents, when applied broadly, conflicts with the definitional and public-notice functions of the statutory claiming requirement. Judge Nies identified one means of avoiding this conflict:
“[A] distinction can be drawn that is not too esoteric between substitution of an equivalent for a component in an invention and enlarging the metes and bounds of the invention beyond what is claimed.
“Where a claim to an invention is expressed as a combination of elements, as here, ‘equivalents’ in the sobriquet ‘Doctrine of Equivalents’ refers to the equivalency of an element or part of the invention with one that is substituted in the accused product or process.
“This view that the accused device or process must be more than ‘equivalent’ overall reconciles the Supreme Court’s position on infringement by equivalents with its concurrent statements that ‘the courts have no right to enlarge a patent beyond the scope of its claims as allowed by the Patent Office.’ [Citations omitted.] The ‘scope’ is not enlarged if courts do not go beyond the substitution of equivalent elements.” 62 F. 3d, at 1573-1574 (dissenting opinion) (emphasis in original).
We concur with this apt reconciliation of our two lines of precedent. Each element contained in a patent claim is deemed material to defining the scope of the patented invention, and thus the doctrine of equivalents must be applied to individual elements of the claim, not to the invention as a whole. It is important to ensure that the application of the doctrine, even as to an individual element, is not allowed such broad play as to effectively eliminate that element in its entirety. So long as the doctrine of equivalents does not encroach beyond the limits just described, or beyond related limits to be discussed infra this page and 31-34, 39, n. 8, and 39-40, we are confident that the doctrine will not vitiate the central functions of the patent claims themselves.
Ill
Understandably reluctant to assume this Court would overrule Graver Tank, petitioner has offered alternative arguments in favor of a more restricted doctrine of equivalents than it feels was applied in this case. We address each in turn.
A
Petitioner first argues that Graver Tank never purported to supersede a well-established limit on nonliteral infringement, known variously as “prosecution history estoppel” and “file wrapper estoppel.” See Bayer Aktiengesellschaft v. Duphar Int’l Research B. V., 738 F. 2d 1237, 1238 (CA Fed.1984). According to petitioner, any surrender of subject matter during patent prosecution, regardless of the reason for such surrender, precludes recapturing any part of that subject matter, even if it is equivalent to the matter expressly claimed. Because, during patent prosecution, respondent limited the pH element of its claim to pH levels between 6.0 and 9.0, petitioner would have those limits form bright lines beyond which no equivalents may be claimed. Any inquiry into the reasons for a surrender, petitioner claims, would undermine the public’s right to clear notice of the scope of the patent as embodied in the patent file.
We can readily agree with petitioner that Graver Tank did not dispose of prosecution history estoppel as a legal limitation on the doctrine of equivalents. But petitioner reaches too far in arguing that the reason for an amendment during patent prosecution is irrelevant to any subsequent estoppel. In each of our cases cited by petitioner and by the dissent below, prosecution history estoppel was tied to amendments made to avoid the prior art, or otherwise to address a specific concern — such as obviousness — that arguably would have rendered the claimed subject matter unpatentable. Thus, in Exhibit Supply Co. v. Ace Patents Corp., 315 U. S. 126 (1942), Chief Justice Stone distinguished inclusion of a limiting phrase in an original patent claim from the “very different” situation in which “the applicant, in order to meet objections in the Patent Office, based on references to the prior art, adopted the phrase as a substitute for the broader one” previously used. Id., at 136 (emphasis added). Similarly, in Keystone Driller Co. v. Northwest Engineering Corp., 294 U. S. 42 (1935), estoppel was applied where the initial claims were “rejected on the prior art,” id., at 48, n. 6, and where the allegedly infringing equivalent element was outside of the revised claims and within the prior art that formed the basis for the rejection of the earlier claims, id., at 48.
It is telling that in each case this Court probed the reasoning behind the Patent Office’s insistence upon a change in the claims. In each instance, a change was demanded because the claim as otherwise written was viewed as not describing a patentable invention at all — typically because what it described was encompassed within the prior art. But, as the United States informs us, there are a variety of other reasons why the PTO may request a change in claim language. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 22-23 (counsel for the PTO also appearing on the brief). And if the PTO has been requesting changes in claim language without the intent to limit equivalents or, indeed, with the expectation that language it required would in many cases allow for a range of equivalents, we should be extremely reluctant to upset the basic assumptions of the PTO without substantial reason for doing so. Our prior cases have consistently applied prosecution history estoppel only where claims have been amended for a limited set of reasons, and we see no substantial cause for requiring a more rigid rule invoking an estoppel regardless of the reasons for a change.
In this case, the patent examiner objected to the patent claim due to a perceived overlap with the Booth patent, which revealed an ultrafiltration process operating at a pH above 9.0. In response to this objection, the phrase “at a pH from approximately 6.0 to 9.0” was added to the claim. While it is undisputed that the upper limit of 9.0 was added in order to distinguish the Booth patent, the reason for adding the lower limit of 6.0 is unclear. The lower limit certainly did not serve to distinguish the Booth patent, which said nothing about pH levels below 6.0. Thus, while a lower limit of 6.0, by its mere inclusion, became a material element of the claim, that did not necessarily preclude the application of the doctrine of equivalents as to that element. See Hubbell v. United States, 179 U. S. 77, 82 (1900) (“ ‘[A]ll [specified elements] must be regarded as material,’ ” though it remains an open “'question whether an omitted part is supplied by an equivalent device or instrumentality’ ” (citation omitted)). Where the reason for the change was not related to avoiding the prior art, the change may introduce a new element, but it does not necessarily preclude infringement by equivalents of that element.
We are left with the problem, however, of what to do in a case like the one at bar, where the record seems not to reveal the reason for including the lower pH limit of 6.0. In our view, holding that certain reasons for a claim amendment may avoid the application of prosecution history estoppel is not tantamount to holding that the absence of a reason for an amendment may similarly avoid such an estoppel. Mindful that claims do indeed serve both a definitional and a notice function, we think the better rule is to place the burden on the patent holder to establish the reason for an amendment required during patent prosecution. The court then would decide whether that reason is sufficient to overcome prosecution history estoppel as a bar to application of the doctrine of equivalents to the element added by that amendment. Where no explanation is established, however, the court should presume that the patent applicant had a substantial reason related to patentability for including the limiting element added by amendment. In those circumstances, prosecution history estoppel would bar the application of the doctrine of equivalents as to that'element. The presumption we have described, one subject to rebuttal if an appropriate reason for a required amendment is established, gives proper deference to the role of claims in defining an invention and providing public notice, and to the primacy of the PTO in ensuring that the claims allowed cover only subject matter that is properly patentable in a proffered patent application. Applied in this fashion, prosecution history estoppel places reasonable limits on the doctrine of equivalents, and further insulates the doctrine from any feared conflict with the Patent Act.
Because respondent has not proffered in this Court a reason for the addition of a lower pH limit, it is impossible to tell whether the reason for that addition could properly avoid an estoppel. Whether a reason in fact exists, but simply was not adequately developed, we cannot say. On remand, the Federal Circuit can consider whether reasons for that portion of the amendment were offered or not and whether further opportunity to establish such reasons would be proper.
B
Petitioner next argues that even if Graver Tank remains good law, the case held only that the absence of substantial differences, was a necessary element for infringement under the doctrine of equivalents, not that it was sufficient for such a result. Brief for Petitioner 32. Relying on Graver Tank’s, references to the problem of an “unscrupulous copyist” and “piracy,” 339 U. S., at 607, petitioner would require judicial exploration of the equities of a case before allowing application of the doctrine of equivalents. To be sure, Graver Tank refers to the prevention of copying and piracy when describing the benefits of the doctrine of equivalents. That the doctrine produces such benefits, however, does not mean that its application is limited only to cases where those particular benefits are obtained.
Elsewhere in Graver Tank the doctrine is described in more neutral terms. And the history of the doctrine as relied upon by Graver Tank reflects a basis for the doctrine not so limited as petitioner would have it. In Winans v. Denmead, 15 How. 330, 343 (1854), we described the doctrine of equivalents as growing out of a legally implied term in each patent claim that “the claim extends to the thing patented, however its form or proportions may be varied.” Under that view, application of the doctrine of equivalents involves determining whether a particular accused product or process infringes upon the patent claim, where the claim takes the form — half express, half implied — of “X and its equivalents.”
Machine Co. v. Murphy, 97 U. S. 120, 125 (1878), on which Graver Tank also relied, offers a similarly intent-neutral view of the doctrine of equivalents:
“[T]he substantial equivalent of a thing, in the sense of the patent law, is the same as the thing itself; so that if two devices do the same work in substantially the same way, and accomplish substantially the same result, they are the same, even though they differ in name, form, or shape.”
If the essential predicate of the doctrine of equivalents is the notion of identity between a patented invention and its equivalent, there is no basis for treating an infringing equivalent any differently from a device that infringes the express terms of the patent. Application of the doctrine of equivalents, therefore, is akin to determining literal infringement, and neither requires proof of intent.
Petitioner also points to Graver Tank’s, seeming reliance on the absence of independent experimentation by the alleged infringer as supporting an equitable defense to the doctrine of equivalents. The federal Circuit explained this factor by suggesting that an alleged infringer’s behavior, be it copying, designing around a patent, or independent experimentation, indirectly reflects the substantiality of the differences between the patented invention and the accused device or process. According to the Federal Circuit, a person aiming to copy or aiming to avoid a patent is imagined to be at least marginally skilled at copying or avoidance, and thus intentional copying raises an inference — rebuttable by proof of independent development — of having only insubstantial differences, and intentionally designing around a patent claim raises an inference of substantial differences. This explanation leaves much to be desired. At a minimum, one wonders how ever to distinguish between the intentional copyist making minor changes to lower the risk of legal action and the incremental innovator designing around the claims, yet seeking to capture as much as is permissible of the patented advance.
But another explanation is available that does not require a divergence from generally objective principles of patent infringement. In both instances in Graver Tank where we referred to independent research or experiments, we were discussing the known interchangeability between the chemical compound claimed in the patent and the compound substituted by the alleged infringer. The need for independent experimentation thus could reflect knowledge — or lack thereof — of interchangeability possessed by one presumably skilled in the art. The known interchangeability of substitutes for an element of a patent is one of the express objective factors noted by Graver Tank as bearing upon whether the accused device is substantially the same as the patented invention. Independent experimentation by the alleged in-fringer would not always reflect upon the objective question whether a person skilled in the art would have known of the interchangeability between two elements, but in many cases it would likely be probative of such knowledge.
Although Graver Tank certainly leaves room for petitioner’s suggested inclusion of intent-based elements in the doctrine of equivalents, we do not read it as requiring them. The better view, and the one consistent with Graver Tank’s predecessors and the objective approach to infringement, is that intent plays no role in the application of the doctrine of equivalents.
c
Finally, petitioner proposes that in order to minimize conflict with the notice function of patent claims, the doctrine of equivalents should be limited to equivalents that are disclosed within the patent itself. A milder version of this argument, which found favor with the dissenters below, is that the doctrine should be limited to equivalents that were known at the time the patent was issued, and should not extend to after-arising equivalents.
As we have noted, supra, at 36, with regard to the objective nature of the doctrine, a skilled practitioner’s knowledge of the interchangeability between claimed and accused elements is not relevant for its own sake, but rather for what it tells the factfinder about the similarities or differences between those elements. Much as the perspective of the hypothetical “reasonable person” gives content to concepts such as “negligent” behavior, the perspective of a skilled practitioner provides content to, and limits on, the concept of “equivalence.” Insofar as the question under the doctrine of equivalents is whether an accused element is equivalent to a claimed element, the proper time for evaluating equivalency — and thus knowledge of interchangeability between elements — is at the time of infringement, not at the time the patent was issued. And rejecting the milder version of petitioner’s argument necessarily rejects the more severe proposition that equivalents must not only be known, but must also be actually disclosed in the patent in order for such equivalents to infringe upon the patent.
1 — I <J
The various opinions below, respondents, and amici devote considerable attention to whether application of the doctrine of equivalents is a task for the judge or for the jury. However, despite petitioner’s argument below that the doctrine should be applied by the judge, in this Court petitioner makes only passing reference to this issue. See Brief for Petitioner 22, n. 15 (“If this Court were to hold in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., No. 95-26 (argued Jan. 8, 1996), that judges rather than juries are to construe patent claims, so as to provide a uniform definition of the scope of the legally protected monopoly, it would seem at cross-purposes to say that juries may nonetheless expand the claims by resort to a broad notion of ‘equivalents’ ”); Reply Brief for Petitioner 20 (whether judge or jury should apply the doctrine of equivalents depends on how the Court views the nature of the inquiry under the doctrine of equivalents).
Petitioner’s comments go more to the alleged inconsistency between the doctrine of equivalents and the claiming requirement than to the role of the jury in applying the doctrine as properly understood. Because resolution of whether, or how much of, the application of the doctrine of equivalents can be resolved by the court is not necessary for us to answer the question presented, we decline to take it up. The Federal Circuit held that it was for the jury to decide whether the accused process was equivalent to the claimed process. There was ample support in our prior cases for that holding. See, e. g., Machine Co. v. Murphy, 97 U. S., at 125 (“[I]n determining the question of infringement, the court or jury, as the case may be,... are to look at the machines or their several devices or elements in the light of what they do, or what office or function they perform, and how they perform it, and to find that one thing is substantially the same as another, if it performs substantially the same function in substantially the same way to obtain the same result”); Winans v. Denmead, 15 How., at 344 (“[It] is a question for the jury” whether the accused device was “the same in kind, and effected by the employment of [the patent-ee’s] mode of operation in substance”). Nothing in our recent decision in Markman v. Westview Instruments, Inc., 517 U. S. 370 (1996), necessitates a different result than that reached by the Federal Circuit. Indeed, Markman cites with considerable favor, when discussing the role of judge and jury, the seminal Winans decision. 517 U. S., at 384-385. Whether, if the issue were squarely presented to us, we would reach a different conclusion than did the Federal Circuit is not a question we need decide today.
V
All that remains is to address the debate regarding the linguistic framework under which “equivalence” is determined. Both the parties and the Federal Circuit spend considerable time arguing whether the so-called “triple identity” test — focusing on the function served by a particular claim element, the way that element serves that function, and the result thus obtained by that element — is a suitable method for determining equivalence, or whether an “insubstantial differences” approach is better. There seems to be substantial agreement that, while the triple identity test may be suitable for analyzing mechanical devices, it often provides a poor framework for analyzing other products or processes. On the other hand, the insubstantial differences test offers little additional guidance as to what might render any given difference “insubstantial.”
In our view, the particular linguistic framework used is less important than whether the test is probative of the essential inquiry: Does the accused product or process contain elements identical or equivalent to each claimed element of the patented invention? Different linguistic frameworks may be more suitable to different cases, depending on their particular facts. A focus on individual elements and a special vigilance against allowing the concept of equivalence to eliminate completely any such elements should reduce considerably the imprecision of whatever language is used. An analysis of the role played by each element in the context of the specific patent claim will thus inform the inquiry as to whether a substitute element matches the function, way, and result of the claimed element, or whether the substitute element plays a role substantially different from the claimed element. With these limiting principles as a backdrop, we see no purpose in going further and micromanaging the Federal Circuit’s particular word choice for analyzing equivalence. We expect that the Federal Circuit will refine the formulation of the test for equivalence in the orderly course of case-by-case determinations, and we leave such refinement to that court’s sound judgment in this area of its special expertise.
VI
Today we adhere to the doctrine of equivalents. The determination of equivalence should be applied as an objective inquiry on an element-by-element basis. Prosecution history estoppel continues to be available as a defense to infringement, but if the patent holder demonstrates that an amendment required during prosecution had a purpose unrelated to patentability, a court must consider that purpose in order to decide whether an estoppel is precluded. Where the patent holder is unable to establish such a purpose, a court should presume that the purpose behind the required amendment is such that prosecution history estoppel would apply. Because the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit did not consider all of the requirements as described by us today, particularly as related to prosecution history estoppel and the preservation of some meaning for each element in a claim, we reverse its judgment and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The pH, or power (exponent) of Hydrogen, of a solution is a measure of its acidity or alkalinity. A pH of 7.0 is neutral; a pH below 7.0 is acidic; and a pH above 7.0 is alkaline. Although measurement of pH is on a logarithmic scale, with each whole number difference representing a tenfold difference in acidity, the practical significance of any such difference will often depend on the context. Pure water, for example, has a neutral pH of 7.0, whereas carbonated water has an acidic pH of 3.0, and concentrated hydrochloric acid has a pH approaching 0.0. On the other end of the scale, milk of magnesia has a pH of 10.0, whereas household ammonia has a pH of 11.9. 21 Encyclopedia Americana 844 (Int’l ed. 1990).
Petitioner contends that the lower limit was added because below a pH of 6.0 the patented process created “foaming” problems in the plant and because the process was not shown to work below that pH level. Brief for Petitioner 4, n. 5,37, n. 28. Respondent counters that the process was successfully tested to pH levels as low as 2.2 with no effect on the process because of foaming, but offers no particular explanation as to why the lower level of 6.0 pH was selected. Brief for Respondent 34, n. 34.
Graver Tank was decided over a vigorous dissent. In that dissent, Justice Black raised the first three of petitioner’s four arguments against the doctrine of equivalents. See 339 U. S., at 613-614 (doctrine inconsistent with statutory requirement to “distinctly claim” the invention); id., at 614-615 (patent reissue process available to correct mistakes); id., at 615, n. 3 (duty lies with the Patent Office to examine claims and to conform them to the scope of the invention; inventors may appeal Patent Office determinations if they disagree with result).
Indeed, petitioner’s first argument was not new even in 1950. Nearly 100 years before Graver Tank, this Court approved of the doctrine of equivalents in Winans v. Denmead, 15 How. 330 (1854). The dissent in Winans unsuccessfully argued that the majority result was inconsistent with the requirement in the 1836 Patent Act that the
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
PER CURIAM.
This case involves a tragic cross-border incident in which a United States Border Patrol agent standing on United States soil shot and killed a Mexican national standing on Mexican soil. The three questions presented concern whether the parents of the victim of that shooting may assert claims for damages against the agent under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971) ; whether the shooting violated the victim's Fourth Amendment rights; and whether the agent is entitled to qualified immunity on a claim that the shooting violated the victim's Fifth Amendment rights.
Because this case was resolved on a motion to dismiss, the Court accepts the allegations in the complaint as true for purposes of this opinion. See Wood v. Moss, 572 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 2056, 2067, 188 L.Ed.2d 1039 (2014). On June 7, 2010, Sergio Adrián Hernández Güereca, a 15-year-old Mexican national, was with a group of friends in the cement culvert that separates El Paso, Texas, from Ciudad Juarez, Mexico. Now all but dry, the culvert once contained the waters of the Rio Grande River. The international boundary runs down the middle of the culvert, and at the top of the embankment on the United States side is a fence. According to the complaint, Hernández and his friends were playing a game in which they ran up the embankment on the United States side, touched the fence, and then ran back down. At some point, Border Patrol Agent Jesus Mesa, Jr., arrived on the scene by bicycle and detained one of Hernández's friends in United States territory as the friend ran down the embankment. Hernández ran across the international boundary into Mexican territory and stood by a pillar that supports a railroad bridge spanning the culvert. While in United States territory, Mesa then fired at least two shots across the border at Hernández. One shot struck Hernández in the face and killed him. According to the complaint, Hernández was unarmed and unthreatening at the time.
The Department of Justice investigated the incident. The Department concluded that the shooting "occurred while smugglers attempting an illegal border crossing hurled rocks from close range at a [Customs and Border Patrol] agent who was attempting to detain a suspect." Dept. of Justice, Office of Public Affairs, Federal Officials Close Investigation Into the Death of Sergio Hernandez-Guereca (Apr. 27, 2012), online at http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/federal-officials-close-investigation-death-sergio-hernandez-guereca (as last visited June 23, 2017). "[O]n these particular facts," the Department determined, "the agent did not act inconsistently with [Customs and Border Patrol] policy or training regarding use of force." Ibid. The Department also declined to bring federal civil rights charges against Mesa. In the Department's view, there was insufficient evidence that Mesa "acted willfully and with the deliberate and specific intent to do something the law forbids," and, in any event, Hernández "was neither within the borders of the United States nor present on U.S. property, as required for jurisdiction to exist under the applicable federal civil rights statute." Ibid. The Department expressed regret for the loss of life in the incident and pledged "to work with the Mexican government within existing mechanisms and agreements to prevent future incidents." Ibid.
Petitioners-Hernández's parents-brought suit. Among other claims, petitioners brought claims against Mesa for damages under Bivens, alleging that Mesa violated Hernández's rights under the Fourth and Fifth Amendments. The United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted Mesa's motion to dismiss. A panel of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed in part and reversed in part. The panel held that Hernández lacked any Fourth Amendment rights under the circumstances, but that the shooting violated his Fifth Amendment rights. Hernandez v. United States, 757 F.3d 249, 267, 272 (2014) ; id., at 280-281 (Dennis, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment); id., at 281 (DeMoss, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part). The panel also found "no reason to hesitate in extending Bivens to this new context."
Id., at 275. And the panel held that Mesa was not entitled to qualified immunity, concluding that "[n]o reasonable officer would have understood Agent Mesa's alleged conduct to be lawful." Id., at 279. Judge DeMoss dissented in part, arguing that Hernández lacked any Fifth Amendment rights under the circumstances. Id., at 281-282.
On rehearing en banc, the Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the District Court's dismissal of petitioners' claims against Mesa. The en banc Court of Appeals first held that petitioners had failed to state a claim for a violation of the Fourth Amendment because Hernández was "a Mexican citizen who had no 'significant voluntary connection' to the United States" and "was on Mexican soil at the time he was shot." Hernandez v. United States, 785 F.3d 117, 119 (C.A.5 2015) (per curiam ) (quoting United States v. Verdugo-Urquidez, 494 U.S. 259, 271, 110 S.Ct. 1056, 108 L.Ed.2d 222 (1990) ). As to petitioners' claim under the Fifth Amendment, the en banc Court of Appeals was "somewhat divided on the question of whether Agent Mesa's conduct violated the Fifth Amendment," but was "unanimous" in concluding that Mesa was entitled to qualified immunity. 785 F.3d, at 120. The en banc Court of Appeals explained that "[n]o case law in 2010, when this episode occurred, reasonably warned Agent Mesa" that "the general prohibition of excessive force applies where the person injured by a U.S. official standing on U.S. soil is an alien who had no significant voluntary connection to, and was not in, the United States when the incident occurred." Ibid. Because the en banc Court of Appeals resolved petitioners' claims on other grounds, it "did not consider whether, even if a constitutional claim had been stated, a tort remedy should be crafted under Bivens ." Id., at 121, n. 1 (Jones, J., concurring). Ten judges filed or joined five separate concurring opinions. Id., at 121-143.
This Court granted certiorari. 580 U.S. ----, 137 S.Ct. 291, 196 L.Ed.2d 211 (2016). The Court now vacates the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remands for further proceedings.
The Court turns first to the Bivens question, which is "antecedent" to the other questions presented. Wood, 572 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2066. In Bivens, this Court "recognized for the first time an implied right of action for damages against federal officers alleged to have violated a citizen's constitutional rights." Correctional Services Corp. v. Malesko, 534 U.S. 61, 66, 122 S.Ct. 515, 151 L.Ed.2d 456 (2001). A Bivens remedy is not available, however, where there are " 'special factors counselling hesitation in the absence of affirmative action by Congress.' " Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S. 14, 18, 100 S.Ct. 1468, 64 L.Ed.2d 15 (1980) (quoting Bivens, 403 U.S., at 396, 91 S.Ct. 1999 ). In the decision recently announced in Ziglar v. Abbasi, --- U.S. ----, ----, 137 S.Ct. 1843, ----, --- L.Ed.2d ----, 2017 WL 2621317 (2017), this Court has clarified what constitutes a "special facto[r] counselling hesitation." See - -- U.S., at ---- - ----, ---- - ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1857, ---- - --- -. "[T]he inquiry," the Court explains, "must concentrate on whether the Judiciary is well suited, absent congressional action or instruction, to consider and weigh the costs and benefits of allowing a damages action to proceed." - -- U.S., at ----, 137 S.Ct., at 1858.
The Court of Appeals here, of course, has not had the opportunity to consider how the reasoning and analysis in Abbasi may bear on this case. And the parties have not had the opportunity to brief and argue its significance. In these circumstances, it is appropriate for the Court of Appeals, rather than this Court, to address the Bivens question in the first instance. This Court, after all, is one " 'of review, not of first view.' " Expressions Hair Design v. Schneiderman, 581 U.S. ----, ----, 137 S.Ct. 1144, 1151, 197 L.Ed.2d 442 (2017) (quoting Nautilus, Inc. v. Biosig Instruments, Inc., 572 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 2120, 2131, 189 L.Ed.2d 37 (2014) ).
With respect to petitioners' Fourth Amendment claim, the en banc Court of Appeals found it unnecessary to address the Bivens question because it concluded that Hernández lacked any Fourth Amendment rights under the circumstances. This approach-disposing of a Bivens claim by resolving the constitutional question, while assuming the existence of a Bivens remedy-is appropriate in many cases. This Court has taken that approach on occasion. See, e.g., Wood, supra, at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 2066. The Fourth Amendment question in this case, however, is sensitive and may have consequences that are far reaching. It would be imprudent for this Court to resolve that issue when, in light of the intervening guidance provided in Abbasi , doing so may be unnecessary to resolve this particular case.
With respect to petitioners' Fifth Amendment claim, the en banc Court of Appeals found it unnecessary to address the Bivens question because it held that Mesa was entitled to qualified immunity. In reaching that conclusion, the en banc Court of Appeals relied on the fact that Hernández was "an alien who had no significant voluntary connection to ... the United States." 785 F.3d, at 120. It is undisputed, however, that Hernández's nationality and the extent of his ties to the United States were unknown to Mesa at the time of the shooting. The en banc Court of Appeals therefore erred in granting qualified immunity based on those facts.
"The doctrine of qualified immunity shields officials from civil liability so long as their conduct 'does not violate clearly established ... constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.' " Mullenix v. Luna, 577 U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 305, 308, 193 L.Ed.2d 255 (2015) (per curiam ) (quoting Pearson v. Callahan, 555 U.S. 223, 231, 129 S.Ct. 808, 172 L.Ed.2d 565 (2009) ). The "dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted." Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). The qualified immunity analysis thus is limited to "the facts that were knowable to the defendant officers" at the time they engaged in the conduct in question. White v. Pauly, 580 U.S. ----, ----, 137 S.Ct. 548, 550, 196 L.Ed.2d 463 (2017) (per curiam ). Facts an officer learns after the incident ends-whether those facts would support granting immunity or denying it-are not relevant.
Mesa and the Government contend that Mesa is entitled to qualified immunity even if Mesa was uncertain about Hernández's nationality and his ties to the United States at the time of the shooting. The Government also argues that, in any event, petitioners' claim is cognizable only under the Fourth Amendment, and not under the Fifth Amendment. This Court declines to address these arguments in the first instance. The Court of Appeals may address them, if necessary, on remand.
The facts alleged in the complaint depict a disturbing incident resulting in a heartbreaking loss of life. Whether petitioners may recover damages for that loss in this suit depends on questions that are best answered by the Court of Appeals in the first instance.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice GORSUCH took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to decide whether the prosecution of respondent as an adult, after Juvenile Court proceedings, which resulted in a finding that respondent had violated a criminal statute and a subsequent finding that he was unfit for treatment as a juvenile, violated the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.
On February 9, 1971, a petition was filed in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, Juvenile Court, alleging that respondent, then 17 years of age, was a person described by Cal. Welf. & Inst’ns Code § 602 (1966), in that, on or about February 8, while armed with a deadly weapon, he had committed acts which, if committed by an adult, would constitute the crime of robbery in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 211 (1970). The following day, a detention hearing was held, at the conclusion of which respondent was ordered detained pending a hearing on the petition.
The jurisdictional or adjudicatory hearing was conducted on March 1, pursuant to Cal. Welf. & Inst’ns Code § 701 (1966). After taking testimony from two prosecution witnesses and respondent, the Juvenile Court found that the allegations in the petition were true and that respondent was a person described by § 602, and it sustained the petition. The proceedings were continued for a dispositional hearing, pending which the court ordered that respondent remain detained.
At a hearing conducted on March 15, the Juvenile Court indicated its intention to find respondent “not... amenable to the care, treatment and training program available through the facilities of the juvenile court” under Cal. Welf. & Inst’ns Code §707 (Supp. 1967). Respondent’s counsel orally moved “to continue the matter on the ground of surprise,” contending that respondent “was not informed that it was going to be a fitness hearing.” The court continued the matter for one week, at which time, having considered the report of the probation officer assigned to the case and having heard her testimony, it declared respondent “unfit for treatment as a juvenile,” and ordered that he be prosecuted as an adult.
Thereafter, respondent filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in Juvenile Court, raising the same double jeopardy claim now presented. Upon the denial of that petition, respondent sought habeas corpus relief in the California Court of Appeal, Second Appellate District. Although it initially stayed the criminal prosecution pending against respondent, that court denied the petition. In re Gary 17 Cal. App. 3d 704, 95 Cal. Rptr. 185 (1971). The Supreme Court of California denied respondent’s petition for hearing.
After a preliminary hearing respondent was ordered held for trial in Superior Court, where an information was subsequently filed accusing him of having committed robbery, in violation of Cal. Penal Code § 211 (1970), while armed with a deadly weapon, on or about February 8, 1971. Respondent entered a plea of not guilty, and he also pleaded that he had “already been placed once in jeopardy and convicted of the offense charged, by the judgment of the Superior Court of the County of Los Angeles, Juvenile Court, rendered... on the 1st day of March, 1971.” App. 47. By stipulation, the case was submitted to the court on the transcript of the preliminary hearing. The court found respondent guilty of robbery in the first degree under Cal. Penal Code § 211a (1970) and ordered that he be committed to the California Youth Authority. Nó appeal was taken from the judgment of conviction.
On December 10, 1971, respondent, through his mother as guardian ad litem, filed the instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Centra! District of California. In his petition he alleged that his transfer to adult court pursuant to Ca! Welf. & Inst’ns Code § 707 and subsequent trial there “placed him in double jeopardy.” App. 13. The District Court denied the petition, rejecting respondent’s contention that jeopardy attached at his adjudicatory hearing. It concluded that the “distinctions between the preliminary procedures and hearings provided by California law for juveniles and a criminal trial are many and apparent and the effort of [respondent] to relate them is unconvincing,” and that “even assuming jeopardy attached during the preliminary juvenile proceedings... it is clear that no new jeopardy arose by the juvenile proceeding sending the case to the criminal court.” 343 F. Supp. 690, 692 (1972).
The Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that applying double jeopardy protection to juvenile proceedings would not “impede the juvenile courts in carrying out their basic goal of rehabilitating the erring youth,” and that the contrary result might “do irreparable harm to or destroy their confidence in our judicial system.” The court therefore held that the Double Jeopardy Clause “is fully applicable to juvenile court proceedings.” 497 F. 2d 1160, 1165 (CA9 1974).
Turning to the question whether there had been a constitutional violation in this case, the Court of Appeals pointed to the power of the Juvenile Court to “impose severe restrictions upon the juvenile’s liberty,” ibid., in support of its conclusion that jeopardy attached in respondent’s adjudicatory hearing. It rejected petitioner’s contention that no new jeopardy attached when respondent was referred to Superior Court and subsequently tried and convicted, finding “continuing jeopardy” principles advanced by petitioner inapplicable. Finally, the Court of Appeals observed that acceptance of petitioner’s position would “allow the prosecution to review in advance the accused’s defense and, as here, hear him testify about the crime charged,” a procedure it found offensive to “our concepts of basic, even-handed fairness.” The court therefore held that once jeopardy attached at the adjudicatory hearing, a minor could not be retried as an adult or a juvenile “absent some exception to the double jeopardy prohibition,” and that there “was none here.” Id., at 1168.
We granted certiorari because of a conflict between Courts of Appeals and the highest courts of a number of States on the issue presented in this case and similar issues and because of the importance of final resolution of the issue to the administration of the juvenile-court system.
I
The parties agree that, following his transfer from Juvenile Court, and as a defendant to a felony information, respondent was entitled to the full protection of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. See Benton v. Maryland, 395 U. S. 784 (1969). In addition, they agree that respondent was put in jeopardy by the proceedings on that information, which resulted in an adjudication that he was guilty of robbery in the first degree and in a sentence of commitment. Finally, there is no dispute that the petition filed in Juvenile Court and the information filed in Superior Court related to the “same offence” within the meaning of the constitutional prohibition. The point of disagreement between the parties, and the question for our decision, is whether, by reason of the proceedings in Juvenile Court, respondent was “twice put in jeopardy.”
II
Jeopardy denotes risk. In the constitutional sense, jeopardy describes the risk that is traditionally associated with a criminal prosecution. See Price v. Georgia, 398 U. S. 323, 326, 329 (1970); Serfass v. United States, 420 U. S. 377, 387-389 (1975). Although the constitutional language, “jeopardy of life or limb,” suggests proceedings in which only the most serious penalties can be imposed, the Clause has long been construed to mean something far broader than its literal language. See Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 170-173 (1874). At the same time, however, we have held that the risk to which the Clause refers is not present in proceedings that are not “essentially criminal.” Helvering v. Mitchell, 303 U. S. 391, 398 (1938). See United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, 317 U. S. 537 (1943); One Lot Emerald Cut Stones v. United States, 409 U. S. 232 (1972). See also J. Sigler, Double Jeopardy 60-62 (1969).
Although the juvenile-court system had its genesis in the desire to provide a distinctive procedure and setting to deal with the problems of youth, including those manifested by antisocial conduct, our decisions in recent years have recognized that there is a gap between the originally benign conception of the system and its realities. With the exception of McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U. S. 528 (1971), the Court’s response to that perception has been to make applicable in juvenile proceedings constitutional guarantees associated with traditional criminal prosecutions. In re Gault, 387 U. S. 1 (1967); In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970). In so doing the Court has evinced awareness of the threat which such a process represents to the efforts of the juvenile-court system, functioning in a unique manner, to ameliorate the harshness of criminal justice when applied to youthful offenders. That the system has fallen short of the high expectations of its sponsors in no way detracts from the broad social benefits sought or from those benefits that can survive constitutional scrutiny.
We believe it is simply too late in the day to conclude, as did the District Court in this case, that a juvenile is not put- in jeopardy at a proceeding whose object is to determine whether he has committed acts that violate a criminal law and whose potential consequences include both the stigma inherent in such a determination and the deprivation of liberty for many years. For it is clear under our cases that determining the relevance of constitutional policies, like determining the applicability of constitutional rights, in juvenile, proceedings, requires that courts eschew “the ‘civil’ label-of-convenience which has been attached to juvenile proceedings,” In re Gault, supra, at 50, and that “the juvenile process... be candidly appraised.” 387 U. S., at 21. See In re Winship, supra, at 365-366..
As we have observed, the risk to which the term jeopardy refers is that traditionally associated with “actions intended to authorize criminal punishment to vindicate public justice.” United States ex rel. Marcus v. Hess, supra, at 548-549. Because of its purpose and potential consequences, and the nature and resources of the State, such a proceeding imposes heavy pressures and burdens — psychological, physical, and financial — on a person charged. The purpose of the Double Jeopardy Clause is to require that he be subject to the experience only once “for the same offence.” See Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, 187 (1957); Price v. Georgia, 398 U. S., at 331; United States v. Jorn, 400 U. S. 470, 479 (1971) (opinion of Harlan, J.).
In In re Gault, supra, at 36, this Court concluded that, for purposes of the right to counsel, a “proceeding where the issue is whether the child will be found to be ‘delinquent’ and subjected to the loss of his liberty for years is comparable in seriousness to a felony prosecution.” See In re Winship, supra, at 366. The Court stated that the term “delinquent” had “come to involve only slightly less stigma than the term ‘criminal’ applied to adults,” In re Gault, supra, at 24; see In re Winship, supra, at 367, and that, for purposes of the privilege against self-incrimination, “commitment is a deprivation of liberty. It is incarceration against one’s will, whether it is called ‘criminal’ or ‘civil.’ ” In re Gault, supra, at 50. See 387 U. S., at 27; In re Winship, supra, at 367.
Thus, in terms of potential consequences, there is little to distinguish an adjudicatory hearing such as was held in this case from a traditional criminal prosecution. For that reason, it engenders elements of “anxiety and insecurity” in a juvenile, and imposes a “heavy personal strain.” See Green v. United States, supra, at 187; United States v. Jorn, supra, at 479; Snyder, The Impact of the Juvenile Court Hearing on the Child, 17 Crime & Delinquency 180 (1971). And we can expect that, since our decisions implementing fundamental fairness in the juvenile-court system, hearings have been prolonged, and some of the burdens incident to a juvenile’s defense increased, as the system has assimilated the process thereby imposed. See Note, Double Jeopardy and the Waiver of Jurisdiction in California’s Juvenile Courts, 24 Stan. L. Rev. 874, 902 n. 138 (1972). Cf. Canon & Kolson, Rural Compliance with Gault: Kentucky, A Case Study, 10 J. Fam. L. 300, 320-326 (1971).
We deal here, not with “the formalities of the criminal adjudicative process,” McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U. S., at 551 (opinion of Blackmun, J.), but with an analysis of an aspect of the juvenile-court system in terms of the kind of risk to which jeopardy refers. Under our decisions we can find no persuasive distinction in that regard between the proceeding conducted in this case pursuant to Cal. Welf. & Inst’ns Code § 701 (1966) and a criminal prosecution, each of which is designed “to vindicate [the] very vital interest in enforcement of criminal laws.” United States v. Jorn, supra, at 479. We therefore conclude that respondent was put in jeopardy at the adjudicatory hearing. Jeopardy attached when respondent was “put to trial before the trier of the facts,” 400 U. S., at 479, that is, when the Juvenile Court, as the trier of the facts, began to hear evidence. See Serfass v. United States, 420 U. S., at 388.
Ill
Petitioner argues that, even assuming jeopardy attached at respondent’s adjudicatory hearing, the procedure by which he was transferred from Juvenile Court and tried on a felony information in Superior Court did not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. The argument is supported by two distinct, but in this case overlapping, lines of analysis. First, petitioner reasons that the procedure violated none of the policies of the Double Jeopardy Clause or that, alternatively, it should be upheld by analogy to those cases which permit retrial of an accused who has obtained reversal of a conviction on appeal. Second, pointing to this Court’s concern for “the juvenile court’s assumed ability to function in a unique manner,” McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, supra, at 547, petitioner urges that, should we conclude traditional principles “would otherwise bar a transfer to adult court after a delinquency adjudication,” we should avoid that result here because it “would diminish the flexibility and informality of juvenile court proceedings without conferring any additional due process benefits upon juveniles charged with delinquent acts.”
A
We cannot agree with petitioner that the trial of respondent in Superior Court on an information charging the same offense as that for which he had been tried in Juvenile Court violated none of the policies of the Double Jeopardy Clause. For, even accepting petitioner’s premise that respondent “never faced the risk of more than one punishment,” we have pointed out that “the Double Jeopardy Clause... is written in terms of potential or risk of trial and conviction, not punishment.” Price v. Georgia, 398 U. S., at 329. (Emphasis added.) And we have recently noted:
“The policy of avoiding multiple trials has been regarded as so important that exceptions to the principle have been only grudgingly allowed. Initially, a new trial was thought to be unavailable after appeal, whether requested by the prosecution or the defendant.... It was not until 1896 that it was made clear that a defendant could seek a new trial after conviction, even though the Government enjoyed no similar right.... Following the same policy, the Court has granted the Government the right to retry a defendant after a mistrial only where ‘there is a manifest necessity for the act, or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated.’ United States v. Peres, 9 Wheat. 579, 580 (1824).” United States v. Wilson, 420 U. S. 332, 343-344 (1975). (Footnote omitted.)
Respondent was subjected to the burden of two trials for the same offense; he was twice put to the task of marshaling his resources against those of the State, twice subjected to the “heavy personal strain” which such an experience represents. United States v. Jorn, 400 U. S., at 479. We turn, therefore, to inquire whether either traditional principles or “the juvenile court’s assumed ability to function in a unique manner,” McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, supra, at 547, supports an exception to the “constitutional policy of finality” to which respondent would otherwise be entitled. United States v. Jorn, supra, at 479.
B
In-denying respondent’s petitions for writs of habeas corpus, the California Court of Appeal first, and the United States District Court later, concluded that no new jeopardy arose as a result of his transfer from Juvenile Court and trial in Superior Court. See In re Gary J., 17 Cal. App. 3d, at 710, 95 Cal. Rptr., at 189; 343 F. Supp., at 692. In the view of those courts, the jeopardy that attaches at an adjudicatory hearing continues until there is a final disposition of the case under the adult charge. See also In re Juvenile, 364 Mass. 531, 306 N. E. 2d 822 (1974). Cf. Bryan v. Superior Court, 7 Cal. 3d 575, 498 P. 2d 1079 (1972), cert. denied, 410 U. S. 944 (1973).
The phrase “continuing jeopardy” describes both a concept and a conclusion. As originally articulated by Mr. Justice Holmes in his dissent in Kepner v. United States, 195 U. S. 100, 134-137 (1904), the concept has proved an interesting model for comparison with the system of constitutional protection which the Court has in fact derived from the rather ambiguous language and history of the Double Jeopardy Clause. See United States v. Wilson, supra, at 351-352. Holmes’ view has “never been adopted by a majority of this Court.” United States v. Jenkins, 420 U. S. 358, 369 (1975).
The conclusion, “continuing jeopardy,” as distinguished from the concept, has occasionally been used to explain why an accused who has secured the reversal of a conviction on appeal may be retried for the same offense. See Green v. United States, 355 U. S., at 189; Price v. Georgia, 398 U. S., at 326; United States v. Wilson, supra, at 343-344, n. 11. Probably a more satisfactory explanar tion lies in analysis of the respective interests involved. See United States v. Tateo, 377 U. S. 463, 465-466 (1964); Price v. Georgia, supra, at 329 n. 4; United States v. Wilson, supra. Similarly, the fact that the proceedings against respondent had not “run their full course,” Price v. Georgia, supra, at 326, within the contemplation of the California Welfare and Institutions Code, at the time of transfer, does not satisfactorily explain why respondent - should be deprived of the constitutional protection against a second trial. If there is to be an exception to that protection in the context of the juvenile-court system, it must be justified by interests of society, reflected in that unique institution, or of juveniles themselves, of sufficient substance to render tolerable the costs and burdens, noted earlier, which the exception will entail in individual cases.
C
The possibility of transfer from juvenile court to a court of general criminal jurisdiction is a matter of great significance to the juvenile. See Kent v. United States, 383 U. S. 541 (1966). At the same time, there appears to be widely shared agreement that not all juveniles can benefit from the special features and programs of the juvenile-court system and that a procedure for transfer to an adult court should be available. See, e. g., National Advisory Commission on Criminal Justice Standards and Goals, Courts, Commentary to Standard 14.3, pp. 300-301 (1973). This general agreement is reflected in the fact that an overwhelming majority of jurisdictions permits transfer in certain circumstances. As might be expected, the statutory provisions differ in numerous details. Whatever their differences, however, such transfer provisions represent an attempt to impart to the juvenile-court system the flexibility needed to deal with youthful offenders who cannot benefit from the specialized guidance and treatment contemplated by the system.
We do not agree with petitioner that giving respondent the constitutional protection against multiple trials in this context will diminish flexibility and informality to the extent that those qualities relate uniquely to the goals of the juvenile-court system. We agree that such a holding will require, in most cases, that the transfer decision be made prior to an adjudicatory hearing. To the extent that evidence concerning the alleged offense is considered relevant, it may be that, in those cases where transfer is considered and rejected, some added burden will be imposed on the juvenile courts by reason of duplicative proceedings. Finally, the nature of the evidence considered at a transfer hearing may in some States require that, if transfer is rejected, a different judge preside at the adjudicatory hearing.
We recognize that juvenile courts, perhaps even more than most courts, suffer from the problems created by spiraling caseloads unaccompanied by enlarged resources and manpower. See President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: Juvenile Delinquency and Youth Crime 7-8 (1967). And courts should be reluctant to impose on the juvenile-court system any additional requirements which could so strain its resources as to endanger its unique functions. However, the burdens that petitioner envisions appear to us neither qualitatively nor quantitatively sufficient to justify a departure in this context from the fundamental prohibition against double jeopardy.
A requirement that transfer hearings be held prior to adjudicatory hearings affects not at all the nature of the latter proceedings. More significantly, such a reqüirement need not affect the quality of decisionmaking at transfer hearings themselves. In Kent v. United States, 383 U. S., at 562, the Court held that hearings under the statute there involved “must measure up to the essentials of due process and fair treatment.” However, the Court has never attempted to prescribe criteria for, or the nature and quantum of evidence that must support, a decision to transfer a juvenile for trial in adult court. We require only that, whatever the relevant criteria, and whatever the evidence demanded, a State determine whether it wants to treat a juvenile within the juvenile-court system before entering upon a proceeding that may result in an adjudication that he has violated a criminal law and in a substantial deprivation of liberty, rather than subject him to the expense, delay, strain, and embarrassment of two such proceedings.
Moreover, we are not persuaded that the burdens petitioner envisions would pose a significant problem for the administration of the juvenile-court system. The large number of jurisdictions that presently require that the transfer decision be made prior to an adjudicatory hearing, and the absence of any indication that the juvenile courts in those jurisdictions have not been able to perform their task within that framework, suggest the contrary. The likelihood that in many cases the lack of need or basis for a transfer hearing can be recognized promptly reduces the number of cases in which a commitment of resources is necessary. In addition, we have no reason to believe that the resources available to those who recommend transfer or participate in the process leading to transfer decisions are inadequate to enable them to gather the’information relevant to informed decision prior to an adjudicatory hearing. See generally State v. Halverson, 192 N. W. 2d 765, 769 (Iowa 1971); Rudstein, Double Jeopardy in Juvenile Proceedings, 14 Wm. & Mary L. Rev. 266, 305-306 (1972); Note, 24 Stan. L. Rev., at 897-899.
To the extent that transfer hearings held prior to adjudication result in some duplication of evidence if transfer is rejected, the burden on juvenile courts will tend to be offset somewhat by the cases in which, because of transfer, no further proceedings in juvenile court are required. Moreover, when transfer has previously been rejected, juveniles may well be more likely to admit the commission of the offense charged, thereby obviating the need for adjudicatory hearings, than if transfer remains a possibility. Finally, we note that those States which presently require a different judge to preside at an adjudicatory hearing if transfer is rejected also permit waiver of that requirement. Where the requirement is not waived, it is difficult to see a substantial strain on judicial resources. See Note, 24 Stan. L. Rev., at 900-901.
Quite apart from our conclusions with respect to the burdens on the juvenile-court system envisioned by petitioner, we are persuaded that transfer hearings prior to adjudication will aid the objectives of that system. What concerns us here is the dilemma that the possibility of transfer after an adjudicatory hearing presents for a juvenile, a dilemma to which the Court of Appeals alluded. See supra, at 527. Because of that possibility, a juvenile, thought to be the beneficiary of special consideration, may in fact suffer substantial disadvantages. If he appears uncooperative, he runs the risk of an adverse adjudication, as well as of an unfavorable dispositional recommendation. If, on the other hand, he is cooperative, he runs the risk of prejudicing his chances in adult court if transfer is ordered. We regard a procedure that results in such a dilemma as at odds with the goal that, to the extent fundamental fairness permits, adjudicatory hearings be informal and nonadversary, See In re Gault, 387 U. S., at 25-27; In re Winship, 397 U. S., at 366-367; McKeiver v. Pennsylvania, 403 U. S., at 534, 550. Knowledge of the risk of transfer after an adjudicatory hearing can only undermine the potential for informality and cooperation which was intended to be the hallmark of the juvenile-court system. Rather than concerning themselves with the matter at hand, establishing innocence or seeking a disposition best suited to individual correctional needs, the juvenile and his attorney are pressed into a posture of adversary wariness that is conducive to neither. Cf. Kay & Segal, The Role of the Attorney in Juvenile Court Proceedings: A Non-Polar Approach, 61 Geo. L. J. 1401 (1973); Carr; The Effect of the Double Jeopardy Clause on Juvenile Proceedings, 6 U. Tol. L. Rev. 1, 52-54 (1974).
IV
We hold that the prosecution of respondent in Superior Court, after an adjudicatory proceeding in Juvenile Court, violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as applied to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment. The mandate of the Court of Appeals, which was stayed by that court pending our decision, directs the District Court “to issue a writ of habeas corpus directing the state court, within 60 days, to vacate the adult conviction of Jones and either set him free or remand him to the juvenile court for disposition.” Since respondent is no longer subject to the jurisdiction of the California Juvenile Court, we vacate the judgment and remand the case to the Court of Appeals for such further proceedings consistent with this opinion as may be appropriate in the circumstances.
So ordered.
As of the date of filing of the petition in this case, Cal. Welf. & Inst’ns Code §602 (1966) provided:
“Any person under the age of 21 years who violates any law of this State or of the United States or any ordinance of any city or county of this State defining crime or who, after having been found by the juvenile court to be a person described by Section-601, fails to obey any lawful order of the juvenile court, is within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court, which may adjudge such person to be a ward of the court.”
An amendment in 1971, not relevant here, lowered the jurisdictional age from 21 to 18. 1971 Cal. Stats. 3766, c. 1748, §66.
See Cal. Welf. & Inst’ns Code §§632, 635, 636 (1966). The probation officer was required to. present a prima facie case that respondent had committed the offense alleged in the petition. In re William M., 3 Cal. 3d 16, 473 P. 2d 737 (1970). Respondent was represented by court-appointed counsel at the detention hearing and thereafter.
At the time of the hearing, Cal. Welf. & Inst’ns Code § 701 (1966) provided:
“At the hearing, the court shall first consider only the question whether the minor is a person described by Sections 600, 601, or 602, and for this purpose, any matter or information relevant and material to the circumstances or acts which are alleged to bring him within the jurisdiction of the juvenile court is admissible and may be received in evidence; however, a preponderance of evidence, legally admissible in the trial of criminal cases, must be adduced to support a finding that the minor is a person described by Section 602, and a preponderance of evidence, legally admissible in the trial of civil cases must be adduced to support a finding that the minor is a person described by Sections 600 or 601. When it appears that the minor has made an extrajudicial admission or confession and denies the same at the hearing, the court may continue the hearing for not to exceed seven days to enable the probation officer to subpoena witnesses to attend the hearing to prove the allegations of the petition. If the minor is not represented by counsel at the hearing, it shall be deemed that objections that could have been made to the evidence were made.” (Emphasis added.)
A 1971 amendment substituted “proof beyond a reasonable doubt supported by evidence” for the language in italics. 1971 Cal. Stats. 1832, c. 934, § 1. Respondent does not claim that the standard of proof at the hearing failed to satisfy due process. See In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358 (1970); DeBacker v. Brainard, 396 U. S. 28, 31 (1969).
Hereafter, the § 701 hearing will be referred to as the adjudicatory hearing.
At the time, Cal. Welf. & Inst’ns Code § 702 (Supp. 1968) provided:
“After hearing such evidence, the court shall make a finding, noted in the minutes of the court, whether or not the minor is a person described by Sections 600, 601, or 602. If it finds that the minor is not such a person, it shall order that the petition be dismissed and the minor be discharged from any detention or restriction theretofore ordered. If the court finds that the minor is such a person, it shall make and enter its findings and order accordingly and shall then proceed to hear evidence on the question of the proper disposition to be made of the minor. Prior to doing so, it may continue the hearing, if necessary, to receive the social study of the probation officer or to receive other evidence on its own motion or the motion of a parent or guardian for not to exceed 10 judicial days if the minor is detained during such continuance, and if the minor is not detained, it may continue the hearing to a date not later than 30 days after the date of filing of the petition. The court may, for good cause shown continue the hearing for an additional 15 days, if the minor is not detained. The court may make such order for detention of the minor or his release from detention, during the period of the continuance, as is appropriate.”
At the time, Cal. Welf. & Inst’ns Code § 707 (Supp. 1967) provided:
“At any time during a hearing upon a petition alleging that a minor is, by reason of violation of any criminal statute or ordinance, a person described in Section 602, when substantial evidence has been adduced to support a finding that the minor was 16 years of age or older at the time of the alleged commission of such offense and that the minor would not be amenable to the care, treatment and training program available through the facilities of the juvenile court, or if, at any time after such hearing, a minor who was 16 years of age or older at the time of the commission of an offense and who was committed therefor by the court to the Youth Authority, is returned to the court by the Youth Authority pursuant to Section 780 or 1737.1, the court may make a finding noted in the minutes of the court that the minor is not a fit and proper subject to be dealt with under this chapter, and the court shall direct the district attorney or other appropriate prosecuting officer to prosecute the person under the applicable criminal statute or ordinance and thereafter dismiss the petition or, if a prosecution has been commenced in another court but has been suspended while juvenile court proceedings are held, shall dismiss the petition and issue its order directing that the other court proceedings resume.
“In determining whether the minor is a fit and proper subject to be dealt with under this chapter, the offense, in itself, shall not be sufficient to support a finding that such minor is not a fit and proper subject to be dealt with under the provisions of the Juvenile Court Law.
“A denial by the person on whose behalf the petition is brought of any or all of the facts or conclusions set forth therein or of any inference to be drawn therefrom is not, of itself, sufficient to support a finding that such person is not a fit and proper subject to be dealt with under the provisions of the Juvenile Court Law.
“The court shall cause the probation officer to investigate and submit a report on the behavioral patterns of the person being considered for unfitness.”
The Juvenile Court noted:
“This record I have read is one of the most threatening records I have read about any Minor who has come before me.
“We have, as a matter of simple fact, no less than three armed robberies, each with a loaded weapon. The degree of delinquency which that represents, the degree of sophistication which that represents and the degree of impossibility of assistance as a juvenile which that represents, I think is overwhelming...” App. 33.
In doing so, the Juvenile Court implicitly rejected respondent’s double jeopardy argument, made at both the original § 702 hearing and in a memorandum submitted by counsel prior to the resumption of that hearing after the continuance.
The authority for the order of commitment derived from Cal.. Welf. & Inst’ns Code §1731.5 (Supp. 1971). At the time of the order, Cal. Welf. & Inst’ns Code § 1771 (1966) provided:
“Every person convicted of a felony and committed to the authority shall be discharged when such person reaches his 25th birthday, unless an order for further detention has been made by the committing court pursuant to Article 6 (commencing with Section 1800) or unless a petition is filed under Article 5 of this chapter. In the event such a petition under Article 5 is filed, the authority shall retain control until the final disposition of the proceeding under Article 5.”
In reaching this conclusion, the Court of Appeals also relied on Fain v.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We decide in this case whether an employer that sponsors and administers a single-employer defined-benefit pension plan has a fiduciary obligation under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 829, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 1001 et seq., to consider a merger with a multiemployer plan as a method of terminating the plan.
I
Crown Paper and its parent entity, Crown Vantage (the two hereinafter referred to in the singular as Crown), employed 2,600 persons in seven paper mills. PACE International Union, a respondent here, represented employees covered by 17 of Crown’s defined-benefit pension plans. A defined-benefit plan, “as its name implies, is one where the employee, upon retirement, is entitled to a fixed periodic payment.” Commissioner v. Keystone Consol. Industries, Inc., 508 U. S. 152, 154 (1993). In such a plan, the employer generally shoulders the investment risk. It is the employer who must make up for any deficits, but also the employer who enjoys the fruits (whether in the form of lower plan contributions or sometimes a reversion of assets) if plan investments perform beyond expectations. See Hughes Aircraft Co. v. Jacobson, 525 U. S. 432, 439-440 (1999). In this case, Crown served as both plan sponsor and plan administrator.
In March 2000, Crown filed for bankruptcy and proceeded to liquidate its assets. ERISA allows employers to terminate their pension plans voluntarily, see Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation v. LTV Corp., 496 U. S. 633, 638 (1990), and in the summer of 2001, Crown began to consider a “standard termination,” a condition of which is that the terminated plans have sufficient assets to cover benefit liabilities. § 1341(b)(1)(D); id., at 638-639. Crown focused in particular on the possibility of a standard termination through purchase of annuities, one statutorily specified method of plan termination. See § 1341(b)(3)(A)(i). PACE, however, had ideas of its own. It interjected itself into Crown’s termination discussions and proposed that, rather than buy annuities, Crown instead merge the plans covering PACE union members with the PACE Industrial Union Management Pension Fund (PIUMPF), a multiemployer or “Taft-Hartley” plan. See § 1002(37). Under the terms of the PACE-proposed agreement, Crown would be required to convey all plan assets to PIUMPF; PIUMPF would assume all plan liabilities.
Crown took PACE’s merger offer under advisement. As it reviewed annuitization bids, however, it discovered that it had overfunded certain of its pension plans, so that purchasing annuities would allow it to retain a projected $5 million reversion for its creditors after satisfying its obligations to plan participants and beneficiaries. See § 1344(d)(1) (providing for reversion upon plan termination where certain conditions are met). Under PACE’s merger proposal, by contrast, the $5 million would go to PIUMPF. What is more, the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC), which administers an insurance program to protect plan benefits,' agreed to withdraw the proofs of claim it had filed against Crown in the bankruptcy proceedings if Crown went ahead with an annuity purchase. Crown had evidently heard enough. It consolidated 12 of its pension plans into a single plan, and terminated that plan through the purchase of an $84 million annuity. That annuity fully satisfied Crown’s obligations to plan participants and beneficiaries and allowed Crown to reap the $5 million reversion in surplus funds.
PACE and two plan participants, also respondents here (we will refer to all respondents collectively as PACE), thereafter filed an adversary action against Crown in the Bankruptcy Court, alleging that Crown’s directors had breached their fiduciary duties under ERISA by neglecting to give diligent consideration to PACE’s merger proposal. The Bankruptcy Court sided with PACE. It found that the decision whether to purchase annuities or merge with PIUMPF was a fiduciary decision, and that Crown had breached its fiduciary obligations by giving insufficient study to the PIUMPF proposal. Rather than ordering Crown to cancel its annuity (which would have resulted in a substantial penalty payable to Crown’s annuity provider), the Bankruptcy Court instead issued a preliminary injunction preventing Crown from obtaining the $5 million reversion. It subsequently approved a distribution of that reversion for the benefit of plan participants and beneficiaries, which distribution was stayed pending appeal.
Petitioner, the trustee of the Crown bankruptcy estates, appealed the Bankruptcy-Court decision to the District Court, which affirmed in relevant part, as did the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. The Ninth Circuit acknowledged that “the decision to terminate a pension plan is a business decision not subject to ERISA’s fiduciary obligations,” but reasoned that “the implementation of a decision to terminate” is fiduciary in nature. 427 F. 3d 668, 673 (2005). It then determined that merger was a permissible means of plan termination and that Crown therefore had a fiduciary obligation to consider PACE’s merger proposal seriously, which it had failed to do. Petitioner thereafter sought rehearing in the Court of Appeals, this time with the support of the PBGC and the Department of Labor, who agreed with petitioner that the Ninth Circuit’s judgment was in error. The Ninth Circuit held to its original decision, and we granted certiorari. 549 U. S. 1177 (2007).
II
Crown’s operation of its defined-benefit pension plans placed it in dual roles as plan sponsor and plan administrator; an employer’s fiduciary duties under ERISA are implicated only when it acts in the latter capacity. Which hat the employer is proverbially wearing depends upon the nature of the function performed, see Hughes Aircraft Co., supra, at 444, and is an inquiry that is aided by the common law of trusts which serves as ERISA’s backdrop, see Pegram v. Herdrich, 530 U. S. 211, 224 (2000); Lockheed Corp. v. Spink, 517 U. S. 882, 890 (1996).
It is well established in this Court’s eases that an employer’s decision whether to terminate an ERISA plan is a settlor function immune from ERISA’s fiduciary obligations. See, e. g., ibid.; Curtiss-Wright Corp. v. Schoonejongen, 514 U. S. 73, 78 (1995). And because “decision[s] regarding the form or structure” of a plan are generally settlor functions, Hughes Aircraft Co., 525 U. S., at 444, PACE acknowledges that the decision to merge plans is “normally [a] plan sponsor decisio[n]” as well. Brief for Respondents 13-14, n. 5,20-21; see also Malia v. General Electric Co., 23 F. 3d 828, 833 (CA3 1994) (holding that employer’s decision to merge plans “d[id] not invoke the fiduciary duty provisions of ERISA”). But PACE says that its proposed merger was different, because the PIUMPF merger represented a method of terminating the Crown plans. And just as ERISA imposed on Crown a fiduciary obligation in its selection of an appropriate annuity provider when terminating through annuities, see 29 CFR §§2509.95-1, 4041.28(c)(3) (2006), so too, PACE argues, did it require Crown to consider merger.
The idea that the decision whether to merge could switch from a settlor to a fiduciary function depending upon the context in which the merger proposal is raised is an odd one. But once it is realized that a merger is simply a transfer of assets and liabilities, PACE’s argument becomes somewhat more plausible: The purchase of an annuity is akin to a transfer of assets and liabilities (to an insurance company), and if Crown was subject to fiduciary duties in selecting an annuity provider, why could it automatically disregard PIUMPF simply because PIUMPF happened to be a multiemployer plan rather than an insurer? There is, however, an antecedent question. In order to affirm, the judgment below, we would have to conclude (as the Ninth Circuit did) that merger is, in the first place, a permissible form of plan termination under ERISA. That requires us to delve into the statute’s provisions for plan termination.
ERISA sets forth the exclusive procedures for the standard termination of single-employer pension plans. § 1341(a)(1); Hughes Aircraft Co., supra, at 446. Those procedures are exhaustive, setting detailed rules for, inter alia, notice by the plan to affected parties, § 1341(a)(2), review by the PBGC, § 1341(b)(2)(A), (C), and final distribution of plan funds, § 1341(b)(2)(D), §1344. See generally E. Veal & E. Mackiewicz, Pension Plan Terminations 43-61 (2d ed. 1998) (hereinafter Veal & Mackiewicz). At issue in this case is § 1341(b)(3)(A), the provision of ERISA setting forth the permissible Tnethods of terminating a single-employer plan and distributing plan assets to participants and beneficiaries. Section 1341(b)(3)(A) provides as follows:
“In connection with any final distribution of assets pursuant to the standard termination of the plan under this subsection, the plan administrator shall distribute the assets in accordance with section 1344 of this title. In distributing such assets, the plan administrator shall—
“(i) purchase irrevocable commitments from an insurer to provide all benefit liabilities under the plan, or “(ii) in accordance with the provisions of the plan and any applicable regulations, otherwise fully provide all benefit liabilities under the plan....”
The PBGC’s regulations impose in substance the same requirements. See 29 CFR § 4041.28(c)(1). Title 29 U. S. C. §1344, which is referred to in § 1341(b)(3)(A), sets forth a specific order of priority for asset distribution, including (under certain circumstances) reversions of excess funds to the plan sponsor, see § 1344(d)(1).
The parties to this case all agree that § 1341(b)(3)(A)(i) refers to the purchase of annuities, see 29 CFR §4001.2 (defining “irrevocable commitment”), and that § 1341(b)(3)(A)(ii) allows for lump-sum distributions at present discounted value (including rollovers into individual retirement accounts). As PACE concedes, purchase of annuity contracts and lump-sum payments are “by far the most common distribution methods.” Brief for Respondents 45; see also Veal & Mackiewicz 72-73 (“The basic alternatives are the purchase of annuity contracts or some form of lump-sum cashout”). To affirm the Ninth Circuit, we would have to decide that merger is a permissible method as well. *3 And we would have to do that over the objection of the PBGC, which (joined by the Department of Labor) disagrees with the Ninth Circuit, taking the position that § 1341(b)(3)(A) does not permit merger as a method of termination because (in its view) merger is an alternative to (rather than an example of) plan termination. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 8, 17-30. We have traditionally deferred to the PBGC when interpreting ERISA, for “to attempt to answer these questions without the views of the agencies responsible for enforcing ERISA, would be to embar[k] upon a voyage without a compass.” Mead Corp. v. Tilley, 490 U. S. 714, 722, 725-726 (1989) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also LTV Corp., 496 U. S., at 648, 651. In reviewing the judgment below, we thus must examine “whether the PBGC’s policy is based upon a permissible construction of the statute.” Id., at 648.
We believe it is. PACE has “failed to persuade us that the PBGC’s views are unreasonable,” Mead Corp., supra, at 725. At the outset, it must be acknowledged that the statute, with its general residual clause in § 1341(b)(3)(A)(ii), is potentially more embracing of alternative methods of plan termination (whatever they may be) than longstanding ERISA practice, which appears to have employed almost exclusively annuities and lump-sum payments. But we think that the statutory text need not be read to include mergers, and indeed that the PBGC offers the better reading in excluding them. Most obviously, Congress nowhere expressly provided for merger as a permissible means of termination. Merger is not mentioned in § 1341(b)(3)(A), much less in any of § 1341’s many subsections. Indeed, merger is expressly provided for in an entirely separate set of statutory sections (of which more in a moment, see infra, at 108-110). PACE nevertheless maintains that merger is clearly covered under § 1341(b)(3)(A)(ii)’s residual clause, which refers to a distribution of assets that “otherwise fully provide^] all benefit liabilities under the plan.” By PACE’s reasoning, annuities are covered under § 1341(b)(3)(A)(i); annuities are — by virtue of the word “otherwise” — an example of a means by which a plan may “fully provide all benefit liabilities under the plan,” § 1341(b)(3)(A)(ii); and therefore, “at the least,” any method of termination that is the “legal equivalent” of annuitization is permitted, Brief for Respondents 23. Merger, PACE argues, is such a legal equivalent.
We do not find the statute so clear. Even assuming that PACE is right about “otherwise” — that the word indicates that annuities are one example of satisfying the residual clause in § 1341(b)(3)(A)(ii) — we still do not find mergers covered with the clarity necessary to disregard the PBGC’s considered views. Surely the phrase “otherwise fully provide all benefit liabilities under the plan” is not without some teeth. And we think it would be reasonable for the PBGC to determine both that merger is not like the purchase of annuities in its ability to “fully provide all benefit liabilities under the plan,” and that the statute’s distinct treatment of merger and termination provides clear evidence that one is not an example of the other. Three points strike us as especially persuasive in these regards.
First, terminating a plan through purchase of annuities (like terminating through distribution of lump-sum payments) formally severs the applicability of ERISA to plan assets and employer obligations. Upon purchasing annuities, the employer is no longer subject to ERISA’s multitudinous requirements, such as (to name just one) payment of insurance premiums to the PBGC, § 1307(a). And the PBGC is likewise no longer liable for the deficiency in the event that the plan becomes insolvent; there are no more benefits for it to guarantee. The assets of the plan are wholly removed from the ERISA system, and plan participants and beneficiaries must rely primarily (if not exclusively) on state contract remedies if they do not receive proper payments or are otherwise denied access to their funds. Further, from the standpoint of the participants and beneficiaries, the risk associated with an annuity relates solely to the solvency of an insurance company, and not the performance of the merged plan’s investments.
Merger is fundamentally different: It represents a continuation rather than a cessation of the ERISA regime. If Crown were to have merged its pension plans into PIUMPF, the plan assets would have been combined with the assets of the multiemployer plan, where they could then be used to satisfy the benefit liabilities of participants and beneficiaries other than those from the original Crown plans. Those assets would remain within ERISA’s purview, the PBGC would maintain responsibility for them, and if Crown continued to employ the plan participants it too would remain subject to ERISA. Finally, plan participants and beneficiaries would have their recourse not through state contract law, but through the ERISA system, just as they had prior to merger.
Second, in a standard termination ERISA allows the employer to (under certain circumstances) recoup surplus funds, § 1344(d)(1), (3), as Crown sought to do here. But ERISA forbids employers to obtain a reversion in the absence of a termination: “A valid plan termination is a prerequisite to a reversion of surplus plan assets to an employer.” App. to Brief in Opposition 15a (PBGC Opinion Letter 85-25 (Oct. 11, 1985)); see also Veal & Mackiewicz 164-165. Crown could not simply extract the $5 million surplus from its plans, nor could it have done so once those assets had transferred to PIUMPF. This would have run up against ERISA’s anti-inurement provision, which prohibits employers from misappropriating plan assets for their own benefit. See § 1103(c). Consequently, we think the PBGC was entirely reasonable in declining to recognize as a form of termination a mechanism that would preclude the receipt of surplus funds, which is specifically authorized upon termination.
Third, the structure of ERISA amply (if not conclusively) supports the conclusion that § 1341(b)(3)(A)(ii) does not cover merger. As noted above, merger is nowhere mentioned in § 1341, and is instead dealt with in an entirely different set of statutory sections setting forth entirely different rules and procedures. Compare §1058 (general merger provision), §1411 (mergers between multiemployer plans), and §1412 (mergers between multiemployer and single-employer plans) with §1341 (termination of single-employer plans), § 1341a (termination of multiemployer plans); see generally Veal & Mackiewicz 31-40 (describing merger as an alternative to plan termination). Section 1058, the general merger provision, in fact quite clearly contemplates that merger and termination are not one and the same, forbidding merger “unless each participant in the plan would (if the plan then terminated) receive a benefit immediately after the merger ... which is equal to or greater than the benefit he would have been entitled to receive immediately before the merger ... (if the plan had then terminated).” (Emphasis added.)
As for the different rules and procedures governing termination and merger: Most critically, plans seeking to terminate must provide advance notice to the PBGC, as well as extensive actuarial information. § 1341(b)(2)(A). The PBGC has the authority to halt the termination if it determines that plan assets are insufficient to cover plan liabilities. § 1341(b)(2)(C). Merger, by contrast, involves considerably less PBGC oversight, and the PBGC has no similar ability to cancel, see Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 24. And the rules governing notice to the PBGC are either different or nonexistent. Section 1412, the provision governing merger between a single and multiemployer plan (the form of merger contemplated by PACE’s proposal) makes no mention of early notice to the PBGC. And while mergers between multiemployer plans do require, 120-days advance notice, § 1411(b)(1), this still differs from the general notice provision for termination of single-employer plans, which requires notice to the PBGC “[a]s soon as practicable” after notice is given to affected parties, § 1341(b)(2)(A). Belatedly, § 1341(a)(2) also requires that, in a standard termination, written notice to plan participants and beneficiaries include “any related additional information required in regulations of the [PBGC].” Those regulations require, among other things, that the plan inform participants and beneficiaries that upon distribution, “the PBGC no longer guarantees . . . plan benefits.” 29 CFR § 4041.23(b)(9). (This requirement of eourse has no relevance to a merger, because after a merger the PBGC continues to guarantee plan benefits.)
PACE believes that these procedural differences can be ironed over rather easily. It insists:
“Many plan mergers take place without intent to terminate a plan; in those cases, the requirements for plan merger can be followed without consulting the requirements for plan termination. Conversely, many plan terminations take place without an associated merger; in those cases there is no need to consult the requirements for mergers. But if a plan sponsor intends to use merger as a method of implementing a plan termination, it simply must follow the rules for both merger and termination.” Brief for Respondents 36.
PACE similarly explains that while the PBGC does not approve “ordinary merger[s],” PBGC approval would be necessary when a merger is designed to terminate a plan. Id:, at 37. The confusion invited by PACE’s proposed framework is alone enough to condemn it. How could a plan be sure that it was in one box rather than the other? To avoid the risk of liability, should it simply follow both sets of rules all of the time? PACE’s proposal is flawed for another reason as well: It has no apparent basis in the statute. The separate provisions governing termination and merger quite clearly treat the two as wholly different transactions, with no exception for the case where merger is used for termination.
For all of the foregoing reasons, we believe that the PBGC’s construction of the statute is a permissible one, and indeed the more plausible. Crown did not breach its fiduciary obligations in failing to consider PACE’s merger proposal because merger is not a permissible form of termination. Even from a policy standpoint, the PBGC’s choice is an eminently reasonable one, since termination by merger could have detrimental consequences for plan beneficiaries and plan sponsors alike. When a single-employer plan is merged into a multiemployer plan, the original participants and beneficiaries become dependent upon the financial well-being of the multiemployer plan and its contributing members. Assets of the single-employer plan (which in this case were capable of fully funding plan liabilities) may be used to satisfy commitments owed to other participants and beneficiaries of the (possibly underfunded) multiemployer plan. The PBGC believes that this arrangement creates added risk for participants and beneficiaries of the original plan, particularly in view of the lesser guarantees that the PBGC provides to multiemployer plans, compare § 1322 with § 1322a. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 29, and n. 11. For employers, the ill effects are demonstrated by the facts of this very case: By diligently funding its pension plans, Crown became the bait for a union bent on obtaining a surplus that was rightfully Crown’s. All this after Crown purchased an annuity that none dispute was sufficient to satisfy its commitments to plan participants and beneficiaries.
* * *
We hold that merger is not a permissible method of terminating a single-employer defined-benefit pension plan. 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.
Crown's various other pension plans are not at issue in this case.
PACE now suggests that it would have been willing to agree to a merger in which Crown kept its surplus funds. Brief for Respondents 17, n. 7. But this is belied not only by the terms of the proposed merger agreement, but by the fact that PACE actively sought and obtained a preliminary injunction freezing Crown’s $5 million reversion. The Bankruptcy Court having rejected PACE’s request to undo the annuity contract, PACE has provided no reason for pursuing this litigation other than to obtain the $5 million that remained after Crown satisfied its benefit commitments. Moreover, as PACE concedes, whether the parties would have agreed to a merger arrangement that did not include the $5 million is “speculation.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 42.
We would not have to decide that question of statutory interpretation if Crown's pension plans disallowed merger. Any method of termination permitted by § 1341(b)(3)(A)(ii) must also be one that is “in accordance with the provisions of the plan.” Crown thus could have drafted its plan documents to limit the available methods of termination, so that merger was not permitted. Petitioner argued below that Crown had done just that. Though the District Court concluded that the plan terms allowed for merger, App. to Pet. for Cert. 47, the Ninth Circuit declined to consider the plan language because it held that petitioner had failed to preserve the argument in the Bankruptcy Court. Petitioner did not seek certiorari on the factbound issues of waiver and plan interpretation, and we accordingly do not address them here.
PACE argues that the PBGC took an inconsistent approach in several opinion letters from the 1980’s concerning the applicability of certain joint guidelines for asset reversions during complex termination transactions. See App. to Brief in Opposition 6a-9a (Opinion Letter 85-11 (May 14, 1985)); id,., at 10a-13a (Opinion Letter 85-21 (Aug. 26, 1985)); id., at 14a-16a (Opinion Letter 85-25 (Oct. 11, 1985)). But insofar as the PBGC’s consistency is even relevant to whether we should accord deference to its presently held views, none of those letters so much aé hints that the PBGC treated merger as a permissible form of plan termination. In fact, to the extent they even speak to the question, they clearly show the opposite. In Opinion Letter 85-25, for example, the PBGC explained that the joint guidelines for asset reversions did not apply to “a transfer [of assets and liabilities] from a single-employer plan to an ongoing multiemployer plan followed by the termination of the single-employer plan.” Id., at 15a (emphasis added). By characterizing the proposed transaction as one that took place in two separate steps (merger and then termination), this letter fully contemplated that merger was not an example of plan termination.
This inability to recover surplus funds through a merger could not be remedied, as PACE now suggests, by structuring the transaction so that Crown provided to PIUMPF only assets sufficient to cover plan liabilities (effectively creating a spinoff from Crown’s plans and merging that spinoff plan with PIUMPF). Under that arrangement, Crown could indeed obtain the $5 million reversion — not, however, by reason of the merger-called-termination, but only by subsequent termination of the residual plan. See, e.g., id., at 14a-16a (PBGC Opinion Letter 85-25 (Oct. 11, 1985)) (describing such a sequence of transactions). This falls short of rendering the merger a termination permitting recovery of surplus funds. That a transfer of assets can occur in anticipation of a future termination does not render that transfer itself a termination.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Federal Power Act (FPA), 41 Stat. 1063, as amended, 16 U.S.C. § 791a et seq., vests in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) exclusive jurisdiction over wholesale sales of electricity in the interstate market. FERC's regulatory scheme includes an auction-based market mechanism to ensure wholesale rates that are just and reasonable. FERC's scheme, in Maryland's view, provided insufficient incentive for new electricity generation in the State. Maryland therefore enacted its own regulatory program. Maryland's program provides subsidies, through state-mandated contracts, to a new generator, but conditions receipt of those subsidies on the new generator selling capacity into a FERC-regulated wholesale auction. In a suit initiated by competitors of Maryland's new electricity generator, the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that Maryland's scheme impermissibly intrudes upon the wholesale electricity market, a domain Congress reserved to FERC alone. We affirm the Fourth Circuit's judgment.
I
A
Under the FPA, FERC has exclusive authority to regulate "the sale of electric energy at wholesale in interstate commerce." § 824(b)(1). A wholesale sale is defined as a "sale of electric energy to any person for resale." § 824(d). The FPA assigns to FERC responsibility for ensuring that "[a]ll rates and charges made, demanded, or received by any public utility for or in connection with the transmission or sale of electric energy subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission ... shall be just and reasonable." § 824d(a). See also § 824e(a) (if a rate or charge is found to be unjust or unreasonable, "the Commission shall determine the just and reasonable rate"). "But the law places beyond FERC's power, and leaves to the States alone, the regulation of 'any other sale'-most notably, any retail sale-of electricity." FERC v. Electric Power Supply Assn., 577 U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 760, 766, 193 L.Ed.2d 661 (2016) (EPSA ) (quoting § 824(b) ). The States' reserved authority includes control over in-state "facilities used for the generation of electric energy." § 824(b)(1) ; see Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. State Energy Resources Conservation and Development Comm'n, 461 U.S. 190, 205, 103 S.Ct. 1713, 75 L.Ed.2d 752 (1983) ("Need for new power facilities, their economic feasibility, and rates and services, are areas that have been characteristically governed by the States.").
"Since the FPA's passage, electricity has increasingly become a competitive interstate business, and FERC's role has evolved accordingly." EPSA, 577 U.S., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 768. Until relatively recently, most state energy markets were vertically integrated monopolies-i.e., one entity, often a state utility, controlled electricity generation, transmission, and sale to retail consumers. Over the past few decades, many States, including Maryland, have deregulated their energy markets. In deregulated markets, the organizations that deliver electricity to retail consumers-often called "load serving entities" (LSEs)-purchase that electricity at wholesale from independent power generators. To ensure reliable transmission of electricity from independent generators to LSEs, FERC has charged nonprofit entities, called Regional Transmission Organizations (RTOs) and Independent System Operators (ISOs), with managing certain segments of the electricity grid.
Interstate wholesale transactions in deregulated markets typically occur through two mechanisms. The first is bilateral contracting: LSEs sign agreements with generators to purchase a certain amount of electricity at a certain rate over a certain period of time. After the parties have agreed to contract terms, FERC may review the rate for reasonableness. See Morgan Stanley Capital Group Inc. v. Public Util. Dist. No. 1 of Snohomish Cty., 554 U.S. 527, 546-548, 128 S.Ct. 2733, 171 L.Ed.2d 607 (2008) (Because rates set through good-faith arm's-length negotiation are presumed reasonable, "FERC may abrogate a valid contract only if it harms the public interest."). Second, RTOs and ISOs administer a number of competitive wholesale auctions: for example, a "same-day auction" for immediate delivery of electricity to LSEs facing a sudden spike in demand; a "next-day auction" to satisfy LSEs' anticipated near-term demand; and a "capacity auction" to ensure the availability of an adequate supply of power at some point far in the future.
These cases involve the capacity auction administered by PJM Interconnection (PJM), an RTO that oversees the electricity grid in all or parts of 13 mid-Atlantic and Midwestern States and the District of Columbia. The PJM capacity auction functions as follows. PJM predicts electricity demand three years ahead of time, and assigns a share of that demand to each participating LSE. Owners of capacity to produce electricity in three years' time bid to sell that capacity to PJM at proposed rates. PJM accepts bids, beginning with the lowest proposed rate, until it has purchased enough capacity to satisfy projected demand. No matter what rate they listed in their original bids, all accepted capacity sellers receive the highest accepted rate, which is called the "clearing price." LSEs then must purchase from PJM, at the clearing price, enough electricity to satisfy their PJM-assigned share of overall projected demand. The capacity auction serves to identify need for new generation: A high clearing price in the capacity auction encourages new generators to enter the market, increasing supply and thereby lowering the clearing price in same-day and next-day auctions three years' hence; a low clearing price discourages new entry and encourages retirement of existing high-cost generators.
The auction is designed to accommodate long-term bilateral contracts for capacity. If an LSE has acquired a certain amount of capacity through a long-term bilateral contract with a generator, the LSE-not the generator-is considered the owner of that capacity for purposes of the auction. The LSE sells that capacity into the auction, where it counts toward the LSE's assigned share of PJM-projected demand, thereby reducing the net costs of the LSE's required capacity purchases from PJM. LSEs generally bid their capacity into the auction at a price of $0, thus guaranteeing that the capacity will clear at any price. Such bidders are called "price takers." Because the fixed costs of building generating facilities often vastly exceed the variable costs of producing electricity, many generators also function as price takers.
FERC extensively regulates the structure of the PJM capacity auction to ensure that it efficiently balances supply and demand, producing a just and reasonable clearing price. See EPSA, 577 U.S., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 769 (the clearing price is "the price an efficient market would produce"). Two FERC rules are particularly relevant to these cases. First, the Minimum Offer Price Rule (MOPR) requires new generators to bid capacity into the auction at or above a price specified by PJM, unless those generators can prove that their actual costs fall below the MOPR price. Once a new generator clears the auction at the MOPR price, PJM deems that generator an efficient entrant and exempts it from the MOPR going forward, allowing it to bid its capacity into the auction at any price it elects, including $0. Second, the New Entry Price Adjustment (NEPA) guarantees new generators, under certain circumstances, a stable capacity price for their first three years in the market. The NEPA's guarantee eliminates, for three years, the risk that the new generator's entry into the auction might so decrease the clearing price as to prevent that generator from recovering its costs.
B
Around 2009, Maryland electricity regulators became concerned that the PJM capacity auction was failing to encourage development of sufficient new in-state generation. Because Maryland sits in a particularly congested part of the PJM grid, importing electricity from other parts of the grid into the State is often difficult. To address this perceived supply shortfall, Maryland regulators proposed that FERC extend the duration of the NEPA from three years to ten. FERC rejected the proposal. PJM, 126 FERC ¶ 61,275 (2009). "[G]iving new suppliers longer payments and assurances unavailable to existing suppliers," FERC reasoned, would improperly favor new generation over existing generation, throwing the auction's market-based price-setting mechanism out of balance. Ibid. See also PJM, 128 FERC ¶ 61,157 (2009) (order on petition for rehearing) ("Both new entry and retention of existing efficient capacity are necessary to ensure reliability and both should receive the same price so that the price signals are not skewed in favor of new entry.").
Shortly after FERC rejected Maryland's NEPA proposal, the Maryland Public Service Commission promulgated the Generation Order at issue here. Under the order, Maryland solicited proposals from various companies for construction of a new gas-fired power plant at a particular location, and accepted the proposal of petitioner CPV Maryland, LLC (CPV). Maryland then required LSEs to enter into a 20-year pricing contract (the parties refer to this contract as a "contract for differences") with CPV at a rate CPV specified in its accepted proposal. Unlike a traditional bilateral contract for capacity, the contract for differences does not transfer ownership of capacity from CPV to the LSEs. Instead, CPV sells its capacity on the PJM market, but Maryland's program guarantees CPV the contract price rather than the auction clearing price.
If CPV's capacity clears the PJM capacity auction and the clearing price falls below the price guaranteed in the contract for differences, Maryland LSEs pay CPV the difference between the contract price and the clearing price. The LSEs then pass the costs of these required payments along to Maryland consumers in the form of higher retail prices. If CPV's capacity clears the auction and the clearing price exceeds the price guaranteed in the contract for differences, CPV pays the LSEs the difference between the contract price and the clearing price, and the LSEs then pass the savings along to consumers in the form of lower retail prices. Because CPV sells its capacity exclusively in the PJM auction market, CPV receives no payment from Maryland LSEs or PJM if its capacity fails to clear the auction. But CPV is guaranteed a certain rate if its capacity does clear, so the contract's terms encourage CPV to bid its capacity into the auction at the lowest possible price.
Prior to enactment of the Maryland program, PJM had exempted new state-supported generation from the MOPR, allowing such generation to bid capacity into the auction at $0 without first clearing at the MOPR price. Responding to a complaint filed by incumbent generators in the Maryland region who objected to Maryland's program (and the similar New Jersey program), FERC eliminated this exemption. PJM, 135 FERC ¶ 61,022 (2011). See also 137 FERC ¶ 61,145 (2011) (order on petition for rehearing) ("Our intent is not to pass judgment on state and local policies and objectives with regard to the development of new capacity resources, or unreasonably interfere with those objectives. We are forced to act, however, when subsidized entry supported by one state's or locality's policies has the effect of disrupting the competitive price signals that PJM's [capacity auction] is designed to produce, and that PJM as a whole, including other states, rely on to attract sufficient capacity."); New Jersey Bd. of Pub. Util. v. FERC, 744 F.3d 74, 79-80 (C.A.3 2014) (upholding FERC's elimination of the state-supported generation exemption). In the first year CPV bid capacity from its new plant into the PJM capacity auction, that capacity cleared the auction at the MOPR rate, so CPV was thereafter eligible to function as a price taker.
In addition to seeking the elimination of the state-supported generation exemption, incumbent generators-respondents here-brought suit in the District of Maryland against members of the Maryland Public Service Commission in their official capacities. The incumbent generators sought a declaratory judgment that Maryland's program violates the Supremacy Clause by setting a wholesale rate for electricity and by interfering with FERC's capacity-auction policies. CPV intervened as a defendant. After a six-day bench trial, the District Court issued a declaratory judgment holding that Maryland's program improperly sets the rate CPV receives for interstate wholesale capacity sales to PJM. PPL Energyplus, LLC v. Nazarian, 974 F.Supp.2d 790, 840 (Md.2013). "While Maryland may retain traditional state authority to regulate the development, location, and type of power plants within its borders," the District Court explained, "the scope of Maryland's power is necessarily limited by FERC's exclusive authority to set wholesale energy and capacity prices." Id., at 829.
The Fourth Circuit affirmed. Relying on this Court's decision in Mississippi Power & Light Co. v. Mississippi ex rel. Moore, 487 U.S. 354, 370, 108 S.Ct. 2428, 101 L.Ed.2d 322 (1988), the Fourth Circuit observed that state laws are preempted when they "den[y] full effect to the rates set by FERC, even though [they do] not seek to tamper with the actual terms of an interstate transaction." PPL EnergyPlus, LLC v. Nazarian, 753 F.3d 467, 476 (2014). Maryland's program, the Fourth Circuit reasoned, "functionally sets the rate that CPV receives for its sales in the PJM auction," "a FERC-approved market mechanism." Id., at 476-477. "[B]y adopting terms and prices set by Maryland, not those sanctioned by FERC," the Fourth Circuit concluded, Maryland's program "strikes at the heart of the agency's statutory power." Id., at 478. The Fourth Circuit cautioned that it "need not express an opinion on other state efforts to encourage new generation, such as direct subsidies or tax rebates, that may or may not differ in important ways from the Maryland initiative." Ibid .
The Fourth Circuit then held that Maryland's program impermissibly conflicts with FERC policies. Maryland's program, the Fourth Circuit determined, "has the potential to seriously distort the PJM auction's price signals," undermining the incentive structure FERC has approved for construction of new generation. Ibid. Moreover, the Fourth Circuit explained, Maryland's program "conflicts with NEPA" by providing a 20-year price guarantee to a new entrant-even though FERC refused Maryland's request to extend the duration of the NEPA past three years. Id., at 479.
We granted certiorari, 577 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 356, 193 L.Ed.2d 288 (2015), and now affirm.
II
The Supremacy Clause makes the laws of the United States "the supreme Law of the Land; ... any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." U.S. Const., Art. VI, cl. 2. Put simply, federal law preempts contrary state law. "Our inquiry into the scope of a [federal] statute's pre-emptive effect is guided by the rule that the purpose of Congress is the ultimate touchstone in every pre-emption case." Altria Group, Inc. v. Good, 555 U.S. 70, 76, 129 S.Ct. 538, 172 L.Ed.2d 398 (2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). A state law is preempted where "Congress has legislated comprehensively to occupy an entire field of regulation, leaving no room for the States to supplement federal law," Northwest Central Pipeline Corp. v. State Corporation Comm'n of Kan., 489 U.S. 493, 509, 109 S.Ct. 1262, 103 L.Ed.2d 509 (1989), as well as "where, under the circumstances of a particular case, the challenged state law stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives of Congress," Crosby v. National Foreign Trade Council, 530 U.S. 363, 373, 120 S.Ct. 2288, 147 L.Ed.2d 352 (2000) (brackets and internal quotation marks omitted).
We agree with the Fourth Circuit's judgment that Maryland's program sets an interstate wholesale rate, contravening the FPA's division of authority between state and federal regulators. As earlier recounted, see supra, at 1292, the FPA allocates to FERC exclusive jurisdiction over "rates and charges ... received ... for or in connection with" interstate wholesale sales. § 824d(a). Exercising this authority, FERC has approved the PJM capacity auction as the sole ratesetting mechanism for sales of capacity to PJM, and has deemed the clearing price per se just and reasonable. Doubting FERC's judgment, Maryland-through the contract for differences-requires CPV to participate in the PJM capacity auction, but guarantees CPV a rate distinct from the clearing price for its interstate sales of capacity to PJM. By adjusting an interstate wholesale rate, Maryland's program invades FERC's regulatory turf. See EPSA, 577 U.S., at ----, 136 S.Ct., at 780 ("The FPA leaves no room either for direct state regulation of the prices of interstate wholesales or for regulation that would indirectly achieve the same result." (internal quotation marks omitted)).
That Maryland was attempting to encourage construction of new in-state generation does not save its program. States, of course, may regulate within the domain Congress assigned to them even when their laws incidentally affect areas within FERC's domain. See Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 575 U.S. ----, ----, 135 S.Ct. 1591, 1599, 191 L.Ed.2d 511 (2015) (whether the Natural Gas Act (NGA) preempts a particular state law turns on "the target at which the state law aims "). But States may not seek to achieve ends, however legitimate, through regulatory means that intrude on FERC's authority over interstate wholesale rates, as Maryland has done here. See ibid. (distinguishing between "measures aimed directly at interstate purchasers and wholesalers for resale, and those aimed at subjects left to the States to regulate" (internal quotation marks omitted)).
The problem we have identified with Maryland's program mirrors the problems we identified in Mississippi Power & Light and Nantahala Power & Light Co. v. Thornburg, 476 U.S. 953, 106 S.Ct. 2349, 90 L.Ed.2d 943 (1986). In each of those cases, a State determined that FERC had failed to ensure the reasonableness of a wholesale rate, and the State therefore prevented a utility from recovering-through retail rates-the full cost of wholesale purchases. See Mississippi Power & Light, 487 U.S., at 360-364, 108 S.Ct. 2428 ; Nantahala, 476 U.S., at 956-962, 106 S.Ct. 2349. This Court invalidated the States' attempts to second-guess the reasonableness of interstate wholesale rates. " 'Once FERC sets such a rate,' " we observed in Mississippi Power & Light, " 'a State may not conclude in setting retail rates that the FERC-approved wholesale rates are unreasonable. A State must rather give effect to Congress' desire to give FERC plenary authority over interstate wholesale rates, and to ensure that the States do not interfere with this authority.' " 487 U.S., at 373, 108 S.Ct. 2428 (quoting Nantahala, 476 U.S., at 966, 106 S.Ct. 2349 ). True, Maryland's program does not prevent a utility from recovering through retail sales a cost FERC mandated it incur-Maryland instead guarantees CPV a certain rate for capacity sales to PJM regardless of the clearing price. But Mississippi Power & Light and Nantahala make clear that States interfere with FERC's authority by disregarding interstate wholesale rates FERC has deemed just and reasonable, even when States exercise their traditional authority over retail rates or, as here, in-state generation.
The contract for differences, Maryland and CPV respond, is indistinguishable from traditional bilateral contracts for capacity, which FERC has long accommodated in the auction. See supra, at 1293 - 1294, and n. 3. But the contract at issue here differs from traditional bilateral contracts in this significant respect: The contract for differences does not transfer ownership of capacity from one party to another outside the auction. Instead, the contract for differences operates within the auction; it mandates that LSEs and CPV exchange money based on the cost of CPV's capacity sales to PJM. Notably, because the contract for differences does not contemplate the sale of capacity outside the auction, Maryland and CPV took the position, until the Fourth Circuit issued its decision, that the rate in the contract for differences is not subject to FERC's reasonableness review. See § 824(b)(1) (FERC has jurisdiction over contracts for "the sale of electric energy at wholesale in interstate commerce." (emphasis added)).
Our holding is limited: We reject Maryland's program only because it disregards an interstate wholesale rate required by FERC. We therefore need not and do not address the permissibility of various other measures States might employ to encourage development of new or clean generation, including tax incentives, land grants, direct subsidies, construction of state-owned generation facilities, or re-regulation of the energy sector. Nothing in this opinion should be read to foreclose Maryland and other States from encouraging production of new or clean generation through measures "untethered to a generator's wholesale market participation." Brief for Respondents 40. So long as a State does not condition payment of funds on capacity clearing the auction, the State's program would not suffer from the fatal defect that renders Maryland's program unacceptable.
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is
Affirmed.
For example, if four power plants bid to sell capacity at, respectively, $10/unit, $20/unit, $30/unit, and $40/unit, and the first three plants provide enough capacity to satisfy projected demand, PJM will purchase capacity only from those three plants, each of which will receive $30/unit, the clearing price.
Because PJM operates the electricity grid in a very large region of the country, PJM divides its overall grid into geographic subregions and makes adjustments to the clearing price to reflect operating conditions in those subregions. For instance, PJM may pay a higher rate in or near areas where transmission-line congestion limits the amount of electricity that can be imported from other areas. The elevated clearing price might encourage a company to site a new power plant in a subregion where the need for local generation is great rather than elsewhere in PJM's grid.
To take a simplified example, assume an LSE has signed a long-term bilateral contract with a generator to purchase 50 units of electricity annually at a price of $40/unit (total annual cost: $2,000). In a given year when the auction clearing price is $50/unit, assume PJM requires the LSE to purchase 100 units of electricity to satisfy its share of projected demand. The LSE bids the 50 units of capacity it already owns into the PJM auction, and PJM pays the LSE $2,500 for those 50 units. Although the LSE then must pay PJM $5,000 for the 100 units it must purchase to satisfy projected demand, the net cost to the LSE of auction participation is only $2,500. Note that the effective price the LSE pays for 50 of the 100 units it must purchase from PJM-the amount purchased through the long-term contract-is the contract price, not the clearing price. That is, the LSE pays the utility $2,000 for 50 units of capacity, receives $2,500 from PJM after selling that capacity into the auction, and then pays $2,500 to PJM to purchase 50 units of capacity, resulting in a net cost of $2,000-the contract price-for those 50 units. The LSE, of course, must pay the full clearing price-$50/unit-for the other 50 units it is obliged to purchase to satisfy its full share of projected demand.
New Jersey implemented a similar program around the same time. The duration of the price guarantee for the New Jersey program is 15 years rather than Maryland's 20.
Two simplified examples illustrate how Maryland's program interacts with the PJM capacity auction. First, consider a hypothetical situation where the clearing price falls below the price guaranteed in the contract for differences. Assume that CPV's plant produces 10,000 units of electricity a year, and that the 20-year price guaranteed under the contract is $30/unit. Assume further that, in a given year during the duration of the price guarantee, the clearing price is $20/unit, and CPV's capacity clears the auction. CPV receives payments from Maryland LSEs of $10/unit, or $100,000, and payments from PJM of $20/unit, or $200,000. The rate CPV receives from the capacity auction is therefore $30/unit-the contract price-not $20/unit-the clearing price. Under PJM auction rules, Maryland LSEs then must purchase from PJM, at the clearing price of $20/unit, enough capacity to satisfy their assigned shares of anticipated demand. Assume that PJM requires Maryland LSEs to purchase 40,000 units of capacity. Total capacity-auction expenses for Maryland LSEs would therefore include both the payment to CPV ($100,000) and the full cost of purchasing capacity from PJM ($800,000), or $900,000. Absent Maryland's program, the LSEs' capacity-auction expenses would have included only the total cost of capacity purchases from PJM, or $800,000.
Now assume instead that the clearing price in a given year is $40/unit, which exceeds the $30/unit contract price, and that CPV's capacity clears the auction. CPV receives payments from PJM of $40/unit, or $400,000. CPV then must pay Maryland LSEs the difference between the contract price and the clearing price-in this case, $10/unit, or $100,000. The rate CPV receives from the capacity auction is therefore the contract price-$30/unit-the same price CPV received in the above example. Maryland LSEs then must purchase from PJM, at the clearing price of $40/unit, enough capacity to satisfy their share of anticipated demand. Assume that PJM again requires Maryland LSEs to purchase 40,000 units of capacity. Total capacity-auction expenses for Maryland LSEs would therefore include the full cost of capacity purchases from PJM ($1,600,000), minus the payment from CPV ($100,000), or $1,500,000. Absent Maryland's program, the LSEs would have had to pay $1,600,000 to PJM without receiving any offsetting payments from CPV.
Because neither CPV nor Maryland has challenged whether plaintiffs may seek declaratory relief under the Supremacy Clause, the Court assumes without deciding that they may. See Brief for Public Utility Law Project of New York, Inc., as Amicus Curiae 21 (arguing that the incumbent generators should have been required to exhaust administrative remedies before filing suit).
Respondents also raised arguments under the Dormant Commerce Clause and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The District Court rejected those arguments, PPL Energyplus, LLC v. Nazarian, 974 F.Supp.2d 790, 841-855 (Md.2013), the Fourth Circuit did not address them, and they are irrelevant at this stage.
For the same reason, the Third Circuit found New Jersey's similar program preempted. PPL Energyplus, LLC v. Solomon, 766 F.3d 241, 246 (2014).
According to Maryland and CPV, the payments guaranteed under Maryland's program are consideration for CPV's compliance with various state-imposed conditions, i.e., the requirements that CPV build a certain type of generator, at a particular location, that would produce a certain amount of electricity over a particular period of time. The payments, Maryland and CPV continue, are therefore separate from the rate CPV receives for its wholesale sales of capacity to PJM. But because the payments are conditioned on CPV's capacity clearing the auction-and, accordingly, on CPV selling that capacity to PJM-the payments are certainly "received ... in connection with" interstate wholesale sales to PJM. 16 U.S.C. § 824d(a).
Although Oneok, Inc. v. Learjet, Inc., 575 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 1591, 191 L.Ed.2d 511 (2015), involved the NGA rather than the FPA, the relevant provisions of the two statutes are analogous. This Court has routinely relied on NGA cases in determining the scope of the FPA, and vice versa. See, e.g., id., at ---- - ----, 135 S.Ct., at 1601-1602 (discussing FPA cases while determining the preemptive scope of the NGA).
Maryland's program, Maryland and CPV assert, is consistent with federal law because FERC has accommodated the program by eliminating the MOPR's state-supported generation exception. Even assuming that this change has prevented Maryland's program from distorting the auction's price signals, however-a point the parties dispute-Maryland cannot regulate in a domain Congress assigned to FERC and then require FERC to accommodate Maryland's intrusion. See Northwest Central Pipeline Corp. v. State Corporation Comm'n of Kan., 489 U.S. 493, 518, 109 S.Ct. 1262, 103 L.Ed.2d 509 (1989) ("The NGA does not require FERC to regulate around a state rule the only purpose of which is to influence purchasing decisions of interstate pipelines, however that rule is labeled.").
Our opinion does not call into question whether generators and LSEs may enter into long-term financial hedging contracts based on the auction clearing price. Such contracts, also frequently termed contracts for differences, do not involve state action to the same degree as Maryland's program, which compels private actors (LSEs) to enter into contracts for differences-like it or not-with a generator that must sell its capacity to PJM through the auction.
Because the reasons we have set out suffice to invalidate Maryland's program, we do not resolve whether, as the incumbent generators also assert, Maryland's program is preempted because it counteracts FERC's refusal to extend the NEPA's duration, or because it interferes with the capacity auction's price signals.
* * *
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A federal district court indictment charged in three counts that petitioner and a woman defendant had (1) induced and persuaded another woman to go on October 20, 1941, from New York City to Miami, Florida, for the purpose of prostitution, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 399 (now § 2422); (2) transported or caused her to be transported from New York to Miami for that purpose, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 398 (now § 2421); and (3) conspired to commit those offenses in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 88 (now § 371). Tried alone, the petitioner was convicted on all three counts of the indictment. The Court of Appeals affirmed. 167 F. 2d 943. And see disposition of prior appeal, 145 F. 2d 76. We granted certiorari limiting our review to consideration of alleged error in admission of certain hearsay testimony against petitioner over his timely and repeated objections.
The challenged testimony was elicited by the Government from its complaining witness, the person whom petitioner and the woman defendant allegedly induced to go from New York to Florida for the purpose of prostitution. The testimony narrated the following purported conversation between the complaining witness and petitioner’s alleged co-conspirator, the woman defendant.
“She asked me, she says, ‘You didn’t talk yet?’ And I says, ‘No.’ And she says, ‘Well, don’t,’ she says, ‘until we get you a lawyer.’ And then she says, ‘Be very careful what you say.’ And I can’t put it in exact words. But she said, ‘It would be better for us two girls to take the blame than Kay (the defendant) because he couldn’t stand it, he couldn’t stand to take it.’ ”
The time of the alleged conversation was more than a month and a half after October 20,1941, the date the complaining witness had gone to Miami. Whatever original conspiracy may have existed between petitioner and his alleged co-conspirator to cause the complaining witness to go to Florida in October, 1941, no longer existed when the reported conversation took place in December, 1941. For on this latter date the trip to Florida had not only been made — the complaining witness had left Florida, had returned to New York, and had resumed her residence there. Furthermore, at the time the conversation took place, the complaining witness, the alleged co-conspirator, and the petitioner had been arrested. They apparently were charged in a United States District Court of Florida with the offense of which petitioner was here convicted.
It is beyond doubt that the central aim of the alleged conspiracy — transportation of the complaining witness to Florida for prostitution — had either never existed or had long since ended in success or failure when and if the alleged co-conspirator made the statement attributed to her. Cf. Lew Moy v. United States, 237 F. 50. The statement plainly implied that petitioner was guilty of the crime for which he was on trial. It was made in petitioner’s absence and the Government made no effort whatever to show that it was made with his authority. The testimony thus stands as an unsworn, out-of-court declaration of petitioner’s guilt. This hearsay declaration, attributed to a co-conspirator, was not made pursuant to and in furtherance of objectives of the conspiracy charged in the indictment, because if made, it was after those objectives either had failed or had been achieved. Under these circumstances, the hearsay declaration attributed to the alleged co-conspirator was not admissible on the theory that it was made in furtherance of the alleged criminal transportation undertaking. Fiswick v. United States, 329 U. S. 211, 216-217; Brown v. United States, 150 U. S. 93, 98-99; Graham v. United States, 15 F. 2d 740, 743.
Although the Government recognizes that the chief objective of the conspiracy — transportation for prostitution purposes — had ended in success or failure before the reported conversation took place, it nevertheless argues for admissibility of the hearsay declaration as one in furtherance of a continuing subsidiary objective of the conspiracy. Its argument runs this way. Conspirators about to commit crimes always expressly or implicitly agree to collaborate with each other to conceal facts in order to prevent detection, conviction and punishment. Thus the argument is that even after the central criminal objectives of a conspiracy have succeeded or failed, an implicit subsidiary phase of the conspiracy always survives, the phase which has concealment as its sole objective. The Court of Appeals adopted this view. It viewed the alleged hearsay declaration as one in furtherance of this continuing subsidiary phase of the conspiracy, as part of “the implied agreement to conceal.” 167 F. 2d 943, 948. It consequently held the declaration properly admitted.
We cannot accept the Government’s contention. There are many logical and practical reasons that could be advanced against a special evidentiary rule that permits out-of-court statements of one conspirator to be used against another. But however cogent these reasons, it is firmly established that where made in furtherance of the objectives of a going conspiracy, such statements are admissible as exceptions to the hearsay rule. This prerequisite to admissibility, that hearsay statements by some conspirators to be admissible against others must be made in furtherance of the conspiracy charged, has been scrupulously observed by federal courts. The Government now asks us to expand this narrow exception to the hearsay rule and hold admissible a declaration, not made in furtherance of the alleged criminal transportation conspiracy charged, but made in furtherance of an alleged implied but uncharged conspiracy aimed at preventing detection and punishment. No federal court case cited by the Government suggests so hospitable a reception to the use of hearsay evidence to convict in conspiracy cases. The Government contention does find support in some but not all of the state court opinions cited in the Government brief. But in none of them does there appear to be recognition of any such broad exception to the hearsay rule as that here urged. The rule contended for by the Government could have far-reaching results. For under this rule plausible arguments could generally be made in conspiracy cases that most out-of-court statements offered in evidence tended to shield co-conspirators. We are not persuaded to adopt the Government’s implicit conspiracy theory which in all criminal conspiracy cases would create automatically a further breach of the general rule against the admission of hearsay evidence.
It is contended that the statement attributed to the alleged co-conspirator was merely cumulative evidence, that without the statement the case against petitioner was so strong that we should hold the error harmless under 28 U. S. C. (1946 ed.) § 391. In Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U. S. 750, we said that error should not be held harmless under the harmless error statute if upon consideration of the record the court is left in grave doubt as to whether the error had substantial influence in bringing about a verdict. We have such doubt here. The Florida District Court grand jury failed to indict. After indictment in New York petitioner was tried four times with the following results: mistrial; conviction; mistrial; conviction with recommendation for leniency. The revolting type of charges made against this petitioner by the complaining witness makes it difficult to believe that a jury convinced of a strong case against him would have recommended leniency. There was corroborative evidence of the complaining witness on certain phases of the case. But as to all vital phases, those involving the sordid criminal features, the jury was compelled to choose between believing the petitioner or the complaining witness. The record persuades us that the jury’s task was difficult at best. We cannot say that the erroneous admission of the hearsay declaration may not have been the weight that tipped the scales against petitioner.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Jackson, concurring in the judgment and opinion of the Court.
This case illustrates a present drift in the federal law of conspiracy which warrants some further comment because it is characteristic of the long evolution of that elastic, sprawling and pervasive offense. Its history exemplifies the “tendency of a principle to expand itself to the limit of its logic.” The unavailing protest of courts against the growing habit to indict for conspiracy in lieu of prosecuting for the substantive offense itself, or in addition thereto, suggests that loose practice as to this offense constitutes a serious threat to fairness in our administration of justice.
The modern crime, of conspiracy is so vague that it almost defies definition. Despite certain elementary and essential elements, it also, chameleon-like, takes on a special coloration from each of the many independent offenses on which it may be overlaid. It is always “predominantly mental in composition” because it consists primarily of a meeting of minds and an intent.
The crime comes down to us wrapped in vague but unpleasant connotations. It sounds historical undertones of treachery, secret plotting and violence on a scale that menaces social stability and the security of the state itself. “Privy conspiracy” ranks with sedition and rebellion in the Litany’s prayer for deliverance. Conspiratorial movements do indeed lie back of the political assassination, the coup d’état, the putsch, the revolution, and seizures of power in modern times, as they have in all history.
But the conspiracy concept also is superimposed upon many concerted crimes having no political motivation. It is not intended to question that the basic conspiracy principle has some place in modern criminal law, because to unite, back of a criminal purpose, the strength, opportunities and resources of many is obviously more dangerous and more difficult to police than the efforts of a lone wrongdoer. It also may be trivialized, as here, where the conspiracy consists of the concert of a loathsome panderer and a prostitute to go from New York to Florida to ply their trade (see 145 F. 2d 76 for details) and it would appear that a simple Mann Act prosecution would vindicate the majesty of federal law. However, even when appropriately invoked, the looseness and pliability of the doctrine present inherent dangers which should be in the background of judicial thought wherever it is sought to extend the doctrine to meet the exigencies of a particular case.
Conspiracy in federal law aggravates the degree of crime over that of unconcerted offending. The act of confederating to commit a misdemeanor, followed by even an innocent overt act in its execution, is a felony and is such even if the misdemeanor is never consummated. The more radical proposition also is well-established that at common law and under some statutes a combination may be a criminal conspiracy even if it contemplates only acts which are not crimes at all when perpetrated by an individual or by many acting severally.
Thus the conspiracy doctrine will incriminate persons on the fringe of offending who would not be guilty of aiding and abetting or of becoming an accessory, for those charges only lie when an act which is a crime has actually been committed.
Attribution of criminality to a confederation which contemplates no act that would be criminal if carried out by any one of the conspirators is a practice peculiar to Anglo-American law. “There can be little doubt that this wide definition of the crime of conspiracy originates in the criminal equity administered in the Star Chamber.” In fact, we are advised that “The modern crime of conspiracy is almost entirely the result of the manner in which conspiracy was treated by the court of Star Chamber.” The doctrine does not commend itself to jurists of civil-law countries, despite universal recognition that an organized society must have legal weapons for combatting organized criminality. Most other countries have devised what they consider more discriminating principles upon which to prosecute criminal gangs, secret associations and subversive syndicates.
A recent tendency has appeared in this Court to expand this elastic offense and to facilitate its proof. In Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U. S. 640, it sustained a conviction of a substantive crime where there was no proof of participation in or knowledge of it, upon the novel and dubious theory that conspiracy is equivalent in law to aiding and abetting.
Doctrines of conspiracy are not only invoked for criminal prosecution, but also in civil proceedings for damages or for injunction, and in administrative proceedings to apply regulatory statutes. They have been resorted to by military commissions and on at least one notable occasion when civil courts were open at the time and place to punish the offense. This conspiracy concept was employed to prosecute laborers for combining to raise their wages and formed the basis for abuse of the labor injunction. The National Labor Relations Act found it necessary to provide that concerted labor activities otherwise lawful were not rendered unlawful by mere concert. But in other'fields concert may still be a crime though it contemplates only acts which each could do lawfully on his own.
The interchangeable use of conspiracy doctrine in civil as well as penal proceedings opens it to the danger, absent in the case of many crimes, that a court having in mind only the civil sanctions will approve lax practices which later are imported into criminal proceedings. In civil proceedings this Court frankly has made the end a test of the means, saying, “To require a greater showing would cripple the Act,” United States v. Griffith, 334 U. S. 100, in dispensing with the necessity for specific intent to produce a result violative of the statute. Further, the Court has dispensed with even the necessity to infer any definite agreement, although that is the gist of the offense. “It is elementary that an unlawful conspiracy may be and often is formed without simultaneous action or agreement on the part of the conspirators. . . .” United States v. Masonite Corp., 316 U. S. 265, 275. One might go on from the reports of this and lower courts and put together their decisions condoning absence of proof to demonstrate that the minimum of proof required to establish conspiracy is extremely low, and we may expect our pronouncements in civil cases to be followed in criminal ones also.
Of course, it is for prosecutors rather than courts to determine when to use a scatter-gun to bring down the defendant, but there are procedural advantages from using it which add to the danger of unguarded extension of the concept.
An accused, under the Sixth Amendment, has the right to trial “by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” The leverage of a conspiracy charge lifts this limitation from the prosecution and reduces its protection to a phantom, for the crime is considered so vagrant as to have been committed in any district where any one of the conspirators did any one of the acts, however innocent, intended to accomplish its object. The Government may, and often does, compel one to defend at a great distance from any place he ever did any act because some accused confederate did some trivial and by itself innocent act in the chosen district. Circumstances may even enable the prosecution to fix the place of trial in Washington, D. C., where a defendant may lawfully be put to trial before a jury partly or even wholly made up of employees of the Government that accuses him. Cf. Frazier v. United States, 335 U. S. 497.
When the trial starts, the accused feels the full impact of the conspiracy strategy. Strictly, the prosecution should first establish prima jade the conspiracy and identify the conspirators, after which evidence of acts and declarations of each in the course of its execution are admissible against all. But the order of proof of so sprawling a charge is difficult for a judge to control. As a practical matter, the accused often is confronted with a hodgepodge of acts and statements by others which he may never have authorized or intended or even known about, but which help to persuade the jury of existence of the conspiracy itself. In other words, a conspiracy often is proved by evidence that is admissible only upon assumption that conspiracy existed. The naive assumption that prejudicial effects can be overcome by instructions to the jury, cf. Blumenthal v. United States, 332 U. S. 539, 559, all practicing lawyers know to be unmitigated fiction. See Skidmore v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 167 F. 2d 54.
The trial of a conspiracy charge doubtless imposes a heavy burden on the prosecution, but it is an especially difficult situation for the defendant. The hazard from loose application of rules of evidence is aggravated where the Government institutes mass trials. Moreover, in federal practice there is no rule preventing conviction on uncorroborated testimony of accomplices, as there are in many jurisdictions, and the most comfort a defendant can expect is that the court can be induced to follow the “better practice” and caution the jury against “too much reliance upon the testimony of accomplices.” Caminetti v. United States, 242 U. S. 470, 495.
A co-defendant in a conspiracy trial occupies an uneasy seat. There generally will be evidence of wrongdoing by somebody. It is difficult for the individual to make his own case stand on its own merits in the minds of jurors who are ready to believe that birds of a feather are flocked together. If he is silent, he is taken to admit it and if, as often happens, co-defendants can be prodded into accusing or contradicting each other, they convict each other. There are many practical difficulties in defending against a charge of conspiracy which I will not enumerate.
Against this inadequately sketched background, I think the decision of this case in the court below introduced an ominous expansion of the accepted law of conspiracy. The prosecution was allowed to incriminate the defendant by means of the prostitute’s recital of a conversation with defendant’s alleged co-conspirator, who was not on trial. The conversation was said to have taken place after the substantive offense was accomplished, after the defendant, the co-conspirator and the witness had all been arrested, and after the witness and the other two had a falling out. The Court of Appeals sustained its admission upon grounds stated as follows:
“. . .We think that implicit in a conspiracy to violate the law is an agreement among the conspirators to conceal the violation after as well as before the illegal plan is consummated. Thus the conspiracy continues, at least for purposes of concealment, even after its primary aims have been accomplished. The statements of the co-conspirator here were made in an effort to protect the appellant by concealing his role in the conspiracy. Consequently, they fell within the implied agreement to conceal and were admissible as evidence against the appellant. Cf. United States v. Goldstein, 2 Cir., 135 F. 2d 359; Murray v. United States, 7 Cir., 10 F. 2d 409, certiorari denied, 271 U. S. 673 . . . . While Bryan v. United States, 5 Cir., 17 F. 2d 741, is by implication directly to the contrary, we decline to follow it.”
I suppose no person planning a crime would accept as a collaborator one on whom he thought he could not rely for help if he were caught, but I doubt that this fact warrants an inference of conspiracy for that purpose. Of course, if an understanding for continuous aid had been proven, it would be embraced in the conspiracy by evidence and there would be no need to imply such an agreement. Only where there is no convincing evidence of such an understanding is there need for one to be implied.
It is difficult to see any logical limit to the “implied conspiracy,” either as to duration or means, nor does it appear that one could overcome the implication by express and credible evidence that no such understanding existed, nor any way in which an accused against whom the presumption is once raised can terminate the imputed agency of his associates to incriminate him. Conspirators, long after the contemplated offense is complete, after perhaps they have fallen out and become enemies, may still incriminate each other by deliberately harmful, but unsworn declarations, or unintentionally by casual conversations out of court. On the theory that the law will impute to the confederates a continuing conspiracy to defeat justice, one conceivably could be bound by another’s unauthorized and unknown commission of perjury, bribery of a juror or witness, or even putting an incorrigible witness with damaging information out of the way.
Moreover, the assumption of an indefinitely continuing offense would result in an indeterminate extension of the statute of limitations. If the law implies an agreement to cooperate in defeating prosecution, it must imply that it continues as long as prosecution is a possibility, and prosecution is a possibility as long as the conspiracy to defeat it is implied to continue.
I do not see the slightest warrant for judicially introducing a doctrine of implied crimes or constructive conspiracies. It either adds a new crime or extends an old one. True, the modern law of conspiracy was largely evolved by the judges. But it is well and wisely settled that there can be no judge-made offenses against the United States and that every federal prosecution must be sustained by statutory authority. No statute authorizes federal judges to imply, presume or construct a conspiracy except as one may be found from evidence. To do so seems to approximate creation of a new offense and one that I would think of doubtful constitutionality even if it were created by Congress. And, at all events, it is one fundamentally and irreconcilably at war with our presumption of innocence.
There is, of course, strong temptation to relax rigid standards when it seems the only way to sustain convictions of evildoers. But statutes authorize prosecution for substantive crimes for most evil-doing without the dangers to the liberty of the individual and the integrity of the judicial process that are inherent in conspiracy charges. We should disapprove the doctrine of implied or constructive crime in its entirety and in every manifestation. And I think there should be no straining to uphold any conspiracy conviction where prosecution for the substantive offense is adequate and the purpose served by adding the conspiracy charge seems chiefly to get procedural advantages to ease the way to conviction.
Although a reversal after four trials is, of course, regrettable, I cannot overlook the error as a harmless one. But I should concur in reversal even if less sure that prejudice resulted, for it is better that the crime go unwhipped of justice than that this theory of implied continuance of conspiracy find lodgment in our law, either by affirmance or by tolerance. New instruments of injustice can equal that of implied or presumed or constructive crimes. The most odious of all oppressions are those which mask as justice.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter and Mr. Justice Murphy join in this opinion.
The Florida grand jury failed to indict and the cases there were closed without prosecution in February, 1942. The New York indictments were not returned until January, 1943.
Commonwealth v. Smith, 151 Mass. 491, 24 N. E. 677; People v. Mol, 137 Mich. 692, 707, 100 N. W. 913, 918; Hooper v. State, 187 Ark. 88, 92, 58 S. W. 2d 434, 435; State v. Gauthier, 113 Ore. 297, 307, 231 P. 141, 145; State v. Emory, 116 Kan. 381, 384, 226 P. 754, 756; Carter v. State, 106 Ga. 372, 376, 32 S. E. 345, 346-347; Watson v. State, 166 Miss. 194, 213, 146 So. 122, 127; Baldwin v. State, 46 Fla. 115, 120-121, 35 So. 220, 222; State v. Strait, 279 S. W. 109 (Mo.).
The phrase is Judge Cardozo’s — The Nature of the Judicial Process, p. 51.
The Conference of Senior Circuit Judges, presided over by Chief Justice Taft, in 1925 reported:
“We note the prevalent use of conspiracy indictments for converting a joint misdemeanor into a felony; and we express our conviction that both for this purpose and for the purpose — or at least with the effect — of bringing in much improper evidence, the conspiracy statute is being much abused.
“Although in a particular case there may be no preconcert of plan, excepting that necessarily inherent in mere joint action, it is difficult to exclude that situation from the established definitions of conspiracy; yet the theory which permits us to call the aborted plan a greater offense than the completed crime supposes a serious and substantially continued group scheme for cooperative law breaking. We observe so many conspiracy prosecutions which do not have this substantial base that we fear the creation of a general impression, very harmful to law enforcement, that this method of prosecution is used arbitrarily and harshly. Further the rules of evidence in conspiracy cases make them most difficult to try without prejudice to an innocent defendant.” Annual Report of the Attorney General for 1925, pp. 5-6.
Fifteen years later Judge Learned Hand observed: “. . . so many prosecutors seek to sweep within the drag-net of conspiracy all those who have been associated in any degree whatever with the main offenders. That there are opportunities of great oppression in such a doctrine is very plain, and it is only by circumscribing the scope of such all comprehensive indictments that they can be avoided.” United States v. Falcone, 109 F. 2d 579, 581.
Harno, Intent in Criminal Conspiracy, 89 U. of Pa. L. Rev. 624: “In the long category of crimes there is none, not excepting criminal attempt, more difficult to confine within the boundaries of definitive statement than conspiracy.”
An English author — Wright, The Law of Criminal Conspiracies and Agreements, p. 11 — gives up with the remark: “but no intelligible definition of ‘conspiracy’ has yet been established.”
Justice Holmes supplied an oversimplified working definition in United States v. Kissel, 218 U. S. 601, 608: “A conspiracy is a partnership in criminal purposes.” This was recently restated “A conspiracy is a partnership in crime.” Pinkerton v. United States, 328 U. S. 640, 644. The latter is inaccurate, since concert in criminal purposes, rather than concert in crime, establishes the conspiracy.
Carson offers the following résumé of American cases: “It would appear that a conspiracy must be a combination of two or more persons by some concerted action to accomplish some criminal object; or some object not criminal by criminal means; or, some object not criminal by means which are not criminal, but where mischief to the public is involved; or, where neither the object nor the means are criminal, or even unlawful, but where injury and oppression to individuals are the result.” The Law of Criminal Conspiracies and Agreements, as Found in The American Cases, p. 123.
See, for example:
8 U. S. C. §47, Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights; (1) Preventing officer from performing duties; (2) Obstructing justice, intimidating party, witness, or juror; (3) Depriving persons of rights or privileges. 10 U. S. C. § 1566, Conspiracy by persons in military service to defraud the U. S. 12 U. S. C. § 1138d (f), Conspiracy involving Farm Credit Banks, Administration, etc. 15 U. S. C.: §§ 1-3, Conspiracy in restraint of trade; §8, Conspiracy in restraint of import trade. 18 U. S. C. as revised by the Act of June 25, 1948, 62 St-at. 928 et seq., effective September 1, 1948: § 2384, Seditious conspiracy; §§2385, 2387, Conspiracy to impair loyalty of armed forces or advocate overthrow of U. S. Government by force; §241, Conspiracy to injure person in exercise of civil rights; §372, Conspiracy to prevent officer from performing duties; § 286, Conspiracy to defraud the Government by obtaining payment of a false claim; § 371, Conspiracy to defraud the United States; §§ 1501-1506, Conspiracy to obstruct justice; §§ 752, 1792, Conspiracy to cause riots at federal penal institutions; §1201, Conspiracy to transport kidnapped person in interstate commerce; §2314, Conspiracy to transport stolen property and counterfeiting instruments in interstate commerce; § 1951, Conspiracy to violate Anti-Racketeering Act; § 2192, Conspiracy to incite mutiny on shipboard; § 2271, Conspiracy to cast away vessel. 22 U. S. C. § 234, Conspiracy to injure property of foreign government. 31 U. S. C. § 231, Conspiracy to obtain payment of false claims. 34 U. S. C. § 749a, Conspiracy to bid collusively on construction of naval aircraft. 38 U. S. C. § 715, Conspiracy to falsify pension claims. 50 U. S. C. § 34, Conspiracy to disclose national defense information or commit espionage. 50 U. S. C. App. § 311, Conspiracy to violate Selective Service Act.
Harno, Intent in Criminal Conspiracy, 89 U. of Pa. L. Rev. 624, 632.
See Senturia, Conspiracy, Political, IV Encyc. Soc. Sci. 238 (1931).
On conspiracy principles German courts, on May 30, 1924, adjudged the Nazi Party to be a criminal organization. It also held in 1928 that the Leadership Corps of the Communist Party was a criminal organization and in 1930 entered judgment of criminality against the Union of Red Front Fighters of the Communist Party. See note 15.
8 Holdsworth, History of English Law, 383. Miller, Criminal Law, p. 110.
18 U. S. C. A. § 371. Until recently, the punishment for such a felony could have been far in excess of that provided for the substantive offense. However, the Act of June 25, 1948, c. 645, 62 Stat. 683, 701, provides that in such a case the punishment for the conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum provided for such misdemeanor.
This is the federal law applicable to antitrust prosecutions. For the history of this conception and its perversion, particularly in labor cases, see Sayre, Criminal Conspiracy, 35 Harv. L. Rev. 393. On the abuse of conspiracy see O’Brian, Loyalty Tests and Guilt by Association, 61 Harv. L. Rev. 592, and Note, The Conspiracy Dilemma: Prosecution of Group Crime or Protection of Individual Defendants, 62 Harv. L. Rev. 276.
This statement, of course, leaves out of account the subject of attempts with which conspiracy is said to be allied. 8 Holdsworth, History of English Law, 382.
Id., 382.
Id., 379.
"It is utterly unknown to the Roman law; it is not found in modern Continental codes; few Continental lawyers ever heard of it. It is a fortunate circumstance that it is not encrusted so deep in our jurisprudence by past decisions of our courts that we are unable to slough it off altogether. It is a doctrine which has proved itself the evil genius of our law wherever it has touched it.” Sayre, Criminal Conspiracy, 35 Harv. L. Rev. 393, 427.
Counsel representing the United States, the United Kingdom, the French Republic, and the Soviet Union, and German defendants, indulged in some comparisons of the relevant laws of several nations before the International Military Tribunal at Nürnberg in connection with organizations there accused as criminal. 8 Trial of Major War Criminals (GPO 1947), pp. 353, et seq.; 2 Nazi Conspiracy and Aggression (GPO 1946), p. 1; Jackson, The Nürnberg Case, p. 95.
The Assassination of President Lincoln and the Trial of the Conspirators, New York, 1865. See, however, Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2.
See Sayre, Criminal Conspiracy, 35 Harv. L. Rev. 393, 403.
International Union, U. A. W. A. v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, ante, p. 245.
Hyde v. United States, 225 U. S. 347. Mr. Justice Holmes, on behalf of himself and Justices Hughes, Lurton and Lamar, wrote a vigorous protest which did not hesitate to brand the doctrine as oppressive and as “one of the wrongs that our forefathers meant to prevent.” 225 U. S. 347,387.
An example is afforded by Allen v. United States, 4 F. 2d 688. At the height of the prohibition frenzy, seventy-five defendants were tried on charges of conspiracy. A newspaper reporter testified to going to a drinking place where he talked with a woman, behind the bar, whose name he could not give. There was not the slightest identification of her nor showing that she knew or was known by any defendant. But it was held that being back of the bar showed her to be a co-conspirator and, hence, her statements were admissible against all. He was allowed to relate incriminating statements made by her.
For courtroom technique employed in the trial of conspiracy cases by both prosecution and defense, see O’Dougherty, Prosecution and Defense under Conspiracy Indictments, 9 Brooklyn L. Rev. 263. His survey, which accords with our observation, will hardly convince one that a trial of this kind is the highest exemplification of the working of the judicial process.
United, States v. Hudson, 7 Cranch 32; United States v. Worrall, 2 Dall. 384; United States v. Coolidge, 1 Wheat. 415; United States v. Eaton, 144 U. S. 677, 687; United States v. Bathgate, 246 U. S. 220, 225. See, however, Warren, New Light on the History of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789,37 Harv. L. Rev. 49, 73.
Cf. Tot v. United States, 319 U. S. 463.
*Section 269 of the Judicial Code, as then in effect, and as in effect at the time of the trial of the instant case and of the entry of the judgment below, provided:
“Sec. 269. ... On the hearing of any appeal, certiorari, writ of error, or motion for a new trial, in any ease, civil or criminal, the court shall give judgment after an examination of the entire record before the court, without regard to technical errors, defects, or exceptions which do not affect the substantial rights of the parties.” 40 Stat. 1181, 28 U. S. C. § 391.
Rule 52 (a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, as continuously in effect during and since the time of the trial of the instant case and as still in effect, provides:
“Rule 52. Harmless Error and Plain Error.
“(a) Harmless Error. Any error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded. . . .”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This Court on February 25, 1970, 397 U. S. 88, 91, having entered a decree and appointed a Boundary Commissioner to survey the boundary between Arkansas and Tennessee and pursuant to that decree the said Commissioner having filed a “Report on Commission to Survey” in which he sets forth the General Location and Specific Location of such boundary to which the parties have approved and consented,
It is ordered, adjudged, and decreed That such boundary shall be fixed as follows:
General Location
The state boundary line involved herein is located between Crittenden County, Arkansas, and Shelby County, Tennessee, in an area formerly known as Cow Island Bend, and more recently called Scanlan Chute, Frog Chute, Ike Chute or Lake, and 96 Chute; and is generally within a rectangle between latitudes 35° 00' and 35° 03', and longitudes 90° 15' and 90° 19', and is more particularly described as follows:
Specific Location
Beginning at a point, designated as Station No. 1, which point is, S 6° 34' E, at 1,359.0 feet from, Mississippi River Commission Permanent Bench Mark “Scanlan,” whose coordinates are, latitude 35° 02' plus 1,555.76 feet, and longitude 90° 15' plus 1,014.42 feet. (Reference for PBM “Scanlan,” see page 118 of Permanent Marks, Volume One of Mississippi River Commission.)
Said above beginning point being on a line running, S 75° 39' E, 3,500.0 feet more or less from, the present Steamboat Channel (thalweg) of the Mississippi River; thence N 75° 39' W, 645.8 feet to a point; thence N 75° 54' W, 2,112.0 feet to a point; thence N 17° 18' W, 920.4 feet to a point; thence N 35° 25' W, 436.3 feet to a point; thence N 62° 36' W, 491.3 feet to a point, designated as Station No., 2; thence S 85° 53' W, 2,161.6 feet to a point; thence S 82° 00' W, 1,443.3 feet to a point; thence N 87° 38' W, 2,739.7 feet to a point; thence S 79° 35' W, 1,808.5 feet to a point; thence S 38° 47' W, 1,033.1 feet to a point; thence S 24° 52' W, 811.0 feet to a point; thence S 7° 38' W, 2,085.5 feet to a point; thence S 11° 29' W, 1,725.2 feet to a point, designated as Station No. 3; thence S 23° 31' W, 3,098.3 feet to a point; thence S 0° 51' E, 1,370.5 feet to a point; thence S 13° 15' E, 1,258.1 feet to a point, designated as Station No. 4; thence S 38° 45' W, 814.5 feet to a point; thence S 23° 55' W, 864.1 feet to a point; thence S 12° 30' W, 644.4 feet to a point; thence S 6° 30' W, 1,270.5 feet to a point, which point is, S 81° 52' E (Mag.), 2,736.5 feet from, United States Engineer Arkansas Levee Bench Mark for Mile Post 170/171; thence S 17° 40' E, 1,627.0 feet to a point; thence S 6° 50' E, 1,485.0 feet to a point; thence S 22° 10' E, 2,500.0 feet more or less, to the present Steamboat Channel (thalweg) of the Mississippi.
The above surveyed boundary line between the States of Arkansas and Tennessee in the area involved is shown by a broken line marked on the attached 1965 aerial photograph of said area, which aerial photograph is also designated Appendix A-I to this Court’s decree of February 25, 1970
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
Me. Justice Clark
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We are called upon in this case to remove ambiguities from a previous opinion which, while clear enough to the trial court, appears to have conveyed a triplicity of meaning to the Court of Appeals. A year ago Accardi was here contesting the dismissal of his habeas corpus petition in which he attacked the refusal of the Board of Immigration Appeals to grant his application for suspension of deportation. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U. S. 260 (1954). The sole foundation of his claim was that “the Attorney General [is doing] precisely what the regulations forbid him to do: dictating the Board’s decision.” 347 U. S. 260, at 267. We remanded the petition to the trial court for a hearing on the question of “the Board’s alleged failure to exercise its own discretion, contrary to existing valid regulations.” It was alleged on information and belief that the Attorney General had prepared prior to the Board’s decision “a list of one hundred individuals whose deportation he sought . . .” as “unsavory characters”; that Accardi’s name was among the group; and that the “list . . . was circulated by the Department of Justice among all of its employees connected with the Immigration Service and the Board of Immigration Appeals” with the result that “since that time it has been impossible for [Accardi] to secure fair consideration of his case.” We concluded that, if Accardi could prove that the Board had not exercised its own discretion in the matter, he should receive “a new hearing before the Board without the burden of previous proscription by the list.”
On the remand, the District Court, after a full hearing, found that the Board members “reached their individual and collective decision on the merits, free from any dictation or suggestion . . .” and again dismissed the writ. The Court of Appeals reversed, one judge dissenting, 219 F. 2d 77. The opinion of the court based its conclusion on the ground that the “Attorney General’s statements [had] unconsciously influence[d] the Board members so that they felt obliged not to exercise their discretion and, without doing so, to decide against Accardi.” The chief judge, concurring in the result, thought that our prior opinion merely required Accardi to prove “that there was a list as alleged, that he was on it, and that this fact was known to the Board.” The dissenting judge, on the other hand, read our opinion as meaning “no more . . . than that [Accardi’s] allegations sufficiently charged ‘dictation’ by the Attorney General,” entitling Accardi to a hearing on the question of “whether the Board’s denial of discretionary relief represented its own untrammelled decision or one dictated by the Attorney General.” P. 90. He concluded that the finding of the trial judge was not clearly erroneous. We agree with the dissenting judge both as to the interpretation of our prior opinion and its application to the facts of this case.
The opinion of the court recognized that, before Accardi was entitled to another Board hearing, he had to prove that a majority of the Board not only knew of the “list” but were affected by it. However, the opinion concluded that the Board’s position that its judgment had not been affected by “the list” was incredible. We find nothing incredible in the uncontradicted testimony produced before the trial judge through a number of witnesses including the Board members. The record shows that in fact there was no list, as such, and hence that one could not have been circulated among the members of the Board; that the fanfare of publicity complained of was in connection with the Attorney General’s “deportation program”; that this program was never publicly related to Accardi until after the Board’s decision; that only one Board member knew Accardi was covered by the program, while two others and the Chairman never had such knowledge until after their decision; that the fifth member asserted that he “may have known [of Accardi’s inclusion in the program] but . . . couldn’t say”; and that no person in the Department of Justice ever directly or indirectly approached any Board member as to the matter. It seems to us that the record fully supports the District Court’s conclusion that the Board’s decision represented the free and undictated decision of each member. Among the eight witnesses who gave testimony concerning the matter, was the Attorney General. He testified that there was no list; that his investigation “indicated that [Accardi] was a racketeer and that is the reason [he] moved to deport him”; that he “never at any time discussed this matter with any member of the [Board].” In the face of such evidence, we do not believe that speculation on the effect of subconscious psychological pressures provides sufficient justification for rejecting the District Court’s finding as clearly erroneous.
Accardi emphasizes the trial court’s finding that the Board had notice of the program and of his inclusion therein. This “notice,” at most, was given only to the calendar clerk of the Board so that the hearing of certain cases might be expedited. The testimony that it was not furnished to members of the Board or the Chairman is undisputed.
We believe that Accardi has had the hearing required by our previous opinion and that he has failed to prove his case.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and that of the District Court affirmed.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Harlan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Mr. Justice Jackson, dissenting, joined issue thus:
“We do not think that [the] validity [of the Board’s order] can be impeached by showing that [the Attorney General] overinfluenced members of his own staff whose opinion in any event would be only advisory.” 347 U. S., at 270.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
In United States v. Carlo Bianchi & Co., 373 U. S. 709, we held that, aside from questions of fraud, a reviewing court is limited to the administrative record made below in determining the finality to be given departmental decisions and findings made by a Board of Contract Appeals pursuant to a standard government disputes clause. In the present case we are called upon to decide whether the reviewing court or the Board of Contract Appeals should make the original record on an issue which the Board did not resolve because it erroneously dismissed the appeal before it as untimely.
The question is framed by the following facts. The Department of the Air Force issued an invitation for bids for the construction of a military housing project at Topsham Air Force Station, Maine. The invitation included a tentative minimum wage schedule which the contractor would have to meet. It also advised that the wage schedule would be finally redetermined by the Secretary of Labor not more than 90 days prior to the commencement of construction and that the Federal Housing Commissioner would then adjust the contract price to reflect any changes made in the wage schedules. In addition, the successful bidder was required to complete certain preparatory acts in order to close the contract and to post a $25,000 deposit to ensure the closing of the contract. Respondent, Anthony Grace & Sons, Inc., was the low acceptable bidder and a letter of acceptability was sent to it. That letter reminded respondent that failure to close the contract within a specified number of days was sufficient justification to warrant the Department of the Air Force in cancelling the bid and letter of acceptability, in retaining the deposit for liquidated damages and in determining additional liability for actual damages. A disputes clause in the letter of acceptability made such decision by the Department of the Air Force final unless, within 30 days from the receipt of the decision, respondent appealed to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, whose decision would be final and conclusive unless fraudulent or capricious or arbitrary, or so grossly erroneous as necessarily to imply bad faith, or not supported by substantial evidence. After receiving subsequent wage schedules from the Secretary of Labor, respondent concluded that certain work was being placed in higher wage categories than was provided in the specifications which accompanied the bid invitation. On the basis of this alleged deviation from the original specifications respondent asked first the Housing Commissioner and then the Department of the Air Force to raise the contract price. These requests were refused and respondent then notified the Air Force that it would be unable to complete the closing until this matter was cleared up. In the ensuing exchange of letters, the contracting officer informed respondent that its bid and the letter of acceptability were being canceled and its deposit was being retained. Pursuant to the disputes clause, respondent appealed this decision to the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, which dismissed the appeal as out of time without considering the merits of the case. Respondent then sued in the Court of Claims to recover its deposit and for damages resulting from the Government’s alleged wrongful cancellation. That court concluded that the appeal to the Board was timely and that the Board had erred in not reaching the merits of the case. With Judges Davis and Laramore dissenting, the court then decided to remand the case to its own trial commissioner, rather than to the Board of Contract Appeals, to make a record and consider the case on its merits. The Government asked us to grant certiorari to consider whether this was in violation of the principles announced in the Wunderlich Act and United States v. Carlo Bianchi & Co., supra. We granted certiorari, 382 U. S. 901, and we now reverse.
This question was anticipated in Bianchi, supra, where we considered what a reviewing court should do when the administrative record is defective, or inadequate or reveals the commission of a prejudicial error. Two suggestions were given:
“First, there would undoubtedly be situations in which the court would be warranted, on the basis of the administrative record, in granting judgment for the contractor without the need for further administrative action. Second, in situations where the court believed that the existing record did not warrant such a course, but that the departmental determination could not be sustained under the standards laid down by Congress, we see no reason why the court could not stay its own proceedings pending some further action before the agency involved. Cf. Pennsylvania R. Co. v. United States, 363 U. S. 202. Such a stay would certainly be justified where the department had failed to make adequate provision for a record that could be subjected to judicial scrutiny, for it was clearly part of the legislative purpose to achieve uniformity in this respect.” 373 U. S. 709, 717-718.
The policy reflected in this language, which requires utilization of the administrative procedures contractually bargained for, was clearly intended by Congress, see H. R. Rep. No. 1380, 83d Cong., 2d Sess. (1954); United States v. Carlo Bianchi & Co., supra, at 715-718, and it has been consistently reflected in a long line of decisions by this Court. See United States v. Wunderlich, 342 U. S. 98; United States v. Moorman, 338 U. S. 457; United States v. Holpuch Co., 328 U. S. 234; United States v. Blair, 321 U. S. 730; United States v. Callahan Walker Construction Co., 317 U. S. 56; Kihlberg v. United States, 97 U. S. 398. Pre-eminently, this policy is grounded on a respect for the parties’ rights to contract and to provide for their own remedies. See United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co., ante, p. 394; United States v. Moorman, supra, at 461-462. But, beyond that, there is also a belief that resort to administrative procedures is an expeditious way to settle disputes, conducive to speed and economy. United States v. Blair, supra, at 735. Such procedures also facilitate a department’s supervisory control over contracting officers and perhaps enhance the possibility of harmonious agreement. Ibid. Further, reliance upon a few expert agencies to make the records and initially to pass on the merits of the claims properly presented to them will lead to greater uniformity in the important business of fairly interpreting government contracts.
There can be no doubt that the dispute here over the decision by the Department of the Air Force to cancel respondent’s commitments under the bid and letter of acceptability and to retain the deposit is one which the parties contractually provided should be heard and decided by the administrative process. Barring some compelling policy reason to disregard this provision, the contractor should be held to its contractual agreement even at this stage in the litigation.
It is true that this Court has said on several occasions that the parties will not be required to exhaust the administrative procedure if it is shown by clear evidence that such procedure is “inadequate or unavailable.” United States v. Holpuch Co., supra, at 240; United States v. Blair, supra, at 736-737. It may be that the contracting officer, H. B. Zachry Co. v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 115, 344 F. 2d 352, or the Board of Contract Appeals, Southeastern Oil Florida, Inc. v. United States, 127 Ct. Cl. 480, 115 F. Supp. 198, so clearly reveals an unwillingness to act and to comply with the administrative procedures in the contract that the contractor or supplier is justified in concluding that those procedures have thereby become “unavailable.” Similarly, there may be occasions when the lack of authority of either the contracting officer or the administrative appeals board is so apparent that the contractor or supplier may justifiably conclude that further administrative relief is “unavailable.” But these circumstances are clearly the exceptions rather than the rule and the inadequacy or unavailability of administrative relief must clearly appear before a party is permitted to circumvent his own contractual agreement. When the Board fails to reach and decide an issue because it disposes of the appeal on another ground — here the untimeliness of the appeal — which the Court of Claims later rejects, there is no sound reason to presume that the Board will not promptly and fairly deal with the merits of the undecided issue if it is given the chance to do so.
The Court of Claims in this case attempted to justify bypassing the Board of Contract Appeals because it felt the dispute could be resolved more speedily if its Trial Commissioner made the record and initially passed on the merits. The dissenting judges question the factual accuracy of the premises. Even if the premises were sound, however, this argument falls substantially short of establishing that the administrative route is inadequate or unavailable.
Nor is it persuasive to say that the administrative remedy is inadequate in this case because the Board of Contract Appeals considers itself unable to review wage determinations by the Secretary of Labor or the corresponding bid adjustments by the Federal Housing Commissioner. The necessity of determining the validity of these determinations and adjustments is speculative at best. The issue involved here is whether the Department of the Air Force was justified in cancelling respondent’s commitments, retaining its deposit and itemizing certain damages. This raises questions concerning the propriety of respondent’s failure to press forward to close the contract regardless of an outstanding wage dispute. And this, in turn, requires an analysis of the original bid invitation and accompanying specifications, the custom and usage of the trade, and the subsequent conduct of both parties to this dispute. Obviously there are factual issues to be resolved and that task is initially for the Board, not the Court.
Another argument advanced by the Court of Claims is that it lacks authority to remand the case and the Board may refuse to consider it again. At this stage of the proceedings this fear may be dismissed as a hypothetical one. There will be time enough later, if this fear ever materializes, to consider whether the reviewing court would then be authorized to make its own record. In this regard it should be noted that, in Bianchi, supra, we suggested one way of dealing with this problem:
“And in any case in which the department failed to remedy the particular substantive or procedural defect or inadequacy, the sanction of judgment for the contractor would always be available to the court.” 373 U. S. 709, 718.
See also Interstate Commerce Comm’n v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 383 U. S. 576, 601.
Reversed.
See the Davis-Bacon Act, 46 Stat. 1494, as amended, 40 U. S. C. §276a (1964 ed.). No provision was made in the bid invitation or letter of acceptability for review of the determinations of the Secretary of Labor or the Housing Commissioner. The Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals has held that in these circumstances it is without jurisdiction to review such determinations. Len Co. & Associates, 1962 B. C. A., ¶ 3498, 17,854 (ASBCA). This Court has indicated that, as to the wage standards set by the Secretary of Labor, there is no judicial review. United States v. Binghamton Construction Co., 347 U. S. 171, 177.
This clause, which varies somewhat from the standard disputes clause, reads as follows:
“Failure to perform all obligations prior to the time prescribed for closing will be just cause for cancelling all commitments undertaken with you in connection with the housing project and for the recovery under your bid security of liquidated damages in the sum of $25,000, together with actual damages to the Department, such actual damages to be itemized and determined by the Contracting Officer, whose decision will be reduced to writing and furnished to you by mail or otherwise. Such decision shall be final and conclusive unless, within 30 days from the receipt thereof, you appeal in writing to the head of the Department or his duly authorized representative, and his decision shall, unless determined by a court of competent jurisdiction to have been fraudulent or capricious or arbitrary, or so grossly erroneous as necessarily to imply bad faith, or not supported by substantial evidence, be final and conclusive. In connection with any appeal under this paragraph you will be afforded an opportunity to be heard and to offer evidence in support of your appeal.”
The Wunderlich Act, 68 Stat. 81, 41 U. S. C. §§321-322, provides:
“That no provision of any contract entered into by the United States, relating to the finality or eonclusiveness of any decision of the head of any department or agency or his duly authorized representative or board in a dispute involving a question arising under such contract, shall be pleaded in any suit now filed or to be filed as limiting judicial review of any such decision to cases where fraud by such official or his said representative or board is alleged: Provided, however, That any such decision shall be final and conclusive unless the same is fradulent [sic] or capricious or arbitrary or so grossly erroneous as necessarily to imply bad faith, or is not supported by substantial evidence.
“Sec. 2. No Government contract shall contain a provision making final on a question of law the decision of any administrative official, representative, or board.”
See Hearing before the Subcommittee for Special Investigations of the House Committee on Armed Services on H. Res. No. 67, Inquiry Into the Administration and Operation of the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., 794-795 (1958).
See United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co., supra; C. J. Langenfelder & Son, Inc. v. United States, 169 Ct. Cl. 465, 341 F. 2d 600.
We see no reason, in this regard, to distinguish between theories of liability not considered below and the issue of damages, which may not initially have been considered if the Board found no liability. If, because of the disposition of the case on appeal, any of these issues becomes important, the Board should be given an opportunity to consider them first. The rule we announce necessarily disapproves of such cases as Stein Bros. Mfg. Co. v. United States, 162 Ct. Cl. 802, 337 F. 2d 861, and WPG Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 163 Ct. Cl. 1, 323 F. 2d 874, in which the Court of Claims retained the issue of damages after it reversed the Board's finding of no liability.
Brief for the Government, p. 20, n. 14, indicates that it may actually take longer for the Court of Claims to dispose of a case than it would for the boards.
To the extent that the Court of Claims may have been worried about duplicity of evidentiary hearings, see United States v. Carlo Bianchi, supra, at 717, it partially answered itself in Morrison-Knudsen Co. v. United States, 170 Ct. Cl. 757, 345 F. 2d 833, decided the same day. There the Court of Claims held that when the Board of Contract Appeals has jurisdiction to consider a certain issue and to award full relief and it makes a record on the factual matters underlying that issue, judicial review of those factual findings, for whatever purposes, shall be limited to the record made by the Board. We hold, in United States v. Utah Construction & Mining Co., supra, that factual findings made by a board pursuant to a claim properly before it, if they otherwise satisfy the standards of the Wunderlich Act, shall not be relitigated even in a court action for relief that is not available under the contract. Hence, there will be only one evidentiary hearing.
The Board below observed, “The parties are in complete agreement that it was and is their mutual interpretation that in the event a timely appeal is taken thereunder the ‘disputes paragraph’ of the Letter of Acceptability confers jurisdiction on the Board to review a decision relating to cancellation of commitments, withholding of bid security, and itemization and determination of actual damages.” Both the Court of Claims and the Trial Commissioner observed that there were “unresolved issues of fact” underlying the issues in this case. 170 Ct. Cl. 688, 691, 345 F. 2d 808, 810.
There is analogy for the rule we announce today in other areas of administrative law. See, e. g., Securities Comm’n v. Chenery Corp., 318 U. S. 80, and Connecticut Light & Power Co. v. Federal Power Comm’n, 324 U. S. 515, where this Court ordered the eases remanded to the agencies for further findings and consideration rather than itself curing the inadequacies of the records below. See generally, Davis, Administrative Law Treatise, §§ 16.01, 20.06 (1958). The same general rule also applies in the area of labor arbitration. In United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U. S. 593, the arbitrator had failed to determine the amount of back pay to which reinstated employees would be entitled and this Court ordered the matter remanded to the arbitrator for resolution of this issue. The Court observed there that it was the arbitrator’s determination “which was bargained for.” Much the same thing can be said here, although of course the findings and conclusions of the Board of Contract Appeals do not have the same finality on review. See also International Association of Machinists v. Crown Cork & Seal Co., 300 F. 2d 127.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases arise out of an air crash that took place in Scotland. Respondent, acting as representative of the estates of several Scottish citizens killed in the accident, brought wrongful-death actions against petitioners that were ultimately transferred to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Petitioners moved to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens. After noting that an alternative forum existed in Scotland, the District Court granted their motions. 479 F. Supp. 727 (1979). The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed. 630 F. 2d 149 (1980). The Court of Appeals based its decision, at least in part, on the ground that dismissal is automatically barred where the law of the alternative forum is less favorable to the plaintiff than the law of the forum chosen by the plaintiff. Because we conclude that the possibility of an unfavorable change in law should not, by itself, bar dismissal, and because we conclude that the District Court did not otherwise abuse its discretion, we reverse.
I
A
In July 1976, a small commercial aircraft crashed in the Scottish highlands during the course of a charter flight from Blackpool to Perth. The pilot and five passengers were killed instantly. The decedents were all Scottish subjects and residents, as are their heirs and next of kin. There were no eyewitnesses to the accident. At the time of the crash the plane was subject to Scottish air traffic control.
The aircraft, a twin-engine Piper Aztec, was manufactured in Pennsylvania by petitioner Piper Aircraft Co. (Piper). The propellers were manufactured in Ohio by petitioner Hartzell Propeller, Inc. (Hartzell). At the time of the crash the aircraft was registered in Great Britain and was owned and maintained by Air Navigation and Trading Co., Ltd. (Air Navigation). It was operated by McDonald Aviation, Ltd. (McDonald), a Scottish air taxi service. Both Air Navigation and McDonald were organized in the United Kingdom. The wreckage of the plane is now in a hangar in Farnsborough, England.
The British Department of Trade investigated the accident shortly after it occurred. A preliminary report found that the plane crashed after developing a spin, and suggested that mechanical failure in the plane or the propeller was responsible. At Hartzell’s request, this report was reviewed by a three-member Review Board, which held a 9-day adversary hearing attended by all interested parties. The Review Board found no evidence of defective equipment and indicated that pilot error may have contributed to the accident. The pilot, who had obtained his commercial pilot’s license only three months earlier, was flying over high ground at an altitude considerably lower than the minimum height required by his company’s operations manual.
In July 1977, a California probate court appointed respondent Gaynell Reyno administratrix of the estates of the five passengers. Reyno is not related to and does not know any of the decedents or their survivors; she was a legal secretary to the attorney who filed this lawsuit. Several days after her appointment, Reyno commenced separate wrongful-death actions against Piper and Hartzell in the Superior Court of California, claiming negligence and strict liability. Air Navigation, McDonald, and the estate of the pilot are not parties to this litigation. The survivors of the five passengers whose estates are represented by Reyno filed a separate action in the United Kingdom against Air Navigation, McDonald, and the pilot’s estate. Reyno candidly admits that the action against Piper and Hartzell was filed in the United States because its laws regarding liability, capacity to sue, and damages are more favorable to her position than are those of Scotland. Scottish law does not recognize strict liability in tort. Moreover, it permits wrongful-death actions only when brought by a decedent’s relatives. The relatives may sue only for “loss of support and society.”
On petitioners’ motion, the suit was removed to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. Piper then moved for transfer to the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania, pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1404(a). Hartzell moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, or in the alternative, to transfer. In December 1977, the District Court quashed service on Hartzell and transferred the case to the Middle District of Pennsylvania. Respondent then properly served process on Hartzell.
B
In May 1978, after the suit had been transferred, both Hartzell and Piper moved to dismiss the action on the ground of forum non conveniens. The District Court granted these motions in October 1979. It relied on the balancing test set forth by this Court in Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U. S. 501 (1947), and its companion case, Rosier v. Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co., 330 U. S. 518 (1947). In those decisions, the Court stated that a plaintiffs choice of forum should rarely be disturbed. However, when an alternative forum has jurisdiction to hear the case, and when trial in the chosen forum would “establish... oppressiveness and vexation to a defendant... out of all proportion to plaintiffs convenience,” or when the “chosen forum [is] inappropriate because of considerations affecting the court’s own administrative and legal problems,” the court may, in the exercise of its sound discretion, dismiss the case. Roster, swpra, at 524. To guide trial court discretion, the Court provided a list of “private interest factors” affecting the convenience of the litigants, and a list of “public interest factors” affecting the convenience of the forum. Gilbert, supra, at 508-509.
After describing our decisions in Gilbert and Koster, the District Court analyzed the facts of these cases. It began by observing that an alternative forum existed in Scotland; Piper and Hartzell had agreed to submit to the jurisdiction of the Scottish courts and to waive any statute of limitations defense that might be available. It then stated that plaintiffs choice of forum was entitled to little weight. The court recognized that a plaintiffs choice ordinarily deserves substantial deference. It noted, however, that Reyno “is a representative of foreign citizens and residents seeking a forum in the United States because of the more liberal rules concerning products liability law,” and that “the courts have been less solicitous when the plaintiff is not an American citizen or resident, and particularly when the foreign citizens seek to benefit from the more liberal tort rules provided for the protection of citizens and residents of the United States.” 479 F. Supp., at 731.
The District Court next examined several factors relating to the private interests of the litigants, and determined that these factors strongly pointed towards Scotland as the appropriate forum. Although evidence concerning the design, manufacture, and testing of the plane and propeller is located in the United States, the connections with Scotland are otherwise “overwhelming.” /d, at 732. The real parties in interest are citizens of Scotland, as were all the decedents. Witnesses who could testify regarding the maintenance of the aircraft, the training of the pilot, and the investigation of the accident — all essential to the defense — are in Great Britain. Moreover, all witnesses to damages are located in Scotland. Trial would be aided by familiarity with Scottish topography, and by easy access to the wreckage.
The District Court reasoned that because crucial witnesses and evidence were beyond the reach of compulsory process, and because the defendants would not be able to implead potential Scottish third-party defendants, it would be “unfair to make Piper and Hartzell proceed to trial in this forum.” Id., at 733. The survivors had brought separate actions in Scotland against the pilot, McDonald, and Air Navigation. “[I]t would be fairer to all parties and less costly if the entire case was presented to one jury with available testimony from all relevant witnesses.” Ibid. Although the court recognized that if trial were held in the United States, Piper and Hartzell could file indemnity or contribution actions against the Scottish defendants, it believed that there was a significant risk of inconsistent verdicts.
The District Court concluded that the relevant public interests also pointed strongly towards dismissal. The court determined that Pennsylvania law would apply to Piper and Scottish law to Hartzell if the case were tried in the Middle District of Pennsylvania. As a result, “trial in this forum would be hopelessly complex and confusing for a jury.” Id., at 734. In addition, the court noted that it was unfamiliar with Scottish law and thus would have to rely upon experts from that country. The court also found that the trial would be enormously costly and time-consuming; that it would be unfair to burden citizens with jury duty when the Middle District of Pennsylvania has little connection with the controversy; and that Scotland has a substantial interest in the outcome of the litigation.
In opposing the motions to dismiss, respondent contended that dismissal would be unfair because Scottish law was less favorable. The District Court explicitly rejected this claim. It reasoned that the possibility that dismissal might lead to an unfavorable change in the law did not deserve significant weight; any deficiency in the foreign law was a “matter to be dealt with in the foreign forum.” Id., at 738.
C
On appeal, the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit reversed and remanded for trial. The decision to reverse appears to be based on two alternative grounds. First, the Court held that the District Court abused its discretion in conducting the Gilbert analysis. Second, the Court held that dismissal is never appropriate where the law of the alternative forum is less favorable to the plaintiff.
The Court of Appeals began its review of the District Court’s Gilbert analysis by noting that the plaintiffs choice of forum deserved substantial weight, even though the real parties in interest are nonresidents. It then rejected the District Court’s balancing of the private interests. It found that Piper and Hartzell had failed adequately to support their claim that key witnesses would be unavailable if trial were held in the United States: they had never specified the witnesses they would call and the testimony these witnesses would provide. The Court of Appeals gave little weight to the fact that Piper and Hartzell would not be able to implead potential Scottish third-party defendants, reasoning that this difficulty would be “burdensome” but not “unfair,” 630 F. 2d, at 162. Finally, the court stated that resolution of the suit would not be significantly aided by familiarity with Scottish topography, or by viewing the wreckage.
The Court of Appeals also rejected the District Court’s analysis of the public interest factors. It found that the District Court gave undue emphasis to the application of Scottish law: “ ‘the mere fact that the court is called upon to determine and apply foreign law does not present a legal problem of the sort which would justify the dismissal of a case otherwise properly before the court.’” Id., at 163 (quoting Hoffman v. Goberman, 420 F. 2d 423, 427 (CA3 1970)). In any event, it believed that Scottish law need not be applied. After conducting its own choice-of-law analysis, the Court of Appeals determined that American law would govern the actions against both Piper and Hartzell. The same choice-of-law analysis apparently led it to conclude that Pennsylvania and Ohio, rather than Scotland, are the jurisdictions with the greatest policy interests in the dispute, and that all other public interest factors favored trial in the United States.
In any event, it appears that the Court of Appeals would have reversed even if the District Court had properly balanced the public and private interests. The court stated:
“[I]t is apparent that the dismissal would work a change in the applicable law so that the plaintiff’s strict liability claim would be eliminated from the case. But... a dismissal for forum non conveniens, like a statutory transfer, ‘should not, despite its convenience, result in a change in the applicable law.’ Only when American law is not applicable, or when the foreign jurisdiction would, as a matter of its own choice of law, give the plaintiff the benefit of the claim to which she is entitled here, would dismissal be justified.” 630 F. 2d, at 163-164 (footnote omitted) (quoting DeMateos v. Texaco, Inc., 562 F. 2d 895, 899 (CA3 1977), cert. denied, 435 U. S. 904 (1978)).
In other words, the court decided that dismissal is automatically barred if it would lead to a change in the applicable law unfavorable to the plaintiff.
We granted certiorari in these cases to consider the questions they raise concerning the proper application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. 450 U. S. 909 (1981).
II
The Court of Appeals erred m holding that plaintiffs may defeat a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens merely by showing that the substantive law that would be applied in the alternative forum is less favorable to the plaintiffs than that of the present forum. The possibility of a change in substantive law should ordinarily not be given conclusive or even substantial weight in the forum non conveniens inquiry.
We expressly rejected the position adopted by the Court of Appeals in our decision in Canada Malting Co. v. Paterson Steamships, Ltd., 285 U. S. 413 (1932). That case arose out of a collision between two vessels in American waters. The Canadian owners of cargo lost in the accident sued the Canadian owners of one of the vessels in Federal District Court. The cargo owners chose an American court in large part because the relevant American liability rules were more favorable than the Canadian rules. The District Court dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens. The plaintiffs argued that dismissal was inappropriate because Canadian laws were less favorable to them. This Court nonetheless affirmed:
“We have no occasion to enquire by what law the rights of the parties are governed, as we are of the opinion that, under any view of that question, it lay within the discretion of the District Court to decline to assume jurisdiction over the controversy.... ‘[T]he court will not take cognizance of the case if justice would be as well done by remitting the parties to their home forum.’” Id., at 419-420 (quoting Charter Shipping Co. v. Bowring, Jones & Tidy, Ltd., 281 U. S. 515, 517 (1930).
The Court further stated that “[tjhere was no basis for the contention that the District Court abused its discretion.” 285 U.S., at 423.
It is true that Canada Malting was decided before Gilbert, and that the doctrine of forum non conveniens was not fully crystallized until our decision in that case. However, Gilbert in no way affects the validity of Canada Malting. Indeed, by holding that the central focus of the forum non conveniens inquiry is convenience, Gilbert implicitly recognized that dismissal may not be barred solely because of the possibility of an unfavorable change in law. Under Gilbert, dismissal will ordinarily be appropriate where trial in the plaintiffs chosen forum imposes a heavy burden on the defendant or the court, and where the plaintiff is unable to offer any specific reasons of convenience supporting his choice. If substantial weight were given to the possibility of an unfavorable change in law, however, dismissal might be barred even where trial in the chosen forum was plainly inconvenient.
The Court of Appeals’ decision is inconsistent with this Court’s earlier forum non conveniens decisions in another respect. Those decisions have repeatedly emphasized the need to retain flexibility. In Gilbert, the Court refused to identify specific circumstances “which will justify or require either grant or denial of remedy.” 330 U. S., at 508. Similarly, in Koster, the Court rejected the contention that where a trial would involve inquiry into the internal affairs of a foreign corporation, dismissal was always appropriate. “That is one, but only one, factor which may show convenience.” 330 U. S., at 527. And in Williams v. Green Bay & Western R. Co., 326 U. S. 549, 557 (1946), we stated that we would not lay down a rigid rule to govern discretion, and that “[ejach case turns on its facts.” If central emphasis were placed on any one factor, the forum non conveniens doctrine would lose much of the very flexibility that makes it so valuable.
In fact, if conclusive or substantial weight were given to the possibility of a change in law, the forum non conveniens doctrine would become virtually useless. Jurisdiction and venue requirements are often easily satisfied. As a result, many plaintiffs are able to choose from among several forums. Ordinarily, these plaintiffs will select that forum whose choice-of-law rules are most advantageous. Thus, if the possibility of an unfavorable change in substantive law is given substantial weight in the forum non conveniens inquiry, dismissal would rarely be proper.
Except for the court below, every Federal Court of Appeals that has considered this question after Gilbert has held that dismissal on grounds oí forum non conveniens may be granted even though the law applicable in the alternative forum is less favorable to the plaintiff’s chance of recovery. See, e. g., Pain v. United Technologies Corp., 205 U. S. App. D. C. 229, 248-249, 637 F. 2d 775, 794-795 (1980); Fitzgerald v. Texaco, Inc., 521 F. 2d 448, 453 (CA2 1975), cert. denied, 423 U. S. 1052 (1976); Anastasiadis v. S.S. Little John, 346 F. 2d 281, 283 (CA5 1965), cert. denied, 384 U. S. 920 (1966). Several courts have relied expressly on Canada Malting to hold that the possibility of an unfavorable change of law should not, by itself, bar dismissal. See Fitz gerald v. Texaco, Inc., supra; Anglo-American Grain Co. v. The S/T Mina D'Amico, 169 F. Supp. 908 (ED Va. 1959).
The Court of Appeals’ approach is not only inconsistent with the purpose of the forum non conveniens doctrine, but also poses substantial practical problems. If the possibility of a change in law were given substantial weight, deciding motions to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens would become quite difficult. Choice-of-law analysis would become extremely important, and the courts would frequently be required to interpret the law of foreign jurisdictions. First, the trial court would have to determine what law would apply if the case were tried in the chosen forum, and what law would apply if the case were tried in the alternative forum. It would then have to compare the rights, remedies, and procedures available under the law that would be applied in each forum. Dismissal would be appropriate only if the court concluded that the law applied by the alternative forum is as favorable to the plaintiff as that of the chosen forum. The doctrine offorum non conveniens, however, is designed in part to help courts avoid conducting complex exercises in comparative law. As we stated in Gilbert, the public interest factors point towards dismissal where the court would be required to “untangle problems in conflict of laws, and in law foreign to itself.” 330 U. S., at 509.
Upholding the decision of the Court of Appeals would result in other practical problems. At least where the foreign plaintiff named an American manufacturer as defendant, a court could not dismiss the case on grounds of forum non conveniens where dismissal might lead to an unfavorable change in law. The American courts, which are already extremely attractive to foreign plaintiffs, would become even more attractive. The flow of litigation into the United States would increase and further congest already crowded courts.
The Court of Appeals based its decision, at least in part, on an analogy between dismissals on grounds of forum non conveniens and transfers between federal courts pursuant to § 1404(a). In Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U. S. 612 (1964), this Court ruled that a § 1404(a) transfer should not result in a change in the applicable law. Relying on dictum in an earlier Third Circuit opinion interpreting Van Dusen, the court below held that that principle is also applicable to a dismissal on forum non conveniens grounds. 630 F. 2d, at 164, and n. 51 (citing DeMateos v. Texaco, Inc., 562 F. 2d, at 899). However, § 1404(a) transfers are different than dismissals on the ground of forum non conveniens.
Congress enacted § 1404(a) to permit change of venue between federal courts. Although the statute was drafted in accordance with the doctrine of forum non conveniens, see Revisor’s Note, H. R. Rep. No. 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., A132 (1947); H. R. Rep. No. 2646, 79th Cong., 2d Sess., A127 (1946), it was intended to be a revision rather than a codification of the common law. Norwood v. Kirkpatrick, 349 U. S. 29 (1955). District courts were given more discretion to transfer under § 1404(a) than they had to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens. Id., at 31-32.
The reasoning employed in Van Dusen v. Barrack is simply inapplicable to dismissals on grounds of forum non conveniens. That case did not discuss the common-law doctrine. Rather, it focused on “the construction and application” of § 1404(a). 376 U. S., at 613. Emphasizing the remedial purpose of the statute, Barrack concluded that Congress could not have intended a transfer to be accompanied by a change in law. Id., at 622. The statute was designed as a “federal housekeeping measure,” allowing easy change of venue within a unified federal system. Id., at 613. The Court feared that if a change in venue were accompanied by a change in law, forum-shopping parties would take unfair advantage of the relaxed standards for transfer. The rule was necessary to ensure the just and efficient operation of the statute.
We do not hold that the possibility of an unfavorable change in law should never be a relevant consideration in a forum non conveniens inquiry. Of course, if the remedy provided by the alternative forum is so clearly inadequate or unsatisfactory that it is no remedy at all, the unfavorable change in law may be given substantial weight; the district court may conclude that dismissal would not be in the interests of justice. In these cases, however, the remedies that would be provided by the Scottish courts do not fall within this category. Although the relatives of the decedents may not be able to rely on a strict liability theory, and although their potential damages award may be smaller, there is no danger that they will be deprived of any remedy or treated unfairly.
Ill
The Court of Appeals also erred in rejecting the District Court’s Gilbert analysis. • The Court of Appeals stated that more weight should have been given to the plaintiff’s choice of forum, and criticized the District Court’s analysis of the private and public interests. However, the District Court’s decision regarding the deference due plaintiff’s choice of forum was appropriate. Furthermore, we do not believe that the District Court abused its discretion in weighing the private and public interests.
A
The District Court acknowledged that there is ordinarily a strong presumption in favor of the plaintiff’s choice of forum, which may be overcome only when the private and public interest factors clearly point towards trial in the alternative forum. It held, however, that the presumption applies with less force when the plaintiff or real parties in interest are foreign.
The District Court’s distinction between resident or citizen plaintiffs and foreign plaintiffs is fully justified. In Koster, the Court indicated that a plaintiff’s choice of forum is entitled to greater deference when the plaintiff has chosen the home forum. 330 U. S., at 524. When the home forum has been chosen, it is reasonable to assume that this choice is convenient. When the plaintiff is foreign, however, this assumption is much less reasonable. Because the central purpose of any forum non conveniens inquiry is to ensure that the trial is convenient, a foreign plaintiff’s choice deserves less deference.
B
The forum non conveniens determination is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court. It may be reversed only when there has been a clear abuse of discretion; where the court has considered all relevant public and private interest factors, and where its balancing of these factors is reasonable, its decision deserves substantial deference. Gilbert, 330 U. S., at 511-512; Roster, 330 U. S., at 531. Here, the Court of Appeals expressly acknowledged that the standard of review was one of abuse of discretion. In examining the District Court’s analysis of the public and private interests, however, the Court of Appeals seems to have lost sight of this rule, and substituted its own judgment for that of the District Court.
(1)
In analyzing the private interest factors, the District Court stated that the connections with Scotland are “overwhelming.” 479 F. Supp., at 732. This characterization may be somewhat exaggerated. Particularly with respect to the question of relative ease of access to sources of proof, the private interests point in both directions. As respondent emphasizes, records concerning the design, manufacture, and testing of the propeller and plane are located in the United States. She would have greater access to sources of proof relevant to her strict liability and negligence theories if trial were held here. However, the District Court did not act unreasonably in concluding that fewer evidentiary problems would be posed if the trial were held in Scotland. A large proportion of the relevant evidence is located in Great Britain.
The Court of Appeals found that the problems of proof could not be given any weight because Piper and Hartzell failed to describe with specificity the evidence they would not be able to obtain if trial were held in the United States. It suggested that defendants seeking forum non conveniens dismissal must submit affidavits identifying the witnesses they would call and the testimony these witnesses would provide if the trial were held in the alternative forum. Such detail is not necessary. Piper and Hartzell have moved for dismissal precisely because many crucial witnesses are located beyond the reach of compulsory process, and thus are difficult to identify or interview. Requiring extensive investigation would defeat the purpose of their motion. Of course, defendants must provide enough information to enable the District Court to balance the parties’ interests. Our examination of the record convinces us that sufficient information was provided here. Both Piper and Hartzell submitted affidavits describing the evidentiary problems they would face if the trial were held in the United States.
The District Court correctly concluded that the problems posed by the inability to implead potential third-party defendants clearly supported holding the trial in Scotland. Joinder of the pilot’s estate, Air Navigation, and McDonald is crucial to the presentation of petitioners’ defense. If Piper and Hartzell can show that the accident was caused not by a design defect, but rather by the negligence of the pilot, the plane’s owners, or the charter company, they will be relieved of all liability. It is true, of course, that if Hartzell and Piper were found liable after a trial in the United States, they could institute an action for indemnity or contribution against these parties in Scotland. It would be far more convenient, however, to resolve all claims in one trial. The Court of Appeals rejected this argument. Forcing petitioners to rely on actions for indemnity or contributions would be “burdensome” but not “unfair.” 630 F. 2d, at 162. Finding that trial in the plaintiff’s chosen forum would be burdensome, however, is sufficient to support dismissal on grounds of forum non conveniens,
(2)
The District Court’s review of the factors relating to the public interest was also reasonable. On the basis of its choice-of-law analysis, it concluded that if the case were tried in the Middle District of Pennsylvania, Pennsylvania law would apply to Piper and Scottish law to Hartzell. It stated that a trial involving two sets of laws would be confusing to the jury. It also noted its own lack of familiarity with Scottish law. Consideration of these problems was clearly appropriate under Gilbert; in that case we explicitly held that the need to apply foreign law pointed towards dismissal. The Court of Appeals found that the District Court’s choice-of-law analysis was incorrect, and that American law would apply to both Hartzell and Piper. Thus, lack of familiarity with foreign law would not be a problem. Even if the Court of Appeals’ conclusion is correct, however, all other public interest factors favored trial in Scotland.
Scotland has a very strong interest in this litigation. The accident occurred in its airspace. All of the decedents were Scottish. Apart from Piper and Hartzell, all potential plaintiffs and defendants are either Scottish or English. As we stated in Gilbert, there is “a local interest in having localized controversies decided at home.” 330 U. S., at 509. Respondent argues that American citizens have an interest in ensuring that American manufacturers are deterred from producing defective products, and that additional deterrence might be obtained if Piper and Hartzell were tried in the United States, where they could be sued on the basis of both negligence and strict liability. However, the incremental deterrence that would be gained if this trial were held in an American court is likely to be insignificant. The American interest in this accident is simply not sufficient to justify the enormous commitment of judical time and resources that would inevitably be required if the case were to be tried here.
IV
The Court of Appeals erred in holding that the possibility of an unfavorable change in law bars dismissal on the ground of forum non conveniens. It also erred in rejecting the District Court’s Gilbert analysis. The District Court properly decided that the presumption in favor of the respondent’s forum choice applied with less than maximum force because the real parties in interest are foreign. It did not act unreasonably in deciding that the private interests pointed towards trial in Scotland. Nor did it act unreasonably in deciding that the public interests favored trial in Scotland. Thus, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Justice Powell took no part in the decision of these cases.
Justice O’Connor took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
Avco-Lycoming, Inc., the manufacturer of the plane’s engines, was also named as a defendant. It was subsequently dismissed from the suit by stipulation.
The pilot’s estate has also filed suit in the United Kingdom against Air Navigation, McDonald, Piper, and Hartzell.
See Affidavit of Donald Ian Kerr MacLeod, App. A19 (affidavit submitted to District Court by petitioners describing Scottish law). Suits for damages are governed by The Damages (Scotland) Act 1976.
Section 1404(a) provides: “For the convenience of parties and witnesses, in the interest of justice, a district court may transfer any civil action to any other district or division where it might have been brought.”
The District Court concluded that it could not assert personal jurisdiction over Hartzell consistent with due process. However, it decided not to dismiss Hartzell because the corporation would be amenable to process in Pennsylvania.
The factors pertaining to the private interests of the litigants included the “relative ease of access to sources of proof; availability of compulsory process for attendance of unwilling, and the cost of obtaining attendance of willing, witnesses; possibility of view of premises, if view would be appropriate to the action; and all other practical problems that make trial of a case easy, expeditious and inexpensive.” Gilbert, 330 U. S., at 508. The public factors bearing on the question included the administrative difficulties flowing from court congestion; the “local interest in having localized controversies decided at home”; the interest in having the trial of a diversity case in a forum that is at home with the law that must govern the action; the avoidance of unnecessary problems in conflict of laws, or in the application of foreign law; and the unfairness of burdening citizens in an unrelated forum with jury duty. Id,., at 509.
The District Court explained that inconsistent verdicts might result if petitioners were held liable on the basis of strict liability here, and then required to prove negligence in an indemnity action in Scotland. Moreover, even if the same standard of liability applied, there was a danger that different juries would find different facts and produce inconsistent results.
Under Klaxon v. Stentor Electric Mfg. Co., 313 U. S. 487 (1941), a court ordinarily must apply the choice-of-law rules of the State in which it sits. However, where a case is transferred pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1404(a), it must apply the choice-of-law rules of the State from which the case was transferred. Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U. S. 612 (1946). Relying on these two cases, the District Court concluded that California choice-of-law rules would apply to Piper, and Pennsylvania choice-of-law rules would apply to Hartzell. It further concluded that California applied a “governmental interests” analysis in resolving choice-of-law problems, and that Pennsylvania employed a “significant contacts” analysis. The court used the “governmental interests” analysis to determine that Pennsylvania liability rules would apply to Piper, and the “significant contacts” analysis to determine that Scottish liability rules would apply to Hartzell.
The court claimed that the risk of inconsistent verdicts was slight because Pennsylvania and Scotland both adhere to principles of res judicata.
The Court of Appeals agreed with the District Court that California choice-of-law rules applied to Piper, and that Pennsylvania choice-of-law rules applied to Hartzell, see n. 8, supra. It did not agree, however, that California used a “governmental interests” analysis and that Pennsylvania used a “significant contacts” analysis. Rather, it believed that both jurisdictions employed the “false conflicts” test. Applying this test, it concluded that Ohio and Pennsylvania had a greater policy interest in the dispute than Scotland, and that American law would apply to both Piper and Hartzell.
The court’s reasoning on this point is somewhat unclear. It states: “We have held that under the applicable choice of law rules Pennsylvania and Ohio are the jurisdictions with the greatest policy interest in this dispute. It follows that the other public interest factors that should be considered under the Supreme Court cases of Gilbert and Koster favor trial in this country rather than Scotland.” 630 F. 2d, at 171.
The Court of Appeals concluded as part of its choice-of-law analysis that the United States had the greatest policy interest in the dispute. See n. 10, supra. It apparently believed that this conclusion necessarily implied that the forum non conveniens public interest factors pointed toward trial in the United States.
we granted certiorari in No. 80-848 to consider the question “[w]hether, in an action in federal district court brought by foreign plaintiffs against American defendants, the plaintiffs may defeat a motion to dismiss on the ground of forum non conveniens merely by showing that the substantive law that would be applied if the case were litigated in the district court is more favorable to them than the law that would be applied by the courts of their own nation.” We granted certiorari in No. 80-883 to consider the question whether “a motion to dismiss on grounds of forum non conveniens [should] be denied whenever the law of the alternate forum is less favorable to recovery than that which would be applied by the district court.”
In this opinion, we begin by considering whether the Court of Appeals properly held that the possibility of an unfavorable change in law automatically bars dismissal. Part II, infra. Since we conclude that the Court of Appeals erred, we then consider its review of the District Court’s Gilbert analysis to determine whether dismissal was otherwise appropriate. Part III, infra. We believe that it is necessary to discuss the Gilbert analysis in order to properly dispose of the cases.
The questions on which certiorari was granted are sufficiently broad to justify our discussion of the District Court’s Gilbert analysis. However, even if the issues we discuss in Part III are not within the bounds of the questions with respect to which certiorari was granted, our consideration of these issues is not inappropriate. An order limiting the grant of certio-rari does not operate as a jurisdictional bar. We may consider questions outside the scope of the limited order when resolution of those questions is necessary for the proper disposition of the case. See Olmstead
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Jackson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner and respondent are public electric utilities companies engaged in interstate commerce. Petitioner’s predecessor and respondent were under the same management through interlocking directorships and joint officers. During that relationship the two interchanged electric energy, shared expenses, and made a number of intercompany contracts establishing rates and charges, which contracts were filed with and accepted by the Federal Power Commission. These contract rates and charges are at the root of this controversy. Petitioner charges that, during the period 1935-1945, its predecessor paid respondent unreasonably high prices for what respondent furnished it, and that it received unreasonably low rates for what it provided respondent. That advantage, it is alleged, was fraudulent and unlawful and was due to the interlocking directorate, which prevented protest to the Commission to have reasonable rates and charges established pursuant to the provisions of the Federal Power Act.
Petitioner sued in United States District Court and asserted jurisdiction on the ground that the case “arises under the Constitution or laws of the United States” and, more particularly, under a “law regulating commerce,” specifically the Federal Power Act.
Petitioner was successful in the District Court, which found the contracts void for fraud and the rates and charges established therein unreasonable. The court also determined what would have been reasonable rates and charges for the period in question and gave judgment for the difference between its conception of reasonable charges and the actual charges, amounting to over three-quarters of a million dollars.
The judgment was reversed by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit on the ground that the District Court was without jurisdiction.
As frequently happens where jurisdiction depends on subject matter, the question whether jurisdiction exists has been confused with the question whether the complaint states a cause of action. The Judicial Code, in vesting jurisdiction in the District Courts, does not create causes of action, but only confers jurisdiction to adjudicate those arising from other sources which satisfy its limiting provisions. Petitioner asserted a cause of action under the Power Act. To determine whether that claim is well founded, the District Court must take jurisdiction, whether its ultimate resolution is to be in the affirmative or the negative. If the complaint raises a federal question, the mere claim confers power to decide that it has no merit, as well as to decide that it has. In the words of Mr. Justice Holmes, “. . . if the plaintiff really makes a substantial claim under an act of Congress there is jurisdiction whether the claim ultimately be held good or bad.” The Fair v. Kohler Die Co., 228 U. S. 22, 25. See also Hurn v. Oursler, 289 U. S. 238, 240. Even a patently frivolous complaint might be sufficient to confer power to make a final decision that it is of that nature, binding as res judicata on the parties.
Petitioner’s complaint, in substance, alleges existence of the interlocking directorship, contends that such relationship was used fraudulently to deprive it of its federally conferred right to reasonable rates and charges, and demands reparations. We think there was power in the District Court to decide whether the claims so grounded constitute a cause of action maintainable in federal court and, if so, whether it is sustained on the facts. We think a direction to dismiss for want of jurisdiction was error and that it should not stand as a precedent.
However, it is clear that the reason underlying the Court of Appeals’ decision was that no federal cause of action was established. If this was correct, we should sustain the judgment of reversal, though on other grounds than those stated.
The petitioner's problem is to avoid Scylla without being drawn into Charybdis. If its cause of action arises from fraud and deceit, it is a common-law action of which a federal court has no jurisdiction, there being no diversity in citizenship of these parties. But if it arises from being charged rates in excess of those permitted by the Power Act, it is confronted with the exclusive powers of the Commission to determine what those rates are to be. Hence, it is necessary to bring the case into court, not as a fraud action, but as one to enforce the Power Act, using the allegations of fraud to escape the limitations of the Power Commission remedies.
I.
Petitioner identifies as the source of its cause of action the Federal Power Act’s requirement of reasonable electric utility rates, which, it contends, creates its legal right to rates which a court may deem reasonable, even if different from those accepted by the Federal Power Commission. It is admitted, however, that a utility could not institute a suit in a federal court to recover a portion of past rates which it simply alleges were unreasonable. It would be out of court for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, for, at any time in the past, it could have applied for and secured a review and, perhaps, a reduction of the rates by the Commission.
Petitioner gives its case a different cast by alleging that by fraudulent abuse of the interlocking relationship its predecessor was deprived of its independence and power to resort to its administrative remedy.
But the problem is whether it is open to the courts to determine what the reasonable rates during the past should have been. The petitioner, in contending that they are so empowered, and the District Court, in undertaking to exercise that power, both regard reasonableness as a justiciable legal right rather than a criterion for administrative application in determining a lawful rate. Statutory reasonableness is an abstract quality represented by an area rather than a pinpoint. It allows a substantial spread between what is unreasonable because too low and what is unreasonable because too high. To reduce the abstract concept of reasonableness to concrete expression in dollars and cents is the function of the Commission. It is not the disembodied “reasonableness” but that standard when embodied in a rate which the Commission accepts or determines that governs the rights of buyer and seller. A court may think a different level more reasonable. But the prescription of the statute is a standard for the Commission to apply and, independently of Commission action, creates no right which courts may enforce.
Petitioner cannot separate what Congress has joined together. It cannot litigate in a judicial forum its general right to a reasonable rate, ignoring the qualification that it shall be made specific only by exercise of the Commission’s judgment, in which there is some considerable element of discretion. It can claim no rate as a legal right that is other than the filed rate, whether fixed or merely accepted by the Commission, and not even a court can authorize commerce in the commodity on other terms.
We hold that the right to a reasonable rate is the right to the rate which the Commission files or fixes, and that, except for review of the Commission’s orders, the courts can assume no right to a different one on the ground that, in its opinion, it is the only or the more reasonable one.
II.
The petitioner here contends that its case is different by reason of its allegations of fraud. Those, the evidence that supports them, and the findings are exceedingly general, and it is not entirely clear whether, in addition to the claim that constructive fraud may be inferred from the intercorporate relationship, specific acts of deceit are found. Nor does it appear to have been thought that the difference between constructive and actual fraud mattered.
If the petitioner’s grievance arises from active fraud and deceit, it gains nothing from the Federal Act. Such an action would have been maintainable if no Federal Power Act had been enacted. Before the Act, petitioner would have had no statutory right to a reasonable rate, but it did have a common-law right not to be defrauded into paying an excessive or unreasonable one. The Federal Act adds nothing to fraud as an actionable wrong, and, therefore, to find a cause of action of this character would only be to dismiss it for want of diversity.
But petitioner’s case appears to have rested more heavily and perhaps entirely on constructive fraud presumed from the intercorporate relationship. The Act vests in the Commission power to authorize an interlocking directorate, which otherwise is prohibited, “upon due showing . . . that neither public nor private interests will be adversely affected thereby.” The relationship here concerned had received Commission approval. The effect of the approval is to exempt the relationship from the ban of the Act and remove from it any presumption of fraud that might be thought to arise from its mere existence. It would be a strange contradiction between judicial and administrative policies if a relationship which the Commission has declared will not adversely affect public or private interests were regarded by courts as enough to create a presumption of fraud. Perhaps, in the absence of the Commission’s approval, such relationship would be sufficient to raise the presumption under state law, but it cannot do so where the federal supervising authority has expressly approved the arrangement.
We need not decide what action the Commission is empowered to take if it believes that a fraud has been committed on itself, for it has taken no action which gives rise to or affects this controversy.
III.
The entire Court is agreed that the judgment rendered by the District Court cannot stand and all agree that it cannot adjudicate the issues that plaintiff tendered to it. We disagree only as to the consequences of the disability. The majority believe the federal court should dismiss the complaint. A minority urges that we should direct the District Court to refer issues to the Federal Power Commission.
It is true that in some cases the Court has directed lower federal courts to stay their hands pending reference to an administrative body of a subsidiary question. Smith v. Hoboken R. Co., 328 U. S. 123; Thompson v. Texas Mexican R. Co., 328 U. S. 134; General American Tank Car Corp. v. El Dorado Terminal Co., 308 U. S. 422. But in all those cases the plaintiff below concededly stated a federally cognizable cause of action, to which the referred issue was subsidiary. In no instance have we directed a court to retain a case in which it could not determine a single one of its vital issues. Here the issue of reasonableness of the charges is not one clearly severable from the issues of liability, for the acts charged do not amount to fraud unless there has been an unreasonable charge. Injury is an essential element of remediable fraud. “Deceit and injury must concur.” Adams v. Clark, 239 N. Y. 403, 410, 146 N. E. 642, 644 (1925). See also Connelly v. Bartlett, 286 Mass. 311, 315, 190 N. E. 799, 801 (1934).
If the court is presented with a case it can decide but some issue is within the competence of an administrative body, in an independent proceeding, to decide, comity and avoidance of conflict as well as other considerations make it proper to refer that issue. But we know of no case where the court has ordered reference of an issue which the administrative body would not itself have jurisdiction to determine in a proceeding for that purpose. The fact that the Congress withheld from the Commission power to grant reparations does not require courts to entertain proceedings they cannot themselves decide in order indirectly to obtain Commission action which Congress did not allow to be taken directly. There is no indication in the Power Act that that was Congress’ intent.
It is urged that this leaves petitioner without a remedy under the Power Act. We agree. In that respect, petitioner is no worse off after losing its lawsuit than its customers are if it wins. Unless we are to assume that this company failed to include its buying costs in its selling rates, we must assume that any unreasonable amounts it paid suppliers it collected from consumers. Indeed, this is the assumption made by the Commission in its brief as amicus curiae here. It is admitted that, if it recoups again what it has already recouped from the public, there is no machinery in or out of court by which others who have paid unreasonable charges to it can recover.
Under such, circumstances, we conclude that, since- the case involves only issues which a federal court cannot decide and can only refer to a body which also would have no independent jurisdiction to decide, it must decline the case forthrightly rather than resort to such improvisation.
The judgment below is affirmed upon the ground that the petitioner has not established a cause of action.
It is so ordered.
41 Stat. 1063, 49 Stat. 838, 62 Stat. 275, 16 U. S. C. §§ 791a-825r.
28 U. S. C. § 1331.
28 U. S. C. § 1337.
Not reported.
181 F. 2d 19.
Section 205 (a) of the Act, 49 Stat. 851, 16 U. S. C. § 824d (a), states that: “All rates and charges . . . and all rules and regulations affecting or pertaining to such rates or charges shall be just and reasonable, and any such rate or charge that is not just and reasonable is hereby declared to be unlawful.”
§ 206 (a), 49 Stat. 852, 16 U. S. C. § 824e (a).
§ 305, 49 Stat. 856, 16 U. S. C. § 825d (b).
S. Rep. No. 621, 74th Cong., 1st Sess. 20.
Brief for the Federal Power Commission as amicus curiae, pp. 13-14.
Id., pp. 14-17.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Rule 8(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that defendants may be charged together “if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses.” Rule 14 of the Rules, in turn, permits a district court to grant a severance of defendants if “it appears that a defendant or the government is prejudiced by a joinder.” In this case, we consider whether Rule 14 requires severance as a matter of law when codefendants present “mutually antagonistic defenses.”
I
Gloria Zafiro, Jose Martinez, Salvador Garcia, and Alfonso Soto were accused of distributing illegal drugs in the Chicago area, operating primarily out of Soto’s bungalow in Chicago and Zafiro’s apartment in Cicero, a nearby suburb. One day, Government agents observed Garcia and Soto place a large box in Soto’s car and drive from Soto’s bungalow to Zafiro’s apartment. The agents followed the two as they carried the box up the stairs. When the agents identified themselves, Garcia and Soto dropped the box and ran into the apartment. The agents entered the apartment in pursuit and found the four petitioners in the living room. The dropped box contained 55 pounds of cocaine. After obtaining a search warrant for the apartment, agents found approximately 16 pounds of cocaine, 25 grams of heroin, and 4 pounds of marijuana inside a suitcase in a closet. Next to the suitcase was a sack containing $22,960 in cash. Police officers also discovered 7 pounds of cocaine in a car parked in Soto’s garage.
The four petitioners were indicted and brought to trial together. At various points during the proceeding, Garcia and Soto moved for severance, arguing that their defenses were mutually antagonistic. Soto testified that he knew nothing about the drug conspiracy. He claimed that Garcia had asked him for a box, which he gave Garcia, and that he (Soto) did not know its contents until they were arrested. Garcia did not testify, but his lawyer argued that Garcia was innocent: The box belonged to Soto and Garcia was ignorant of its contents.
Zafiro and Martinez also repeatedly moved for severance on the ground that their defenses were mutually antagonistic. Zafiro testified that she was merely Martinez’s girlfriend and knew nothing of the conspiracy. She claimed that Martinez stayed in her apartment occasionally, kept some clothes there, and gave her small amounts of money. Although she allowed Martinez to store a suitcase in her closet, she testified, she had no idea that the suitcase contained illegal drugs. Like Garcia, Martinez did not testify. But his lawyer argued that Martinez was only visiting his girlfriend and had no idea that she was involved in distributing drugs.
The District Court denied the motions for severance. The jury convicted all four petitioners of conspiring to possess cocaine, heroin, and marijuana with the intent to distribute. 21 U. S. C. § 846. In addition, Garcia and Soto were convicted of possessing cocaine with the intent to distribute, § 841(a)(1), and Martinez was convicted of possessing cocaine, heroin, and marijuana with the intent to distribute, ibid.
Petitioners appealed their convictions. Garcia, Soto, and Martinez claimed that the District Court abused its discretion in denying their motions to sever. (Zafiro did not appeal the denial of her severance motion, and thus, her claim is not properly before this Court.) The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit acknowledged that “a vast number of cases say that a defendant is entitled to a severance when the ‘defendants present mutually antagonistic defenses’ in the sense that ‘the acceptance of one party’s defense precludes the acquittal of the other defendant.’ ” 945 F. 2d 881, 885 (1991) (quoting United States v. Keck, 773 F. 2d 759, 765 (CA7 1985)). Noting that “mutual antagonism . .. and other . . . characterizations of the effort of one defendant to shift the blame from himself to a codefendant neither control nor illuminate the question of severance,” 945 F. 2d, at 886, the Court of Appeals found that the defendants had not suffered prejudice and affirmed the District Court’s denial of severance. We granted the petition for certiorari, 503 U. S. 935 (1992), and now affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
II
Rule 8(b) states that “[t]wo or more defendants may be charged in the same indictment or information if they are alleged to have participated in the same act or transaction or in the same series of acts or transactions constituting an offense or offenses.” There is a preference in the federal system for joint trials of defendants who are indicted together. Joint trials “play a vital role in the criminal justice system.” Richardson v. Marsh, 481 U. S. 200, 209 (1987). They promote efficiency and “serve the interests of justice by avoiding the scandal and inequity of inconsistent verdicts.” Id., at 210. For these reasons, we repeatedly have approved of joint trials. See ibid.; Opper v. United States, 348 U. S. 84, 95 (1954); United States v. Marchant, 12 Wheat. 480 (1827); cf. 1 C. Wright, Federal Practice and Procedure § 223 (2d ed. 1982) (citing lower court opinions to the same effect). But Rule 14 recognizes that joinder, even when proper under Rule 8(b), may prejudice either a defendant or the Government. Thus, the Rule provides:
“If it appears that a defendant or the government is prejudiced by a joinder of . . . defendants ... for trial together, the court may order an election or separate trials of counts, grant a severance of defendants or provide whatever other relief justice requires.”
In interpreting Rule 14, the Courts of Appeals frequently have expressed the view that “mutually antagonistic” or “irreconcilable” defenses may be so prejudicial in some circumstances as to mandate severance. See, e. g., United States v. Benton, 852 F. 2d 1456, 1469 (CA6), cert. denied, 488 U. S. 993 (1988); United States v. Smith, 788 F. 2d 663, 668 (CA10 1986); Keck, supra, at 765; United States v. Magdaniel-Mora, 746 F. 2d 715, 718 (CA11 1984); United States v. Berkowitz, 662 F. 2d 1127, 1133-1134 (CA5 1981); United States v. Haldeman, 181 U. S. App. D. C. 254, 294-295, 559 F. 2d 31, 71-72 (1976), cert. denied, 431 U. S. 933 (1977). Notwithstanding such assertions, the courts have reversed relatively few convictions for failure to grant a severance on grounds of mutually antagonistic or irreconcilable defenses. See, e. g., United States v. Tootick, 952 F. 2d 1078 (CA9 1991); United States v. Rucker, 915 F. 2d 1511, 1512-1513 (CA11 1990); United States v. Romanello, 726 F. 2d 173 (CA5 1984). The low rate of reversal may reflect the inability of defendants to prove a risk of prejudice in most cases involving conflicting defenses.
Nevertheless, petitioners urge us to adopt a bright-line rule, mandating severance whenever codefendants have conflicting defenses. See Brief for Petitioners i. We decline to do so. Mutually antagonistic defenses are not prejudicial per se. Moreover, Rule 14 does not require severance even if prejudice is shown; rather, it leaves the tailoring of the relief to be granted, if any, to the district court’s sound discretion. See, e. g., United States v. Lane, 474 U. S. 438, 449, n. 12 (1986); Opper, supra, at 95.
We believe that, when defendants properly have been joined under Rule 8(b), a district court should grant a severance under Rule 14 only if there is a serious risk that a joint trial would compromise a specific trial right of one of the defendants, or prevent the jury from making a reliable judgment about guilt or innocence. Such a risk might occur when evidence that the jury should not consider against a defendant and that would not be admissible if a defendant were tried alone is admitted against a codefendant. For example, evidence of a codefendant’s wrongdoing in some circumstances erroneously could lead a jury to conclude that a defendant was guilty. When many defendants are tried together in a complex case and they have markedly different degrees of culpability, this risk of prejudice is heightened. See Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U. S. 750, 774-775 (1946). Evidence that is probative of a defendant’s guilt but technically admissible only against a codefendant also might present a risk of prejudice. See Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123 (1968). Conversely, a defendant might suffer prejudice if essential exculpatory evidence that would be available to a defendant tried alone were unavailable in a joint trial. See, e. g., Tifford v. Wainwright, 588 F. 2d 954 (CA5 1979) (per curiam). The risk of prejudice will vary with the facts in each case, and district courts may find prejudice in situations not discussed here. When the risk of prejudice is high, a district court is more likely to determine that separate trials are necessary, but, as we indicated in Richardson v. Marsh, less drastic measures, such as limiting instructions, often will suffice to cure any risk of prejudice. See 481 U. S., at 211.
Turning to the facts of this case, we note that petitioners do not articulate any specific instances of prejudice. Instead they contend that the very nature of their defenses, without more, prejudiced them. Their theory is that when two defendants both claim they are innocent and each accuses the other of the crime, a jury will conclude (1) that both defendants are lying and convict them both on that basis, or (2) that at least one of the two must be guilty without regard to whether the Government has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
As to the first contention, it is well settled that defendants are not entitled to severance merely because they may have a better chance of acquittal in separate trials. See, e. g., United States v. Martinez, 922 F. 2d 914, 922 (CA1 1991); United States v. Manner, 281 U. S. App. D. C. 89, 98, 887 F. 2d 317, 324 (1989), cert. denied, 493 U. S. 1062 (1990). Rules 8(b) and 14 are designed “to promote economy and efficiency and to avoid a multiplicity of trials, [so long as] these objectives can be achieved without substantial prejudice to the right of the defendants to a fair trial.” Bruton, 391 U. S., at 131, n. 6 (internal quotation marks omitted). While “[a]n important element of a fair trial is that a jury consider only relevant and competent evidence bearing on the issue of guilt or innocence,” ibid, (emphasis added), a fair trial does not include the right to exclude relevant and competent evidence. A defendant normally would not be entitled to exclude the testimony of a former codefendant if the district court did sever their trials, and we see no reason why relevant and competent testimony would be prejudicial merely because the witness is also a codefendant.
As to the second contention, the short answer is that petitioners’ scenario simply did not occur here. The Government argued that all four petitioners were guilty and offered sufficient evidence as to all four petitioners; the jury in turn found all four petitioners guilty of various offenses. Moreover, even if there were some risk of prejudice, here it is of the type that can be cured with proper instructions, and “juries are presumed to follow their instructions.” Richard son, supra, at 211. The District Court properly instructed the jury that the Government had “the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt” that each defendant committed the crimes with which he or she was charged. Tr. 864. The court then instructed the jury that it must “give separate consideration to each individual defendant and to each separate charge against him. Each defendant is entitled to have his or her case determined from his or her own conduct and from the evidence [that] may be applicable to him or to her.” Id., at 865. In addition, the District Court admonished the jury that opening and closing arguments are not evidence and that it should draw no inferences from a defendant’s exercise of the right to silence. Id., at 862-864. These instructions sufficed to cure any possibility of prejudice. See Schaffer v. United States, 362 U. S. 511, 516 (1960).
■Rule 14 leaves the determination of risk of prejudice and any remedy that may be necessary to the sound discretion of the district courts. Because petitioners have not shown that their joint trial subjected them to any legally cognizable prejudice, we conclude that the District Court did not abuse its discretion in denying petitioners’ motions to sever. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A California statute known as “Assembly Bill 1889” (AB 1889) prohibits several classes of employers that receive state funds from using the funds “to assist, promote, or deter union organizing.” See Cal. Govt. Code Ann. §§ 16645-16649 (West Supp. 2008). The question presented to us is whether two of its provisions—§ 16645.2, applicable to grant recipients, and § 16645.7, applicable to private employers receiving more than $10,000 in program funds in any year— are pre-empted by federal law mandating that certain zones of labor activity be unregulated.
I
As set forth in the preamble, the State of California enacted AB 1889 for the following purpose:
“It is the policy of the state not to interfere with an employee’s choice about whether to join or to be represented by a labor union. For this reason, the state should not subsidize efforts by an employer to assist, promote, or deter union organizing. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to prohibit an employer from using state funds and facilities for the purpose of influencing employees to support or oppose unionization and to prohibit an employer from seeking to influence employees to support or oppose unionization while those employees are performing work on a state contract.” 2000 Cal. Stats, ch. 872, § 1.
AB 1889 prohibits certain employers that receive state funds — whether by reimbursement, grant, contract, use of state property, or pursuant to a state program — from using such funds to “assist, promote, or deter union organizing.” See Cal. Govt. Code Ann. §§ 16645.1 to 16645.7. This prohibition encompasses “any attempt by an employer to influence the decision of its employees” regarding “[w]hether to support or oppose a labor organization” and “[w]hether to become a member of any labor organization.” § 16645(a). The statute specifies that the spending restriction applies to “any expense, including legal and consulting fees and salaries of supervisors and employees, incurred for . . . an activity to assist, promote, or deter union organizing.” § 16646(a).
Despite the neutral statement of policy quoted above, AB 1889 expressly exempts “activities] performed” or “expense[s] incurred” in connection with certain undertakings that promote unionization, including “[a]llowing a labor organization or its representatives access to the employer’s facilities or property,” and “Negotiating, entering into, or carrying out a voluntary recognition agreement with a labor organization.” §§ 16647(b), (d).
To ensure compliance with the grant and program restrictions at issue in this case, AB 1889 establishes a formidable enforcement scheme. Covered employers must certify that no state funds will be used for prohibited expenditures; the employer must also maintain and provide upon request “records sufficient to show that no state funds were used for those expenditures.” §§ 16645.2(c), 16645.7(b)-(c). If an employer commingles state and other funds, the statute presumes that any expenditures to assist, promote, or deter union organizing derive in part from state funds on a pro rata basis. § 16646(b). Violators are liable to the State for the amount of funds used for prohibited purposes plus a civil penalty equal to twice the amount of those funds. §§ 16645.2(d), 16645.7(d). Suspected violators may be sued by the state attorney general or any private taxpayer, and prevailing plaintiffs are “entitled to recover reasonable attorney’s fees and costs.” § 16645.8(d).
II
In April 2002, several organizations whose members do business with the State of California (collectively, Chamber of Commerce) brought this action against the California Department of Health Services and appropriate state officials (collectively, the State) to enjoin enforcement of AB 1889. Two labor unions (collectively, AFL-CIO) intervened to defend the statute’s validity.
The District Court granted partial summary judgment in favor of the Chamber of Commerce, holding that the National Labor Relations Act (NLEA or Wagner Act), 49 Stat. 449, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 151 et seq., pre-empts Cal. Govt. Code Ann. § 16645.2 (concerning grants) and § 16645.7 (concerning program funds) because those provisions “regulat[e] employer speech about union organizing under specified circumstances, even though Congress intended free debate.” Chamber of Commerce v. Lockyer, 225 F. Supp. 2d 1199, 1205 (CD Cal. 2002). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, after twice affirming the District Court’s judgment, granted rehearing en banc and reversed. See Chamber of Commerce v. Lockyer, 463 F. 3d 1076, 1082 (2006). While the en banc majority agreed that California enacted §§ 16645.2 and 16645.7 in its capacity as a regulator, and not as a mere proprietor or market participant, see id., at 1082-1085, it concluded that Congress did not intend to preclude States from imposing such restrictions on the use of their own funds, see id., at 1085-1096. We granted certiorari, 552 U. S. 1035 (2007), and now reverse.
Although the NLRA itself contains no express preemption provision, we have held that Congress implicitly mandated two types of pre-emption as necessary to implement federal labor policy. The first, known as Garmon preemption, see San Diego Building Trades Council v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236 (1959), “is intended to preclude state interference with the National Labor Relations Board's interpretation and active enforcement of the ‘integrated scheme of regulation’ established by the NLRA.” Golden State Transit Corp. v. Los Angeles, 475 U. S. 608, 613 (1986) (Golden State I). To this end, Garmon pre-emption forbids States to “regulate activity that the NLRA protects, prohibits, or arguably protects or prohibits.” Wisconsin Dept. of Industry v. Gould Inc., 475 U. S. 282, 286 (1986). The second, known as Machinists pre-emption, forbids both the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and States to regulate conduct that Congress intended “be unregulated because left ‘to be controlled by the free play of economic forces.’ ” Machinists v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm’n, 427 U. S. 132, 140 (1976) (quoting NLRB v. Nash-Finch Co., 404 U. S. 138, 144 (1971)). Machinists pre-emption is based on the premise that “ ‘Congress struck a balance of protection, prohibition, and laissez-faire in respect to union organization, collective bargaining, and labor disputes.’” 427 U. S., at 140, n. 4 (quoting Cox, Labor Law Preemption Revisited, 85 Harv. L. Rev. 1337, 1352 (1972)).
Today we hold that §§ 16645.2 and 16645.7 are pre-empted under Machinists because they regulate within “a zone protected and reserved for market freedom.” Building & Constr. Trades Council v. Associated Builders & Contractors of Mass./R. I., Inc., 507 U. S. 218, 227 (1993) (Boston Harbor). We do not reach the question whether the provisions would also be pre-empted under Garmon.
Ill
As enacted in 1935, the NLRA, which was commonly known as the Wagner Act, did not include any provision that specifically addressed the intersection between employee organizational rights and employer speech rights. See 49 Stat. 449. Rather, it was left to the NLRB, subject to review in federal court, to reconcile these interests in its construction of §§ 7 and 8. Section 7, now codified at 29 U. S. C. § 157, provided that workers have the right to organize, to bargain collectively, and to engage in concerted activity for their mutual aid and protection. Section 8(1), now codified at 29 U. S. C. § 158(a)(1), made it an “unfair labor practice” for employers to “interfere with, restrain, or coerce employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7.”
Among the frequently litigated issues under the Wagner Act were charges that an employer’s attempts to persuade employees not to join a union — or to join one favored by the employer rather than a rival — amounted to a form of coercion prohibited by § 8. The NLRB took the position that § 8 demanded complete employer neutrality during organizing campaigns, reasoning that any partisan employer speech about unions would interfere with the §7 rights of employees. See 1 J. Higgins, The Developing Labor Law 94 (5th ed. 2006). In 1941, this Court curtailed the NLRB’s aggressive interpretation, clarifying that nothing in the NLRA prohibits an employer “from expressing its view on labor policies or problems” unless the employer’s speech “in connection with other circumstances [amounts] to coercion within the meaning of the Act.” NLRB v. Virginia Elec. & Power Co., 314 U. S. 469, 477. We subsequently characterized Virginia Electric as recognizing the First Amendment right of employers to engage in noncoercive speech about unionization. Thomas v. Collins, 323 U. S. 516, 537-538 (1945). Notwithstanding these decisions, the NLRB continued to regulate employer speech too restrictively in the eyes of Congress.
Concerned that the Wagner Act had pushed the labor relations balance too far in favor of unions, Congress passed the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act). 61 Stat. 136. The Taft-Hartley Act amended §§ 7 and 8 in several key respects. First, it emphasized that employees “have the right to refrain from any or all” § 7 activities. 29 U. S. C. § 157. Second, it added § 8(b), which prohibits unfair labor practices by unions. 29 U. S. C. § 158(b). Third, it added §8(c), which protects speech by both unions and employers from regulation by the NLRB. 29 U. S. C. § 158(c). Specifically, § 8(c) provides:
“The expressing of any views, argument, or opinion, or the dissemination thereof, whether in written, printed, graphic, or visual form, shall not constitute or be evidence of an unfair labor practice under any of the provisions of this subchapter, if such expression contains no threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.”
From one vantage, § 8(c) “merely implements the First Amendment,” NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U. S. 575, 617 (1969), in that it responded to particular constitutional rulings of the NLRB. See S. Rep. No. 80-105, pt. 2, pp. 23-24 (1947). But its enactment also manifested a “congressional intent to encourage free debate on issues dividing labor and management.” Linn v. Plant Guard Workers, 383 U. S. 53, 62 (1966). It is indicative of how important Congress deemed such “free debate” that Congress amended the NLRA rather than leaving to the courts the task of correcting the NLRB’s decisions on a case-by-case basis. We have characterized this policy judgment, which suffuses the NLRA as a whole, as “favoring uninhibited, robust, and wide-open debate in labor disputes,” stressing that “freewheeling use of the written and spoken word . . . has been expressly fostered by Congress and approved by the NLRB.” Letter Carriers v. Austin, 418 U. S. 264, 272-273 (1974).
Congress’ express protection of free debate forcefully buttresses the pre-emption analysis in this case. Under Machinists, congressional intent to shield a zone of activity from regulation is usually found only “implicit[ly] in the structure of the Act,” Livadas v. Bradshaw, 512 U. S. 107, 117, n. 11 (1994), drawing on the notion that “ ‘[w]hat Congress left unregulated is as important as the regulations that it imposed,’” Golden State Transit Corp. v. Los Angeles, 493 U. S. 103, 110 (1989) (Golden State II) (quoting New York Telephone Co. v. New York State Dept. of Labor, 440 U. S. 519, 552 (1979) (Powell, J., dissenting)). In the case of noncoercive speech, however, the protection is both implicit and explicit. Sections 8(a) and 8(b) demonstrate that when Congress has sought to put limits on advocacy for or against union organization, it has expressly set forth the mechanisms for doing so. Moreover, the amendment to § 7 calls attention to the right of employees to refuse to join unions, which implies an underlying right to receive information opposing unionization. Finally, the addition of § 8(c) expressly precludes regulation of speech about unionization “so long as the communications do not contain a ‘threat of reprisal or force or promise of benefit.’ ” Gissel Packing, 395 U. S., at 618.
The explicit direction from Congress to leave noncoercive speech unregulated makes this case easier, in at least one respect, than previous NLRA cases because it does not require us “to decipher the presumed intent of Congress in the face of that body’s steadfast silence.” Sears, Roebuck & Co. v. Carpenters, 436 U. S. 180, 188, n. 12 (1978). California’s policy judgment that partisan employer speech necessarily “interfere^] with an employee’s choice about whether to join or to be represented by a labor union,” 2000 Cal. Stats, ch. 872, § 1, is the same policy judgment that the NLRB advanced under the Wagner Act, and that Congress renounced in the Taft-Hartley Act. To the extent §§ 16645.2 and 16645.7 actually further the express goal of AB 1889, the provisions are unequivocally pre-empted.
IV
The Court of Appeals concluded that Machinists did not pre-empt §§ 16645.2 and 16645.7 for three reasons: (1) The spending restrictions apply only to the use of state funds, (2) Congress did not leave the zone of activity free from all regulation, and (3) California modeled AB 1889 on federal statutes. We find none of these arguments persuasive.
Use of State Funds
In NLRA pre-emption cases, “ ‘judicial concern has necessarily focused on the nature of the activities which the States have sought to regulate, rather than on the method of regulation adopted.’” Golden State I, 475 U. S., at 614, n. 5 (quoting Garmon, 359 U. S., at 243; brackets omitted); see also Livadas, 512 U. S., at 119 (“Pre-emption analysis . . . turns on the actual content of [the State’s] policy and its real effect on federal rights”). California plainly could not directly regulate noncoercive speech about unionization by means of an express prohibition. It is equally clear that California may not indirectly regulate such conduct by imposing spending restrictions on the use of state funds.
In Gould, we held that Wisconsin’s policy of refusing to purchase goods and services from three-time NLRA violators was pre-empted under Garmon because it imposed a “supplemental sanction” that conflicted with the NLRA’s “‘integrated scheme of regulation.’” 475 U. S., at 288-289. Wisconsin protested that its debarment statute was “an exercise of the State’s spending power rather than its regulatory power,” but we dismissed this as “a distinction without a difference.” Id., at 287. “[T]he point of the statute [was] to deter labor law violations,” and “for all practical purposes” the spending restriction was “tantamount to regulation.” Id., at 287-289. Wisconsin’s choice “to use its spending power rather than its police power d[id] not significantly lessen the inherent potential for conflict” between the state and federal schemes; hence the statute was pre-empted. Id., at 289.
We distinguished Gould in Boston Harbor, holding that the NLRA did not preclude a state agency supervising a construction project from requiring that contractors abide by a labor agreement. We explained that when a State acts as a “market participant with no interest in setting policy,” as opposed to a “regulator,” it does not Offend the preemption principles of the NLRA. 507 U. S., at 229. In finding that the state agency had acted as a market participant, we stressed that the challenged action “was specifically tailored to one particular job,” and aimed “to ensure an efficient project that would be completed as quickly and effectively as possible at the lowest cost.” Id., at 232.
It is beyond dispute that California enacted AB 1889 in its capacity as a regulator rather than a market participant. AB 1889 is neither “specifically tailored to one particular job” nor a “legitimate response to state procurement constraints or to local economic needs.” Gould, 475 U. S., at 291. As the statute’s preamble candidly acknowledges, the legislative purpose is not the efficient procurement of goods and services, but the furtherance of a labor policy. See 2000 Cal. Stats, ch. 872, § 1. Although a State has a legitimate proprietary interest in ensuring that state funds are spent in accordance with the purposes for which they are appropriated, this is not the objective of AB 1889. In contrast to a neutral affirmative requirement that funds be spent solely for the purposes of the relevant grant or program, AB 1889 imposes a targeted negative restriction on employer speech about unionization. Furthermore, the statute does not even apply this constraint uniformly. Instead of forbidding the use of state funds for all employer advocacy regarding unionization, AB 1889 permits use of state funds for select employer advocacy activities that promote unions. Specifically, the statute exempts expenses incurred in connection with, inter alia, giving unions access to the workplace, and voluntarily recognizing unions without a secret ballot election. §§ 16647(b), (d).
The Court of Appeals held that although California did not act as a market participant in enacting AB 1889, the NLRA did not pre-empt the statute. It purported to distinguish Gould on the theory that AB 1889 does not make employer neutrality a condition for receiving funds, but instead restricts only the use of funds. According to the Court of Appeals, this distinction matters because when a State imposes a “use” restriction instead of a “receipt” restriction, “an employer has and retains the freedom to spend its own funds however it wishes.” 463 F. 3d, at 1088.
California’s reliance on a “use” restriction rather than a “receipt” restriction is, at least in this case, no more consequential than Wisconsin’s reliance on its spending power rather than its police power in Gould. As explained below, AB 1889 couples its “use” restriction with compliance costs and litigation risks that are calculated to make union-related advocacy prohibitively expensive for employers that receive state funds. By making it exceedingly difficult for employers to demonstrate that they have not used state funds and by imposing punitive sanctions for noncompliance, AB 1889 effectively reaches beyond “the use of funds over which California maintains a sovereign interest.” Brief for State Respondents 19.
Turning first to the compliance burdens, AB 1889 requires recipients to “maintain records sufficient to show that no state funds were used” for prohibited expenditures, §§ 16645.2(c), 16645.7(c), and conclusively presumes that any expenditure to assist, promote, or deter union organizing made from “commingled” funds constitutes a violation of the statute, § 16646(b). Maintaining “sufficient” records and ensuring segregation of funds is no small feat, given that AB 1889 expansively defines its prohibition to encompass “any expense” incurred in “any attempt” by an employer to “influence the decision of its employees.” §§ 16645(a), 16646(a). Prohibited expenditures include not only discrete expenses such as legal and consulting fees, but also an allocation of overhead, including “salaries of supervisors and employees,” for any time and resources spent on union-related advocacy. See § 16646(a). The statute affords no clearly defined safe harbor, save for expenses incurred in connection with activities that either favor unions or are required by federal or state law. See § 16647.
The statute also imposes deterrent litigation risks. Significantly, AB 1889 authorizes not only the California attorney general but also any private taxpayer — including, of course, a union in a dispute with an employer — to bring a civil action against suspected violators for “injunctive relief, damages, civil penalties, and other appropriate equitable relief.” § 16645.8. Violators are liable to the State for three times the amount of state funds deemed spent on union organizing. §§ 16645.2(d), 16645.7(d), 16645.8(a). Prevailing plaintiffs, and certain prevailing taxpayer intervenors, are entitled to recover attorney’s fees and costs, § 16645.8(d), which may well dwarf the treble damages award. Consequently, a trivial violation of the statute could give rise to substantial liability. Finally, even if an employer were confident that it had satisfied the recordkeeping and segregation requirements, it would still bear the costs of defending itself against unions in court, as well as the risk of a mistaken adverse finding by the factfinder.
In light of these burdens, California’s reliance on a “use” restriction rather than a “receipt” restriction “does not significantly lessen the inherent potential for conflict” between AB 1889 and the NLRA. Gould, 475 U. S., at 289. AB 1889’s enforcement mechanisms put considerable pressure on an employer either to forgo his “free speech right to communicate his views to his employees,” Gissel Packing, 395 U. S., at 617, or else to refuse the receipt of any state funds. In so doing, the statute impermissibly “predicat[es] benefits on refraining from conduct protected by federal labor law,” Liradas, 512 U. S., at 116, and chills one side of “the robust debate which has been protected under the NLRA,” Letter Carriers, 418 U. S., at 275.
Resisting this conclusion, the State and the AFL-CIO contend that AB 1889 imposes less onerous recordkeeping restrictions on governmental subsidies than do federal restrictions that have been found not to violate the First Amendment. See Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U. S. 173 (1991); Regan v. Taxation With Representation of Wash., 461 U. S. 540 (1983). The question, however, is not whether AB 1889 violates the First Amendment, but whether it “'stands as an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives’ ” of the NLRA. Livadas, 512 U. S., at 120 (quoting Brown v. Hotel Employees, 468 U. S. 491, 501 (1984)). Constitutional standards, while sometimes analogous, are not tailored to address the object of labor preemption analysis: giving effect to Congress’ intent in enacting the Wagner and Taft-Hartley Acts. See Livadas, 512 U. S., at 120 (distinguishing standards applicable to the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses); Gould, 475 U. S., at 290 (Commerce Clause); Linn, 383 U. S., at 67 (First Amendment). Although a State may “choos[e] to fund a program dedicated to advance certain permissible goals,” Rust, 500 U. S., at 194, it is not “permissible” for a State to use its spending power to advance an interest that—even if legitimate “in the absence of the NLRA,” Gould, 475 U. S., at 290—frustrates the comprehensive federal scheme established by that Act.
NLRB Regulation
We have characterized Machinists pre-emption as “creating] a zone free from all regulations, whether state or federal.” Boston Harbor, 507 U. S., at 226. Stressing that the NLRB has regulated employer speech that takes place on the eve of union elections, the Court of Appeals deemed Machinists inapplicable because “employer speech in the context of organizing” is not a zone of activity that Congress left free from “all regulation.” See 463 F. 3d, at 1089 (citing Peoria Plastic Co., 117 N. L. R. B. 545, 547-548 (1957) (barring employer interviews with employees in their homes immediately before an election); Peerless Plywood Co., 107 N. L. R. B. 427, 429 (1953) (barring employers and unions alike from making election speeches on company time to massed assemblies of employees within the 24-hour period before an election)).
The NLRB has policed a narrow zone of speech to ensure free and fair elections under the aegis of § 9 of the NLRA, 29 U. S. C. § 159. Whatever the NLRB’s regulatory authority within special settings such as imminent elections, however, Congress has clearly denied it the authority to regulate the broader category of noncoercive speech encompassed by AB 1889. It is equally obvious that the NLRA deprives California of this authority, since “‘[t]he States have no more authority than the Board to upset the balance that Congress has struck between labor and management.’ ” Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U. S. 724, 751 (1985).
Federal Statutes
Finally, the Court of Appeals reasoned that Congress could not have intended to pre-empt AB 1889 because Congress itself has imposed similar restrictions. See 463 F. 3d, at 1090-1091. Specifically, three federal statutes include provisions that forbid the use of particular grant and program funds “to assist, promote, or deter union organizing.” We are not persuaded that these few isolated restrictions, plucked from the multitude of federal spending programs, were either intended to alter or did in fact alter the “ ‘wider contours of federal labor policy.’” Metropolitan Life, 471 U. S., at 753.
A federal statute will contract the pre-emptive scope of the NLRA if it demonstrates that “Congress has decided to tolerate a substantial measure of diversity” in the particular regulatory sphere. New York Telephone, 440 U. S., at 546 (plurality opinion). In New York Telephone, an employer challenged a state unemployment system that provided benefits to employees absent from work during lengthy strikes. The employer argued that the state system conflicted with the federal labor policy “of allowing the free play of economic forces to operate during the bargaining process.” Id., at 531. We upheld the statute on the basis that the legislative histories of the NLRA and the Social Security Act, which were enacted within six weeks of each other, confirmed that “Congress intended that the States be free to authorize, or to prohibit, such payments.” Id., at 544; see also id., at 547 (Brennan, J., concurring in result); id., at 549 (Blackmun, J., concurring in judgment). Indeed, the tension between the Social Security Act and the NLRA suggested that the case could “be viewed as presenting a potential conflict between two federal statutes . . . rather than between federal and state regulatory statutes.” Id., at 539-540, n. 32.
The three federal statutes relied on by the Court of Appeals neither conflict with the NLRA nor otherwise establish that Congress “decided to tolerate a substantial measure of diversity” in the regulation of employer speech. Unlike the States, Congress has the authority to create tailored exceptions to otherwise applicable federal policies, and (also unlike the States) it can do so in a manner that preserves national uniformity without opening the door to a 50-state patchwork of inconsistent labor policies. Consequently, the mere fact that Congress has imposed targeted federal restrictions on union-related advocacy in certain limited contexts does not invite the States to override federal labor policy in other settings.
Had Congress enacted a federal version of AB 1889 that applied analogous spending restrictions to all federal grants or expenditures, the pre-emption question would be closer. Cf. Metropolitan Life, 471 U. S., at 755 (citing federal minimum labor standards as evidence that Congress did not intend to pre-empt state minimum labor standards). But none of the cited statutes is Governmentwide in scope, none contains comparable remedial provisions, and none contains express pro-union exemptions.
The Court of Appeals’ judgment reversing the summary judgment entered for the Chamber of Commerce is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The District Court held that the Chamber of Commerce lacked standing to challenge several provisions of AB 1889 concerning state contractors and public employers. See Chamber of Commerce v. Lockyer, 225 F. Supp. 2d 1199, 1202-1203 (CD Cal. 2002).
See 29 U. S. C. § 2931(b)(7) (“Each recipient of funds under [the Workforce Investment Act of 1998] shall provide to the Secretary assurances that none of such funds will be used to assist, promote, or deter union organizing”); 42 U. S. C. § 9839(e) (“Funds appropriated to carry out [the Head Start Programs Act] shall not be used to assist, promote, or deter union organizing”); § 12634(b)(1) (“Assistance provided under [the National Community Service Act of 1990] shall not be used by program participants and program staff to . .. assist, promote, or deter union organizing”).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The United States brought this action in the Eastern District of Pennsylvania to recover from Shimer, on theories of subrogration and indemnity, an amount of $4,000 which the Veterans’ Administration, as guarantor of a loan made to him by Excelsior Saving Fund and Loan Association, had paid to that institution.
The relevant facts, as stipulated by the parties, are these: In 1948 Shimer, a World War II veteran, borrowed $13,000 from Excelsior secured by a mortgage upon residential realty which Shimer purchased with the proceeds. At Shimer’s request the Veterans’ Administration, pursuant to Title III of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act of 1944, as amended in 1945, granted a maximum guarantee of the loan — that is, the lesser of $4,000 or 4/13 of the indebtedness outstanding at any particular time. Both the “Home Loan Report” signed by Shimer, and the Administration certificate of guaranty, specified that the rights of the parties would be governed by Regulations of the Administration in effect at the date of the loan and guaranty. Shimer defaulted in 1948, and in 1949 Excelsior, as mortgagee, notified the Veterans’ Administration of his default and obtained a Pennsylvania judgment foreclosing the mortgage which then secured a debt in excess of $13,000. After the property was purchased by Excelsior at a sheriff’s sale for $250, the Veterans’ Administration paid it the entire guaranty of $4,000 and brought the present action against Shimer.
In the Court of Appeals, the United States chose to rely exclusively on the Administration’s alleged right of indemnity against Shimer, and accordingly does not press its claim here upon a theory of subrogation. The Court of Appeals held that the United States was not entitled to recover, reaching this result by applying a well-established principle of surety law which both parties agree was recognized by Congress when it passed Title III: The Veterans’ Administration, as guarantor, could not recover from its principal, Shimer, any amount it was not obligated to pay the mortgagee, Excelsior, on his behalf. Turning to state law to determine the extent of the Administration’s obligation to Excelsior, the court below considered that under Pennsylvania law both Shimer and the Veterans’ Administration had been released from any further liability to Excelsior at the time the Administration paid its $4,000 guarantee, that is, after the foreclosure sale. 276 F. 2d 792. Under the Pennsylvania Deficiency Judgment Act a mortgagee who purchases the mortgaged property in execution proceedings cannot recover a deficiency judgment unless and until the mortgagee obtains a court determination of the fair market value of the mortgaged property and credits that amount to the unsatisfied liability. When, as eventuated in this case, the mortgagee fails to bring a proceeding for this purpose within six months after the foreclosure sale, the debtor and guarantor are permanently discharged.
We granted certiorari, 364 U. S. 889, to pass upon the contentions of the United States that: (1) the application of state law to determine the Administration’s obligation to Excelsior is inconsistent with the Regulations prescribed by the agency charged with administering the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act; (2) these Regulations are authorized by the federal enactment; and (3) a right of indemnity under federal law arises in favor of the Veterans’ Administration upon proper payment of its obligations as guarantor.
I.
The Regulations promulgated by the Veterans’ Administration make clear that they were intended to create a uniform system for determining the Administration’s obligation as guarantor, which in its operation would displace state law. Section 36.4321, 12 Fed. Reg. 8344, in subsection (a) implements the “pro rata” requirements of § 500 (b) of the statute, Note 2, supra, and establishes the procedure for computing the amount of the guaranty which the mortgagee can, under § 506 of the statute, demand to have applied against his unpaid claim on the date of default. In this instance it is agreed that such amount is $4,000. However, we are informed by the Solicitor General that the mortgagee is both allowed and encouraged to delay collecting on the guaranty until after all events which may lead to a government offset have taken place. The Administration’s potential right as subrogee to some portion of the proceeds of a foreclosure sale is such a possible offset. Accordingly, Excelsior waited until after the foreclosure sale to collect on the guaranty. This brought Excelsior within subsection (b) of § 36.4321 which provides that “Credits accruing from the proceeds of a sale ... of the security subsequent to the date of computation [pursuant to subsection (a), supra], and prior to the submission of the [guaranty] claim” shall be applied in reduction of the outstanding debt and “the amount payable on the claim shall in no event exceed the remaining balance of the indebtedness.”
It was at this point that the Court of Appeals applied the Pennsylvania Deficiency Judgment Act to determine the “Credits accruing from the proceeds of . . . [the foreclosure] sale.” However, the method of determining these credits is also specified in the Regulations, indeed spelled out in § 36.4320, 13 Fed. Reg. 7739-7741, in such great detail that there can be little doubt of an administrative intent that such method should provide the exclusive procedure. In substance, that section provides that in every case at least the amount realized at the foreclosure sale is to be credited. It also specifies the way in which the Veterans’ Administration can require the mortgagee to credit more than the amount received at the foreclosure sale and thereby protect itself against the very risk the Pennsylvania Deficiency Judgment Act was designed to alleviate — the risk of having to make good its guaranty simply because the mortgaged property is sold for an inadequate price at a judicial sale. The Administrator is authorized to “specify in advance of such sale the minimum amount which shall be credited to the indebtedness of the borrower on account of the value of the security to be sold.” The mortgagee must then reduce the balance of the unpaid debt by at least this minimum amount before collecting on the guaranty. The mortgagee has the option, however, of selling any property it purchased at or below this minimum amount to the Veterans’ Administration for the specified minimum amount. If, as in the present case, the Administrator does not specify a minimum amount “the holder [mortgagee] shall credit against the indebtedness the net proceeds of the sale . . . .”
In effect, then, the scheme set up by the Regulations provides the Veterans’ Administration with a measure of assurance that there shall be credited against the unpaid debt at least what the Administrator regards as the fair value of the mortgaged property. In terms of the present case: With an unpaid balance of indebtedness of $13,000, the Veterans’ Administration should not have to pay its full guaranty of $4,000 unless the property which Excelsior may retain is worth less than $9,000. If Excelsior purchased property worth $10,000 for $250 at the foreclosure sale, the Administration should not have to pay more than $3,000 on its $4,000 guaranty, or, to state the matter more precisely, the Administration should realize a $1,000 credit as set off against its $4,000 guaranty which Excelsior could have claimed at the time of default. Accordingly, if the Administrator regarded the mortgaged property as worth $10,000 he could have specified (which he did not) a minimum credit (or “upset price”) of that amount which Excelsior would then have had to credit against the $13,000 unpaid debt. If Excelsior had purchased the property for $10,000 or less, it would have had an option to reconvey the property at a valuation of $10,000 to the Veterans’ Administration.
This scheme of protection, while intended to remedy the same abuses at which the Pennsylvania Deficiency Judgment Act is directed, is, of course, inconsistent with the Pennsylvania procedures which provide for a judicial determination of the amount to be credited against an outstanding debt and do not obligate the guarantor to purchase the mortgaged property at its judicially determined value. We have no doubt that this regulatory scheme, complete as it is in every detail, was intended to provide the whole and exclusive source of protection of the interests of the Veterans’ Administration as guarantor and was, to this extent, meant to displace inconsistent state law.
II.
We think that the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act authorized the Veterans’ Administrator to displace state law by establishing these exclusive procedures. In this regard it is important to recall the scope of our review in a case such as this. More than a half-century ago this Court declared that “where Congress has committed to the head of a department certain duties requiring the exercise of judgment and discretion, his action thereon, whether it involve questions of law or fact, will not be reviewed by the courts, unless he has exceeded his authority or this court should be of opinion that his action was clearly wrong.” Bates & Guild Co. v. Payne, 194 U. S. 106, 108-109. This admonition has been consistently followed by this Court whenever decision as to the meaning or reach of a statute has involved reconciling conflicting policies, and a full understanding of the force of the statutory policy in the given situation has depended upon more than ordinary knowledge respecting the matters subjected to agency regulations. See, e. g., National Broadcasting Co. v. United States, 319 U. S. 190; Labor Board v. Hearst Publications, Inc., 322 U. S. 111; Republic Aviation Corp. v. Labor Board, 324 U. S. 793; Securities & Exchange Comm’n v. Chenery Corp., 332 U. S. 194; Labor Board v. Seven-Up Bottling Co., 344 U. S. 344.
In the present case we need only consider the statutory authorization for § 36.4320 (a) (4) which provides that “If a minimum amount [the upset price] has not been specified by the Administrator . . . the holder shall credit against the indebtedness the net proceeds of the sale . . . .” It would, of course, have been possible for the Administrator to have promulgated regulations consistent with much of the present scheme which would have, in addition, accepted the benefits of local law which tended further to reduce a guarantor’s risk of loss from sale of the mortgaged property at an inadequate price. Thus, with specific reference to the Pennsylvania Deficiency Judgment Act, there would have been nothing inherently illogical about administrative regulations providing for an “upset price” device and then adding that, in situations where the “upset price” technique was not used by the Administrator, the Veterans’ Administration was to be entitled to the benefits of the state judicial assessment of the value of property purchased by the mortgagee. However, the Veterans’ Administrator has chosen not to take advantage of laws like that of Pennsylvania. If this choice represents a reasonable accommodation of conflicting policies that were committed to the agency’s care by the statute, we should not disturb it unless it appears from the statute or its legislative history that the accommodation is not one that Congress would have sanctioned.
It is doubtless true that the policy of the Act is, broadly stated, to enable veterans to obtain loans and to obtain them with the least risk of loss upon foreclosure, to both veteran and the Veterans’ Administration as guarantor of the veteran’s indebtedness, and it is equally clear that had the Regulations adopted or included the provisions of the Pennsylvania Deficiency Judgment Act this would have furthered at least the second of these purposes. However, there are also ample indications both in the Act and in its legislative history that Congress intended the' guaranty provisions to operate as the substantial equivalent of a down payment in the same amount by the veteran on the purchase price, in order to induce prospective mortgagee-creditors to provide 100% financing for a veteran’s home. The Regulations which the Administrator has adopted provide what the agency could allowably view as a more effective reconciliation of these twofold ends than might be accomplished by a complete or partial adoption of the law of a State such as Pennsylvania.
The Regulations assure a Pennsylanvia mortgagee-creditor that he will be able either to recover the full amount of the guaranty or to sell the mortgaged property to the United States and recover the amount of its loss after such sale. For example, in the present situation Excelsior knew that it could either recover $4,000 from the Veterans’ Administration and keep the mortgaged property, or that it could sell the mortgaged property to the United States, recovering on its guaranty the amount by which the unpaid debt exceeded the price which the United States had paid. The only risk of loss with which Excelsior would have been faced was the risk of having on its hands a property worth less than $9,000 to secure a residual debt of $9,000 (after the United States had paid $4,000 of the total debt of $13,000). This is precisely the risk which Excelsior would have had to assume had it insisted upon a $4,000 down payment by the veteran and lent $9,000 on the property. Presumably therefore it was willing to accept a $4,000 guarantee under the Administrator’s Regulations in exchange for a $4,000 down payment.
In contrast, a mortgagee whose federal guaranty was subject to the law of a State such as Pennsylvania would be subjected both to an additional cost and to an additional risk, neither of which is present when there is an equivalent down payment. The additional cost is that required in every case to litigate the value of the mortgaged property. The additional risk is that, if it was judicially determined that the property was worth more than the amount for which the mortgagee could in fact sell it, the mortgagee would have to absorb the cost of the judicial error and could recover on its guaranty only the difference between the unpaid debt and the amount of the judicial estimate of the value of the property. Thus if the value of the mortgaged property in the present case had been judicially assessed at $10,000, Excelsior, after payment of the resulting $3,000 on the guaranty, would have been left with the mortgaged property in place of an unrequited $10,000 loan, whereas had it insisted on a $4,000 down payment from the veteran it would have had the mortgaged property to stand for a $9,000 loan.
We cannot say that a Pennsylvania lender would not prefer a down payment to a guaranteed loan in the same amount if the Pennsylvania Deficiency Judgment Act were applicable. Nor can we say that the Administrator has unreasonably sacrificed either the Government’s or the veteran’s protection in relying exclusively on the “upset price” device in order to preserve the interchangeability of a guaranty with a down payment. The Veterans’ Administration can and does protect itself from a sale at an inadequate price by specifying the minimum credit which the mortgagee must subtract from the unpaid debt. In protecting itself it also places its own financial resources behind the debtor-veteran who may be forced to reimburse the Administrator only if the Administrator considers that the property has been sold at a fair price, and who retains all the benefits of state law as against the mortgagee.
We consider the Regulations to be a reasonable accommodation of the statutory ends, first, of making a federal guaranty the substantial equivalent of a down payment, and, second, of protecting both the Veterans’ Administration and the veteran from unnecessary loss on a foreclosure sale. And since we find nothing in the statute or the legislative history antagonistic to this accommodation, we hold the Regulations to be a valid exercise of the authority granted the Administrator in § 504 of the Servicemen’s Readjustment Act (note 9, supra).
III.
Respondent’s final contention is that even though the Veterans’ Administration was obligated on its guaranty to Excelsior, the Administration nevertheless had no right to indemnity from him. It is argued, first, that under the Act the Administration, in circumstances like these, can recover over against the veteran only on a theory of subro-gation to the mortgagee’s rights. The Administrator having proceeded in this instance simply on a theory of indemnity, it is claimed that there is no statutory authorization for the present suit.
Prior to the amendment of the Act in 1945, it was assumed that the ordinary concomitants of a guaranty relationship would follow upon the mere authorization of Government guaranteed loans and that these included the guarantor’s right of indemnity. Restatement of the Law of Security, § 104; Decisions of the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs, No. 625, Vol. 1, p. 1154. The 1945 amendments made explicit that payment of the guaranty would be due on the veteran’s default and that thereupon the Administrator “shall be subrogated to the rights of the holder of the obligation to the extent of the amount paid on the guaranty.”
It is argued that this amendment, by negative implication, overruled or rejected what the Administrator had previously regarded as his independent right to indemnity, but surely this is carrying a negative implication too far. We cannot agree that Congress, without any statutory reference to the problem and without any discussion of it, intended to relieve the veteran of direct liability for amounts properly paid on his behalf by the Veterans’ Administration. Not only might such a waiver of a guarantor’s normal rights require a more burdensome route to recovery over from the principal, but it would deprive the guarantor of any recovery on occasions when the mortgagee’s rights were limited as against the debtor by state law, yet were protected against the Administrator by state or federal law. Relief from liability in these circumstances would convert a guaranty into a grant of aid. But the. entire history of the “home loan” provisions of the statute is inconsistent with an intent to make outright grants, rather than loans of cash (S. 1767, 78th Cong., 2d Sess.) or credit, to returning servicemen.
Moreover, the recognition of a loss to the guarantor merely because of a failure of the lender’s rights against the principal is incompatible with the background of general surety law against which the statute was drawn. See, e. g., Leslie v. Compton, 103 Kan. 92, 172 P. 1015. Indeed, at the time of the 1945 amendments to the Act the Administrator had already ruled that there was a right to-recover over against the veteran on a theory of indemnity in situations where recovery by way of subrogation was barred by state law. Decisions of the Administrator of Veterans’ Affairs, No. 625, Vol. 1, p. 1154.
For these reasons, we are constrained to agree with the uniform construction of the lower courts, including that of the two courts below, that the statute affords an independent right of indemnity to the Veterans’ Administration. See United States v. Shimer, 276 F. 2d 792; McKnight v. United States, 259 F. 2d 540; United States v. Jones, 155 F. Supp. 52; United States v. Gallardo, 154 F. Supp. 373; United States v. Henderson, 121 F. Supp. 343.
Finally, we find untenable respondent’s argument that the applicable Regulation does not support recovery because there was no debt due from the veteran at the time of payment on the guaranty. Section 36.4323 (e), 11 Fed. Reg. 2123, provides: “Any amounts paid by the Administrator on account of the liabilities of any veteran guaranteed or insured under the provisions of the act shall constitute a debt owing to the United States by such veteran.” The Regulation is merely declaratory of a surety’s customary right of indemnity for amounts paid pursuant to an obligation of the guarantor assumed with the consent of the principal. Restatement of the Law of Security, § 104. This right is in general unaffected by defenses of the principal which are not available to the guarantor. Simpson, Suretyship, at p. 227; Stearns, Law of Suretyship, § 284. The Regulation certainly indicates no purpose to depart from the general rule in the case of guaranties by the Veterans’ Administration.
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 Black and Mr. Justice Douglas would affirm the judgment for the reasons stated by the Court of Appeals, 276 F. 2d 792.
58 Stat. 291, as amended by 59 Stat. 626.
“Sec. 500. (a) Any person who shall have served in the active military or naval service of the United States at any time on or after September 16, 1940, and prior to the termination of the present war . . . shall be eligible for the benefits of this title. Any loan made by such veteran within ten years after the termination of the war for any of the purposes, and in compliance with the provisions, specified in this title, is automatically guaranteed by the Government by this title in an amount not exceeding fifty per centum of the loan: Provided, That the aggregate amount guaranteed shall not exceed . . . $4,000 in the case of real-estate loans ....
“(b) Loans guaranteed under this title shall be payable under such terms and conditions as may be agreed upon by the parties thereto, subject to the conditions and limitations of this title and the regulations issued pursuant to section 504: Provided, That the liability under the guaranty within the limitations of this title shall decrease or increase pro rata with any decrease or increase of the amount of the unpaid portion of the obligation . . . .”
The computation of the amount of the unpaid debt and the amount consequently owing on the guaranty will be open for further consideration by the District Court on the remand which will result from this opinion.
Purdon’s Pa. Stat., Tit. 12, §§2621.1-2621.11.
Section 36.4321 (a) provides in relevant part:
“Computation of guaranty claims; subsequent accountings, (a) Subject to the limitation that the total amounts payable shall in no event exceed the amount originally guaranteed, the amount payable on a claim for the guaranty shall be the percentage of the loan originally guaranteed applied to the indebtedness computed as of the date of claim but not later than (1) the date of judgment or of decree of foreclosure . . . .”
Section 506 of the Act provides: “In the event of default in the payment of any loan guaranteed under this title, the holder of the obligation shall notify the Administrator who shall thereupon pay to such holder the guaranty not in excess of the pro rata portion of the amount originally guaranteed, and shall be subrogated to the rights of the holder of the obligation to the extent of the amount paid on' the guaranty . . . .”
Section 36.4320 (whose length and intricacy is such as to make impracticable its spreading in this opinion) was amended in particulars not here relevant and was generally clarified between the dates of the loan and guarantee and the dates of foreclosure and sale. We consider applicable the later wording in light of § 36.4300 of the Regulations which was in effect at the date of the loan and which provided:
“Applicability. The regulations in this part and amendments thereto shall be applicable to each loan entitled to an automatic guaranty, or otherwise guaranteed or insured, on or after the date of publication thereof in the FEDERAL REGISTER, and shall be applicable to such loans previously guaranteed or insured to the extent that no legal rights vested thereunder are impaired.” (Emphasis added.) 12 Fed. Reg. 8342.
This conclusion is fortified by § 36.4320 (d) which specifically excludes and waives one type of state protection of guarantors and lenders which otherwise would have seemed to fit the other provisions of the section. Subdivision (d) provides:
“If a minimum bid is required under applicable State law, or decree of foreclosure or order of sale, or other lawful order or decree, the holder may bid an amount not exceeding such amount legally required. If an amount has been specified by the Administrator and the holder is the successful bidder for an amount not exceeding the amount legally required, such specified amount shall govern for the purposes of this section and for the purpose of computing the ultimate loss under the guaranty or insurance. In the event no amount is specified and the holder is the successful bidder for an amount not exceeding the amount legally required, the amount paid or payable by the Administrator under the guaranty shall not be subject to any adjustment by reason of such bid.”
Section 504 of the Act provides: “The Administrator is authorized to promulgate such rules and regulations not inconsistent with this title, as amended, as are necessary and appropriate for carrying out the provisions of this title, and may delegate to subordinate employees authority to issue certificates, or other evidence, of guaranty of loans guaranteed under the provisions of this title, and to exercise other administrative functions hereunder.”
See, e. g., H. R. Rep. No. 1418, 78th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 3, 9; Hearings before Subcommittee of the Senate Committee on Finance on H. R. 3749, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 31-33 (General Omar Bradley).
Pennsylvania law does not require a mortgagee who purchases the mortgaged property at a foreclosure sale for an amount less than the unpaid debt to return any portion of the down payment pursuant to a judicial assessment of the value of the property.
Moreover, at the time the Veterans’ Administration became liable on its guaranty (i. e., on the veteran’s default and prior to the-foreclosure sale, see notes 5 and 6, supra) the Administration and the respondent veteran had no defenses to payment either under state law or under the Regulations of the Administrator.
This is made particularly clear by the form of the Regulation which was the predecessor of 11 Fed. Reg. 2123. The earlier Regulation, 9 Fed. Reg. 12655, provided:
“(a) Any amounts paid to the creditor by the Administrator pursuant to the guaranty shall constitute a debt due to the United States by the veteran on whose application the guaranty was made . . . .”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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’s motion to suppress evidence seized in a warrantless search of a “homicide crime scene” was denied on the ground that the police were entitled to make a thorough search of any crime scene and the objects found there. Because the rule applied directly conflicts with Mincey v. Arizona, 437 U. S. 385 (1978), we reverse.
One night in 1996, petitioner and his wife were vacationing at a cabin in a state park. After petitioner called 911 to report that they had been attacked, the police arrived to find petitioner waiting outside the cabin, with injuries to his head and legs. After questioning him, an officer entered the building and found the body of petitioner’s wife, with fatal head wounds. The officers closed off the area, took petitioner to the hospital, and searched the exterior and environs of the cabin for footprints or signs of forced entry. When a police photographer arrived at about 5:30 a.m., the officers reentered the building and proceeded to “process the crime scene.” Brief in Opposition 5. For over 16 hours, they took photographs, collected evidence, and searched through the contents of the cabin. According to the trial court, “[a]t the crime scene, the investigating officers found on a table in Cabin 13, among other things, a briefcase, which they, in the ordinary course of investigating a homicide, opened, wherein they found and seized various photographs and negatives.” Indictment No. 96-F-119 (Cir. Ct. Fayette County, W. Va., May 28, 1997), App. A to Pet. for Cert., p. 2.
Petitioner was indicted for the murder of his wife and moved to suppress the photographs and negatives discovered in an envelope in the closed briefcase during the search. He argued that the police had obtained no warrant, and that no exception to the warrant requirement justified the search and seizure.
In briefs to the trial court, petitioner contended that Mincey v. Arizona, supra, rejects a “crime scene exception” to the warrant requirement of the Fourth Amendment. The State also cited Mincey; it argued that the police may-conduct an immediate investigation of a crime scene to preserve evidence from intentional or accidental destruction, id., at 394, and characterized the police activity in this case as “crime scene search and inventory,” Brief in Opposition 12. The State also relied on the “plain view” exception, Mincey, supra, at 393 (citing Michigan v. Tyler, 436 U.S. 499, 509-510 (1978)), noting only, however, that the briefcase was unlocked.
In denying the motion, the trial court said nothing about inventory or plain view, but instead approved the search as one of a “homicide crime scene”:
“The Court also concludes that investigating officers, having secured, for investigative purposes, the homicide crime scene, were clearly within the law to conduet a thorough investigation and examination of anything and everything found within the crime scene area. The examination of [the] briefcase found on the table near the body of a homicide victim in this case is clearly something an investigating officer could lawfully examine.” App. A to Pet. for Cert., at 3.
After hearing an oral presentation of petitioner’s petition for appeal of this ruling, and with the full record before it, the Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia denied discretionary review. No. 982196 (Jan. 13, 1999), App. B to Pet. for Cert.
A warrantless search by the police is invalid unless it falls within one of the narrow and well-delineated exceptions to the warrant requirement, Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347, 357 (1967), none of which the trial court invoked here. It simply found that after the homicide crime scene was secured for investigation, a search of “anything and everything found within the crime scene area” was “within the law.” App. A to Pet. for Cert., at 3.
This position squarely conflicts with Mincey v. Arizona, supra, where we rejected the contention that there is a “murder scene exception” to the Warrant Clause of the Fourth Amendment. We noted that police may make war-rantless entries onto premises if they reasonably believe a person is in need of immediate aid and may make prompt warrantless searches of a homicide scene for possible other victims or a killer on the premises, id., at 392, but we rejected any general “murder scene exception” as “inconsistent with the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments— ... the warrantless search of Mincey’s apartment was not constitutionally permissible simply because a homicide had recently occurred there.” Id., at 395; see also Thompson v. Louisiana, 469 U. S. 17, 21 (1984) (per curiam). Mincey controls here.
Although the trial court made no attempt to distinguish Mincey, the State contends that the trial court’s ruling is supportable on the theory that petitioner’s direction of the police to the scene of the attack implied consent to search as they did. As in Thompson v. Louisiana, supra, at 23, however, we express no opinion on whether the search here might be justified as consensual, as “the issue of consent is ordinarily a factual issue unsuitable for our consideration in the first instance.” Nor, of course, do we take any position on the applicability of any other exception to the warrant rule, or the harmlessness vel non of any error in receiving this evidence. Any such matters, properly raised, may be resolved on remand. 469 U. S., at 21; see also United States v. Matlock, 415 U. S. 164 (1974).
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted, the judgment of the Circuit Court of West Virginia, Payette County, is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The photographs included several taken of a man who appears to be taking off his jeans. Hie was later identified as Joel Boggess, a friend of petitioner and a member of the congregation of which petitioner was the minister. At trial, the prosecution introduced the photographs as evidence of petitioner’s relationship with Mr. Boggess and argued that the victim’s displeasure with this relationship was one of the reasons that petitioner may have been motivated to kill her.
The State suggests that the trial court’s finding that the search was “within the law” could be read as premised on the theories of plain view, exigent circumstances, and inventory that the State advanced below. No trace of this reasoning appears in the trial court’s opinion, which instead appears to undermine the State’s interpretation. It seems implausible that the court found that there was a risk of intentional or accidental destruction of evidence at a “secured” crime scene or that the authorities were performing a mere inventory search when the premises had been secured for “investigative purposes” and the officers opened the briefcase “in the ordinary course of investigating a homicide.” Nor does the court’s validation of “investiga[ting] and examin[ing]... anything and everything found within the crime scene area,” including photographs inside a closed briefcase, apparently rest on the plain-view exception. App. A to Pet. for Cert., at 2, 3.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Petitioner Humberto Leal Garcia (Leal) is a Mexican national who has lived in the United States since before the age of two. In 1994, he kidnaped 16-year-old Adria Sauceda, raped her with a large stick, and bludgeoned her to death with a piece of asphalt. He was convicted of murder and sentenced to death by a Texas court. He now seeks a stay of execution on the ground that his conviction was obtained in violation of the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations (Vienna Convention), Apr. 24, 1963, 21 U. S. T. 77, T. I. A. S. No. 6820. He relies on Case Concerning Avena and Other Mexican Nationals (Mex. v. U. S.), 2004 I. C. J. 12 (Judgt. of Mar. 31), in which the International Court of Justice (ICJ) held that the United States had violated the Vienna Convention by failing to notify him of his right to consular assistance. His argument is foreclosed by Medellin v. Texas, 552 U. S. 491 (2008) (Medellin I), in which we held that neither the Avena decision nor the President’s memorandum purporting to implement that decision constituted directly enforceable federal law. 552 U. S., at 498-499.
Leal and the United States ask us to stay the execution so that Congress may consider whether to enact legislation implementing the Avena decision. Leal contends that the Due Process Clause prohibits Texas from executing him while such legislation is under consideration. This argument is meritless. The Due Process Clause does not prohibit a State from carrying out a lawful judgment in light of unenacted legislation that might someday authorize a collateral attack on that judgment.
The United States does not endorse Leal’s due process claim. Instead, it asks us to stay the execution until January 2012 in support of our “future jurisdiction to review the judgment in a proceeding" under this yet-to-be-enacted legislation. Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 2-3, n. 1. It relies on the fact that on June 14/2011, Senator Patrick Leahy introduced implementing legislation in the Senate with the Executive Branch’s support. No implementing legislation has been introduced in the House.
We reject this suggestion. First, we are doubtful that it is ever appropriate to stay a lower court judgment in light of unenacted legislation. Our task is to rule on what the law is, not what it might eventually be. In light of Medellin /, it is clear that there is no “fair prospect that a majority of the Court will conclude that the decision below was erroneous,” O’Brien v. O’Laughlin, 557 U. S. 1801, 1302 (2009) (Breyer, J., in chambers), and our task should be at an end. Neither the United States nor Justice Breyer, post, p. 943 (dissenting opinion), cites a single instance in this Court’s history in which a stay issued under analogous circumstances.
Even if there were circumstances under which a stay could issue in light of proposed legislation, this action would not present them. Medellin himself sought a stay of execution on the ground that Congress might enact implementing legislation. We denied his stay application, explaining that “Congress has not progressed beyond the bare introduction of a bill in the four years since the ICJ ruling and the four months since our ruling in [Medellin I].” Medellín v. Texas, 554 U. S. 759, 760 (2008) (per curiam) (Medellin II). It has now been seven years since the ICJ ruling and three years since our decision in Medellin I, making a stay based on the bare introduction of a bill in a single house of Congress even less justified. If a statute implementing Avena had genuinely been a priority for the political branches, it would have been enacted by now.
The United States and Justice Breyer complain of the grave international consequences that will follow from Leal’s execution. Post, at 946. Congress evidently did not find these consequences sufficiently grave to prompt its enactment of implementing legislation, and we will follow the law as written by Congress. We have no authority to stay an execution in light of an “appeal of the President,” post, at 947, presenting free-ranging assertions of foreign policy consequences, when those assertions come unaccompanied by a persuasive legal claim.
Finally, we noted in Medellin II that “[t]he beginning premise for any stay ... must be that petitioner’s confession was obtained unlawfully,” and that “[t]he United States has not wavered in its position that petitioner was not prejudiced by his lack of consular access.” 554 U. S., at 760. Here, the United States studiously refuses to argue that Leal was prejudiced by the Vienna Convention violation, contending instead that the Court should issue a stay simply in light of the possibility that Leal might be able to bring a Vienna Convention claim in federal court, regardless of whether his conviction will be found to be invalid. We decline to follow the United States' suggestion of granting a stay to allow Leal to bring a claim based on hypothetical legislation when it cannot even bring itself to say that his attempt to overturn his conviction has any prospect of success. We may note that in a portion of its opinion vacated by the Fifth Circuit on procedural grounds, the District Court found that any violation of the Vienna Convention would have been harmless. Leal v. Quarterman, 2007 WL 4521519, *7 (WD Tex., Dec. 17, 2007), vacated in part sub nom. Leal Garcia v. Quarterman, 573 F. 3d 214, 224-225 (2009).
The applications for stay of execution presented to Justice Scalia and by him referred to the Court are denied. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied.
It is so ordered.
Tho United Statoo’ motion for- leave to file an amicus brief is granted.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Blackmun
delivered the opinion: of the Court.
Almost seven years ago, in March 1966, the State of Ohio instituted this original action against the Commonwealth of Kentucky. By its prayer for relief in its proposed bill of complaint, Ohio asked only that the Court declare and establish:
“1. The boundary line between the State of Ohio and the State of Kentucky as being the low water mark on the northerly side of the Ohio River in the year 1792 ....
“2. The State of Ohio and the State of Kentucky have equal and concurrent jurisdiction over and on all of the Ohio River from the northerly shore to the Southerly shore, except jurisdiction incidental to the sovereignty of the soil under the river and structures permanently attached thereto.”
In its complaint Ohio alleged:
“4. The State of Ohio was established from the land ceded by legislative act of the Commonwealth of Virginia to the United States on the 1st day of March, 1784, which act is known as the Cession of Virginia.
“5. The State of Kentucky was established by the separation of the District of Kentucky from the jurisdiction of the Commonwealth of Virginia pursuant to that certain act of the Virginia Legislature entitled 'An Act concerning the erection of the district of Kentucky into an independent state/ passed on the 18th day of December, 1789, which act is known as the Virginia-Kentucky Compact.
“6. The northern boundary line of the State of Kentucky was established from the Cession of Virginia and the Virginia-Kentucky Compact as the low water mark on the northerly side of the Ohio River as it existed in the year 1792.”
Ohio went on to allege: From 1910 to 1929, the United States erected dams in the Ohio River for navigational purposes. Since 1955, it has been replacing the earlier dams with higher ones. This has caused the waters of the river to rise and permanently inundate various areas of both Ohio and Kentucky. "As a result, the shores or banks of the Ohio River have been moved farther northerly and southerly as the water levels have increased by the damming of the river.” The north low water mark of 1792 “has been obscured by the increased elevation of the water levels.” Kentucky has claimed that the line between the two States is “along the present northerly shore line of the Ohio River rather than the 1792 northerly low water mark which is located to the south of the present north shore line.” Ohio “does now and has always claimed . . . that the boundary between it and Kentucky is the 1792 northerly low water mark.”
Leave to file the bill of complaint was granted. 384 U. S. 982 (1966). Kentucky by its answer admitted the allegations of the above-quoted numbered paragraphs of Ohio’s complaint. The Court then appointed the Honorable Phillip Forman as Special Master in the case. 385 U. S. 803 (1966).
Five years later, in August 1971, Ohio moved for leave to file an amended complaint. By this amendment Ohio would assert that the boundary between it and Kentucky is the middle of the Ohio River, or, only alternatively, is the 1792 low water mark on the northerly shore. We referred the motion to the Special Master. 404 U. S. 933 (1971). He held a hearing and in due course filed his report. 406 U. S. 915 (1972). The Master recommended that this Court enter its order denying Ohio’s petition for leave to amend. His conclusion rested on the ground “that the proposed amendment, in any view of its factual allegations, fails as a matter of law to state a cause of action.” Report 16. Upon the filing of Ohio’s exceptions and Kentucky’s reply, we set the matter for argument. 409 U. S. 974 (1972).
I
Accepted procedures for an ordinary case in this posture would probably lead us to conclude that the motion for leave to file should be granted, and the case would then proceed to trial or judgment on the pleadings. This, however, is not an ordinary case. It is one within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the Court. Const., Art. Ill, §2; 28 U. S. C. § 1251 (a). Procedures governing the exercise of our original jurisdiction are not invariably governed by common-law precedent or by current rules of civil procedure. See United States Supreme Court Rule 9; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 14 Pet. 210 (1840). Under our rules, the requirement of a motion for leave to file a complaint, and the requirement of a brief in opposition, permit and enable us to dispose of matters at a preliminary stage. See, for example, Alabama v. Texas, 347 U. S. 272 (1954); California v. Washington, 358 U. S. 64 (1958); Virginia v. West Virginia, 234 U. S. 117, 121 (1914). Our object in original cases is to have the parties, as promptly as possible, reach and argue the merits of the controversy presented. To this end, where feasible, we dispose of issues that would only serve to delay adjudication on the merits and needlessly add to the expense that the litigants must bear.
This case is peculiarly susceptible to treatment of that kind. The allegations in Ohio’s proposed amendment are not as yet formally controverted by Kentucky. We, therefore, treat the new material as admitted. Kentucky asserts, however, that, even assuming the new allegations to be true, no cause of action is stated, for the subject matter of Ohio’s proposed amendment is barred as a matter of law.
I — I
In Handly s Lessee v. Anthony, 5 Wheat. 374 (1820), this Court stated that the boundary between Indiana and Kentucky was the low water mark on the western or northwestern side of the Ohio River. Handly was an action for ejectment brought by a plaintiff claiming under a grant from Kentucky against defendants claiming under a grant “from the United States, as being part of Indiana.” Id., at 375. The disputed land was a neck south of a channel, or bayou, that had formed north of the main river. When the river was high, the channel filled and cut off the land to the north. When the river was low, the channel was dry in part and the separation did not exist. The resolution of the case turned on whether the land was in Indiana or in Kentucky. Indiana, like Ohio, received its territory from the United States. The Court in Handly observed that the question “depends chiefly on the land, law of Virginia, and on the cession made by that State to the United States,” id., at 376, and concluded that the United States acquired title from Virginia when negotiations during the period from 1781-1784 resulted in Virginia’s ceding its lands north and west of the Ohio River to the Federal Government. Kentucky was received as a State of the Union in 1792 out of territory Virginia purported to retain at the time of the 1784 cession. The Court concluded, on the basis of this history, that Kentucky, through Virginia, extended up to the low water mark on the northern, or far, side of the Ohio River. Mr. Chief Justice Marshall enunciated the following, now familiar, principle:
“When a great river is the boundary between two nations or states, if the original property is in neither, and there be no convention respecting it, each holds to the middle of the stream. But when, as in this case, one State is the original proprietor, and grants the territory on one side only, it retains the river within its own domain, and the newly-created State extends to the river only. The river, however, is its boundary.” 5 Wheat., at 379.
The rule of the Handly case, as well as its specific application to the Kentucky-Indiana border, has been consistently adhered .to in subsequent decisions of this Court. Indiana v. Kentucky, 136 U. S. 479 (1890) (despite Indiana’s argument, id., at 486-493, that its boundary was the middle of the river); Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson City, 173 U. S. 592 (1899); Nicoulin v. O’Brien, 248 U. S. 113 (1918). It has been explicitly recognized by the Supreme Court of Ohio in Booth v. Shepherd, 8 Ohio St. 243, 247-248 (1858), where it was stated with far greater precision than the mere assumption the dissent suggests, post, at 654-655, that:
“The construction given to the Virginia deed of cession by the supreme court of the United States, having been thus acquiesced in and acted on by the courts, both of Virginia and Ohio, may be regarded as decisive of the question.”
See also Lessee of McCullock v. Aten, 2 Ohio 307, 310 (1826); Lessee of Blanchard v. Porter, 11 Ohio 138, 142 (1841). See Commonwealth v. Garner, 3 Gratt. 655 (Gen. Court of Va. 1846).
In order to counter this history, Ohio argues that, as it was not a party to the Handly case, or to any of the later cases in this Court that reaffirmed Handly, it is not bound by the rule there established, which it characterizes as dictum. In particular, Ohio contends that it is free to challenge the conclusion that Virginia, prior to ceding the land that now encompasses both Indiana and Ohio, held good title to that land.
Handly and the later decisions to which Ohio was not a party of course do not foreclose Ohio’s claim in a res judicata sense. But proceedings under this Court’s original jurisdiction are basically equitable in nature, Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 14 Pet. 210 (1840), and a claim not technically precluded nonetheless may be foreclosed by acquiescence. Indiana v. Kentucky, 136 U. S., at 510, 518. We turn to that aspect of the present case.
Ill
By its amended complaint Ohio seeks to re-examine an accepted premise of the Handly decision and, in the process of doing so, to alter legal rights that, as a practical matter, have long been settled. By presently claiming ownership of half the Ohio River, Ohio does not assert that when Virginia ceded the lands northwest of the river, it intended to establish the river’s center as the line between Ohio and Kentucky, but, at the same time and thus inconsistently, to establish its northern edge as the line between Indiana and Kentucky. Rather, Ohio challenges the very postulate underlying the Handly decision, which must be taken, in practical effect, as establishing the entire northern boundary of Kentucky including its contact with Ohio. Ohio’s new theory is that Virginia did not have title to the lands north of the Ohio River in 1784 when Virginia surrendered its claim to the United States. Virginia’s claim, it is said, was baseless. Indeed, Ohio argues that title to these lands was hotly contested, with Virginia, New York, Massachusetts, Connecticut, and the United States all laying claim to the territory north of the river. The Continental Congress, fearing the threat this controversy posed for the youthful Nation, refused to resolve the disputed claims, and, instead, prevailed upon each of the claimants to forgo its claim in favor of the United States for the common good. Accordingly, Ohio contends, the premise of Handly — that Virginia had title to the northwest territory prior to ceding it to the United States, or, to say it another way, that it was the common proprietor of lands on both sides of the river — is historically invalid.
We need intimate no view on the merits of Ohio’s historical analysis, for the State’s long acquiescence in the location of its southern border at the northern edge of the Ohio River, and its persistent failure to assert a claim to the northern half of the river, convince us that it may not raise the middle-of-the-river issue at this very late date. The 1820 decision in Handly necessarily placed Ohio on notice that any claim it might assert to half the river would be precluded by the reasoning of that opinion. The Court in Handly concluded that the entire border between Indiana and Kentucky was the river’s northern edge. Virginia’s claim to the territory that is now Indiana arose from the same source as its claim to what is now Ohio. The lands to which Virginia purportedly surrendered title to the United States in 1784 encompassed both Ohio and Indiana. Ohio could not reasonably have believed, after Handly, that its claim over the northern half of the Ohio River rested on a footing different from that of Indiana.
Indeed, Ohio consistently has recognized that Handly and the cases that followed it foreclosed any claim that its border was located in the middle of the river. Even its original 1966 bill of complaint and supporting brief in this case so state. The decisions of Ohio’s highest court are to the same effect. And Ohio for over 150 years has failed to assert, through proceedings available in this Court, the claim it now would raise in the face of Kentucky’s legislative and judicial assertions of sovereignty over the river.
Ohio does not say that its failure to assert its claim over the past century and a half is due to any excusable neglect. The implications of Handly and later decisions of this Court are too clear to support that claim. Ohio recognized this in its initial brief here. Nor, in the light of the longstanding and unequivocal claims of Kentucky over the river, and Ohio’s failure to oppose those claims, may Ohio credibly suggest that it has not acquiesced. “The rule, long-settled and never doubted by this court, is that long acquiescence by one state in the possession of territory by another and in the exercise of sovereignty and dominion over it is conclusive of the latter’s title and rightful authority.” Michigan v. Wisconsin, 270 U. S. 295, 308 (1926). To like effect are Vermont v. New Hampshire, 289 U. S. 593, 613 (1933); Maryland v. West Virginia, 217 U. S. 1, 42-44 (1910); Louisiana v. Mississippi, 202 U. S. 1, 53-54 (1906); Virginia v. Tennessee, 148 U. S. 503, 523 (1893); Indiana v. Kentucky, 136 U. S., at 509-510, 518; Rhode Island v. Massachusetts, 4 How. 591, 639 (1846).
Here we have not only long acquiescence by Ohio in Kentucky’s open claims over the river, but also lines of cases by this Court and the courts of both Ohio and Kentucky that, for more than 150 years, placed Ohio on consistent notice of the inadequacy of the claim it now asserts. We find ourselves in agreement with the Special Master that Ohio is foreclosed from claiming that its boundary with Kentucky lies in the middle of the Ohio River.
The Special Master’s recommendation is adopted and Ohio’s motion for leave to amend its bill of complaint is denied. The case is remanded to the Special Master for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
1792 is the year Kentucky became a State. 1 Stat. 189.
Recommendation of the Continental Congress, September 6, 1780, 10 W. Hening, Laws of Virginia 562 (1822); Resolution of the General Assembly of Virginia, January 2, 1781, conditioned, among other things, upon ratification of the Articles of Confederation and upon like cessions by other States, id., at 564, 567; Act of the Continental Congress, September 13, 1783, 25 J. of the Cont. Cong. 1774-1789, p. 559 (1922); Act of Confirmation, October 20, 1783, 11 W. Hening, Laws of Virginia 326 (1823); Act of the Continental Congress, March 1, 1784, 1 Laws of the United States 472 (B. & D. ed. 1815).
The 1781 Virginia resolution recited that the Commonwealth “will yield to the congress of the United States ... all right, title, and claim that the said commonwealth hath to the lands northwest of the river Ohio.” 10 W. Hening, Laws of Virginia 564 (1822). Among the proposed conditions was also a guarantee by the United States to Virginia of “all the remaining territory of Virginia included between the Atlantic Ocean and the south east side of the river Ohio.” Id., at 566. This latter condition was not agreed to by the Congress by its Act of 1783. 25 J. of the Cont. Cong. 1774-1789, p. 563 (1922).
The 1783 Act referred to territory “to the north-west of the river Ohio.” 11 W. Hening, Laws of Virginia 327. So, too, did the deed of March 1, 1784, from Virginia to the United States accepted by Congress on the same day. 1 Laws of the United States, supra, at 474.
“Upon this question of boundary nothing can be added to what was said in the eases cited; and it must be assumed as indisputable that the boundary of Kentucky extends to low-water mark on the western and northwestern banks of the Ohio River.” Henderson Bridge Co. v. Henderson City, 173 U. S. 592, 613 (1899).
There is a possible intimation to the contrary in the bridge tax case of Covington á Cincinnati Bridge Co. v. Mayer, 31 Ohio St. 317, 327, 329 (1877). The case appears, however, to have been resolved on the content of the bridge company’s Ohio charter granting permission for the erection of the bridge. See Sebastian v. Covington & Cincinnati Bridge Co., 21 Ohio St. 451 (1871).
See Indiana v. Kentucky, 136 U. S. 479, 505 (1890). See also the deed of March 1, 1784, referred to in n. 2, supra, from Virginia to the United States. On August 7, 1789, Congress passed “An Act to provide for the Government of the Territory Northwest of the river Ohio.” 1 Stat. 50. In 1800, this territory was divided into two separate governments. 2 Stat. 58. And on April 30, 1802, the enabling Act for the admission of Ohio was passed. 2 Stat. 173. The State was formed out of the eastern half of the theretofore divided territory and was “bounded ... on the south by the Ohio river,” ibid.; the land in the eastern division not included within the boundaries described for Ohio “is hereby attached to, and made a part of the Indiana territory.” Id., at 174.
“The State of Ohio does now, and has always claimed and maintained that the boundary between it and the State of Kentucky is the northerly low water mark of the Ohio River, as that mark existed in the year 1792 when Kentucky became a state.” Brief in support of motion for leave to file complaint 8. (Emphasis in original.)
In 1810, a decade before the Handly decision, the Kentucky Legislature enacted the following statute:
“Sec. 1 Be it enacted by the General Assembly, That each county of this commonwealth, calling for the river Ohio, as the boundary line, shall be considered as bounded in that particular by the state line on the north west side of said river, and the bed of the river and the islands, therefore shall be within the respective counties, holding the main land opposite thereto, within this state, and the several county tribunals, shall hold jurisdiction accordingly.” Acts of Kentucky, 1809, p. 100 (1810); 1 Statute Laws of Kentucky 268 (1834).
See also 2 Ky. Rev. Stat., Tit. 1, c. 1, p. 2 (1971).
Commonwealth v. Henderson County, 371 S. W. 2d 27, 29-30 (1963); Louisville Sand & Gravel Co. v. Ralston, 266 S. W. 2d 119, 121-122 (1954); Shannon v. Streckfus Steamers, Inc., 279 Ky. 649, 653, 131 S. W. 2d 833, 835 (1939); McFarland v. McKnight, 45 Ky. 500, 510 (1846); Church v. Chambers, 3 Dana 274, 278-279 (Ct. App. Ky. 1835); Fleming v. Kenney, 27 Ky. 155, 158 (1830); McFall v. Commonwealth, 2 Metc. 394, 396 (Ky. 1859).
“Like Ohio, the State of Indiana was formed from the land ceded by Virginia; therefore, it has for its southern boundary the Ohio River. See 3 Stat. 289 (1816), and 3 Stat. 399 (1816). Thus, a determination of the boundary between the states of Indiana and Kentucky would control the determination of the boundary between the states of Ohio and Kentucky.” Brief in support of motion for leave to file complaint 10.
The situation, of course, is otherwise when the States’ boundary dispute has been open, continuous and of long standing. See, for example, New Jersey v. Delaware, 291 U. S. 361, 376-377 (1934); Oklahoma v. Texas, 272 U. S. 21, 46-47 (1926); Arkansas v. Tennessee, 246 U. S. 158, 172 (1918).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(2) provides that a “notice of appeal filed after the announcement of a decision or order but before the entry of the judgment or order shall be treated as filed after such entry and on the day thereof.” In this case, petitioner filed its notice of appeal after the District Court announced from the bench that it intended to grant summary judgment for respondent, but before entry of judgment and before the parties had, at the court’s request, submitted proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law. The question presented is whether the bench ruling is a “decision” under Rule 4(a)(2). We hold that it is.
I
Respondent, Investors Mortgage Insurance Co. (IMI), issued eight insurance policies to petitioner, FirsTier Mortgage Co. (FirsTier). The parties intended these policies to insure FirsTier for the risk of borrower default on eight real estate loans that FirsTier had made. After the eight borrowers defaulted, FirsTier submitted claims on the policies, which IMI refused to pay. Invoking the District Court’s diversity jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1332, FirsTier filed suit, seeking damages for IMI’s alleged breach of contract and breach of its duty of good faith and fair dealing.
On January 26, 1989, the District Court held a hearing on IMI’s motion for summary judgment. After hearing argument from counsel, the District Court announced from the bench that it was granting IMI’s motion. The judge stated that FirsTier’s eight policies had been secured from IMI through fraud or bad faith and therefore were void:
“I find that the policies should be and are cancelled as void for want of [sic] fraud, bad faith. The Court has heard no evidence in the matter of this hearing to change its mind from holding that the policies are void.
“Of course in a case of this kind, the losing party has a right to appeal. If the Court happens to be wrong, I don’t think I am, but if the Court happens to be wrong, it could be righted by the Circuit.
“The Court does find that [IMI] relied on the package [of information furnished by FirsTier] in each of these loans and the package was not honest. In fact it was dishonest. The dishonesty should and does void the policy.” App. 27.
The District Court then requested that IMI submit proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law to support the ruling, adding that FirsTier would thereafter be permitted to submit any objections it might have to IMI’s proposed findings:
“The Court will then look at what you submit as your suggestion and it is your suggestion only. The Court then will modify, add to it, delete and write its own findings of fact and conclusions of law and judgment in each of these eight policies that we have talked about.
“And if [FirsTier] cares to do so, within five days you may file with the Court your objection or suggestion wherein you find that the suggestions of [IMI] are in error, if you care to do so.” Ibid.
Finally, the District Court clarified that its ruling extinguished both FirsTier’s claim for breach of contract and FirsTier’s claim for breach of the duty of good faith and fair dealing. Id., at 28.
FirsTier filed its notice of appeal on February 8, 1989, identifying the January 26 bench ruling as the decision from which it was appealing. On March 3, 1989, the District Court issued its findings of fact and conclusions of law in support of its ruling that IMI was entitled to summary judgment. In a separate document, also dated March 3, 1989, the District Court entered judgment. See Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 58 (requiring that “[e]very judgment shall be set forth on a separate document”).
After notifying the parties that it was considering dismissing FirsTier’s appeal for lack of jurisdiction, the Court of Appeals requested that the parties brief two issues: first, whether the February 8 notice of appeal was filed prematurely; and, second, whether the January 26 bench ruling was a final decision appealable under 28 U. S. C. §1291. See App. to Pet. for Cert. B-2. The Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal on the ground that the January 26 decision was not final under § 1291. The court did not address whether FirsTier’s notice of appeal could be effective as a notice of appeal from the March 3 final judgment despite the fact that it identified the January 26 ruling as the ruling appealed from. See id., at A-2. We granted certiorari, 494 U. S. 1003 (1990), and now reverse.
II
The issue before us is whether FirsTier’s February 8 notice of appeal is fatally premature. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(1) requires an appellant to file its notice of appeal “within 30 days after the date of entry of the judgment or order appealed from.” See also 28 U. S. C. §2107. In this case, FirsTier filed its notice of appeal close to a month before entry of judgment. However, under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(2) a notice of appeal “filed after the announcement of a decision or order but before the entry of the judgment or order shall be treated as filed after such entry and on the day thereof.” Added to the Federal Rules in 1979, Rule 4(a)(2) was intended to codify a general practice in the courts of appeals of deeming certain premature notices of appeal effective. See Advisory Committee’s Note on Fed. Rule App. Proc. 4(a)(2), 28 U. S. C. App., p. 516. The Rule recognizes that, unlike a tardy notice of appeal, certain premature notices do not prejudice the appel-lee and that the technical defect of prematurity therefore should not be allowed to extinguish an otherwise proper appeal. See In re Grand Jury Impaneled Jan. 21, 1975, 541 F. 2d 373, 377 (CA3 1976) (cited with approval in Advisory Committee’s Note on Fed. Rule App. Proc. 4(a)(2), supra, at 516); Hodge v. Hodge, 507 F. 2d 87, 89 (CA3 1975) (same).
IMI maintains that the relation forward provision of Rule 4(a)(2) rescues a premature notice of appeal only if such notice is filed after the announcement of a decision that is “final” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1291. IMI further contends that the January 26 bench ruling did not constitute a final decision. For a ruling to be final, it must “en[d] the litigation on the merits,” Catlin v. United States, 324 U. S. 229, 233 (1945) (citation omitted), and the judge must “clearly declare] his intention in this respect,” United States v. F. & M. Schaefer Brewing Co., 356 U. S. 227, 232 (1958). IMI contends that the judge did not clearly intend to terminate the litigation on the merits. Although the judge stated from the bench his legal conclusions about the case, he also stated his intention to set forth his rationale in a more detailed and disciplined fashion at a later date. Moreover, the judge did not explicitly exclude the possibility that he might change his mind in the interim.
We find it unnecessary to resolve this question whether the bench ruling was final. For we believe the Court of Appeals erred in its threshold determination that a notice of appeal filed from a bench ruling can only be effective if the bench ruling is itself a final decision. Rather, we conclude that Rule 4(a)(2) permits a notice of appeal filed from certain nonfinal decisions to serve as an effective notice from a subsequently entered final judgment.
To support its contention that Rule 4(a)(2) cannot permit a premature notice of appeal from a nonfinal decision, IMI relies on Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 1(b). Rule 1(b) provides that the appellate Rules “shall not be construed to extend or limit the jurisdiction of the courts of appeals as established by law.” According to IMI, construing Rule 4(a)(2) to cure premature notices of appeal from nonfinal decisions would contravene Rule 1(b) by enlarging appellate jurisdiction beyond that conferred by 28 U. S. C. § 1291, the relevant jurisdictional statute.
IMI misinterprets Rule 4(a)(2). Under Rule 4(a)(2), a premature notice of appeal does not ripen until judgment is entered. Once judgment is entered, the Rule treats the premature notice of appeal “as filed after such entry.” Thus, even if a bench ruling in a given case were not “final” within the meaning of § 1291, Rule 4(a)(2) would not render that ruling appealable in contravention of § 1291. Rather, it permits a premature notice of appeal from that bench ruling to relate forward to judgment and serve as an effective notice of appeal from the final judgment.
In our view, this interpretation of Rule 4(a)(2) best comports with its drafters’ intent, as cases cited in the Advisory Committee’s Note on Rule 4(a)(2) confirm. For example, in Ruby v. Secretary of Navy, 365 F. 2d 385 (CA9 1966), cert. denied, 386 U. S. 1011 (1967), the appellant filed his notice of appeal from an order of the District Court that dismissed the complaint without dismissing the action. The Court of Appeals determined that the ruling was not a final decision under § 1291, because the ruling left open an opportunity for the appellant to save his cause of action by amending his complaint. 365 F. 2d, at 387. Nonetheless, the court ruled that the notice of appeal from the nonfinal ruling could serve as a notice of appeal from the subsequently filed final order dismissing the action. Id., at 387-389.
The Advisory Committee’s Note also cites Firchau v. Diamond National Corp., 345 F. 2d 269 (CA9 1965), a case relied on by Ruby. In Firchau, the District Court dismissed the appellant’s complaint without dismissing the action. The appellant then filed a notice seeking to appeal from the District Court’s ruling with respect to one of the claims in the complaint. The Court of Appeals noted that the ruling dismissing the complaint might not have been appealable but nonetheless held that the notice of appeal could be regarded as a notice from the subsequent final judgment dismissing the case. See 345 F. 2d, at 270-271. Ruby, Firchau, and the other cases cited by the Advisory Committee suggest that Rule 4(a)(2) was intended to protect the unskilled litigant who files a notice of appeal from a decision that he reasonably but mistakenly believes to be a final judgment, while failing to file a notice of appeal from the actual final judgment.
This is not to say that Rule 4(a)(2) permits a notice of appeal from a clearly interlocutory decision — such as a discovery ruling or a sanction order under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure — to serve as a notice of appeal from the final judgment. A belief that such a decision is a final judgment would not be reasonable. In our view, Rule 4(a) (2) permits a notice of appeal from a nonfinal decision to operate as a notice of appeal from the final judgment only when a district court announces a decision that would be appealable if immediately followed by the entry of judgment. In these instances, a litigant’s confusion is understandable, and permitting the notice of appeal to become effective when judgment is entered does not catch the appellee by surprise. Little would be accomplished by prohibiting the court of appeals from reaching the merits of such an appeal. See Hodge, 507 F. 2d, at 89.
Applying this principle to the case at hand, we conclude that the District Court’s January 26 bench ruling was a “decision” for purposes of Rule 4(a)(2). Even assuming that the January 26 bench ruling was not final because the District Court could have changed its mind prior to entry of judgment, the fact remains that the bench ruling did announce a decision purporting to dispose of all of FirsTier’s claims. Had the judge set forth the judgment immediately following the bench ruling, and had the clerk entered the judgment on the docket, see Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 58 and 79(a), there is no question that the bench ruling would have been “final” under § 1291. Under such circumstances, FirsTier’s belief in the finality of the January 26 bench ruling was reasonable, and its premature February 8 notice therefore should be treated as an effective notice of appeal from the judgment entered on March 3.
In reaching our conclusion, we observe that this case presents precisely the situation contemplated by Rule 4(a)(2)’s drafters. FirsTier’s confusion as to the status of the litigation at the time it filed its notice of appeal was understandable. By its February 8 notice of appeal, FirsTier clearly sought, albeit inartfully, to appeal from the judgment that in fact was entered on March 3. No unfairness to IMI results from allowing the appeal to go forward.
! — I I — 1 > — l
Because the District Court rendered a final judgment on March 3, and because, by virtue of Rule 4(a)(2), FirsTier’s February 8 notice of appeal constituted a timely notice of appeal from that judgment, the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing FirsTier’s appeal. Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
Rule 4(a)(2) applies “[e]xcept as provided in (a)(4) of this Rule.” Rule 4(a)(4) states, in pertinent part:
“If a timely motion under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure is filed in the district court by any party: (i) for judgment under Rule 50(b); (ii) under Rule 52(b) to amend or make additional findings of fact, whether or not an alteration of the judgment would be required if the motion is granted; (iii) under Rule 59 to alter or amend the judgment; or (iv) under Rule 59 for a new trial, the time for appeal for all parties shall run from the entry of the order denying a new trial or granting or denying any other such motion. A notice of appeal filed before the disposition of any of the above motions shall have no effect. A new notice of appeal must be filed within the prescribed time measured from the entry of the order disposing of the motion as provided above.”
Section 1291 provides that “[t]he courts of appeals . . . shall have jurisdiction of appeals from all final decisions of the district courts of the United States.”
An exception to this general principle, not applicable here, is the “collateral order doctrine,” which permits appeals under § 1291 from a small class of rulings that do not end the litigation on the merits. See Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541, 545-547 (1949).
Rule 4(a)(2) refers to “a notice of appeal filed after the announcement of a decision or order but before the entry of the judgment or order” (emphasis added). Thus, under the Rule, a premature notice of appeal relates forward to the date of entry of a final “judgment” only when the ruling designated in the notice is a “decision” for purposes of the Rule. We define “decision” with this situation in mind. We offer no view on the meaning of the term “order” in Rule 4(a)(2) or on the operation of the Rule when the jurisdiction of the court of appeals is founded on a statute other than § 1291.
See In re Grand Jury Impaneled Jan. 21, 1975, 541 F. 2d 373 (CA3 1976); Hodge v. Hodge, 507 F. 2d 87 (CA3 1975); Song Jook Suh v. Rosenberg, 437 F. 2d 1098 (CA9 1971).
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(c) requires that the appellant “designate the judgment, order or part thereof appealed from.” As we have recognized, however, Rule 3(c)’s judgment-designation requirement is to be construed “in light of all the circumstances.” Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U. S. 312, 316 (1988); see Foman v. Davis, 371 U. S. 178 (1962). In Foman, we established that a notice of appeal that designates a postjudgment motion should be treated as noting an appeal from the final judgment when the appellant’s intention to appeal the final judgment is sufficiently “manifest” that the appellee is not misled. See id., at 181. In our view, a notice of appeal from a Rule 4(a)(2) “decision” — that is, a decision that would be appealable if immediately followed by the entry of judgment — sufficiently manifests an intent to appeal from the final judgment for purposes of Rule 3(c).
Because FirsTier did not file any of the motions enumerated under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4), see n. 1, supra, Rule 4(a)(4) does not render its premature notice of appeal ineffective.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This case presents questions under the Fourth Amendment as to the legality of a warrantless arrest and of an ensuing search of the arrestee’s automobile carried out with his purported consent.
I
The relevant events began on August 17, 1972, when an informant, one Khoury, telephoned a postal inspector informing him that respondent Watson was in possession of a stolen credit card and had asked Khoury to cooperate in using the card to their mutual advantage. On five to 10 previous occasions Khoury had provided the inspector with reliable information on postal inspection matters, some involving Watson. Later that day Khoury delivered the card to the inspector. On learning that Watson had agreed to furnish additional cards, the inspector asked Khoury to arrange to meet with Watson. Khoury did so, a meeting being scheduled for August 22. Watson canceled that engagement, but at noon on August 23, Khoury met with Watson at a restaurant designated by the latter. Khoury had been instructed that if Watson had additional stolen credit cards, Khoury was to give a designated signal. The signal was given, the officers closed in, and Watson was forthwith arrested. He was removed from the restaurant to the street where he was given the warnings required by Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966). A search having revealed that Watson had no credit cards on his person, the inspector asked if he could look inside Watson's car, which was standing within view. Watson said, “Go ahead,” and repeated these words when the inspector cautioned that “[i]f I find anything, it is going to go against you.” Using keys furnished by Watson, the inspector entered the car and found under the floor mat an envelope containing two credit cards in the names of other persons. These cards were the basis for two counts of a four-count indictment charging Watson with possessing stolen mail in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1708.
Prior to trial, Watson moved to suppress the cards, claiming that his arrest was illegal for want of probable cause and an arrest warrant and that his consent to search the car was involuntary and ineffective because he had not been told that he could withhold consent. The motion was denied, and Watson was convicted of illegally possessing the two cards seized from his car.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed, 504 F. 2d 849 (1974), ruling that the admission in evidence of the two credit cards found in the car was prohibited by the Fourth Amendment. In reaching this judgment, the court decided two issues in Watson’s favor. First, notwithstanding its agreement with the District Court that Khoury was reliable and that there was probable cause for arresting Watson, the court held the arrest unconstitutional because the postal inspector had failed to secure an arrest warrant although he concededly had time to do so. Second, based on the totality of the circumstances, one of which was the illegality of the arrest, the court held Watson’s consent to search had been coerced and hence was not a valid ground for the warrantless search of the automobile. We granted certiorari. 420 U. S. 924 (1975).
II
A major part of the Court of Appeals’ opinion was its holding that Watson’s warrantless arrest violated the Fourth Amendment. Although it did not expressly do so, it may have intended to overturn the conviction on the independent ground that the two credit cards were the inadmissible fruits of an unconstitutional arrest. Cf. Brown v. Illinois, 422 U. S. 590 (1975). However that may be, the Court of Appeals treated the illegality of Watson’s arrest as an important factor in determining the voluntariness of his consent to search his car. We therefore deal first with the arrest issue.
Contrary to the Court of Appeals’ view, Watson’s arrest was not invalid because executed without a warrant. Title 18 TJ. S. C. § 3061 (a)(3) expressly empowers the Board of Governors of the Postal Service to authorize Postal Service officers and employees “performing duties related to the inspection of postal matters” to
“make arrests without warrant for felonies cognizable under the laws of the United States if they have reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed or is committing such a felony.”
By regulation, 39 CFR § 232.5 (a) (3) (1975), and in identical language, the Board of Governors has exercised that power and authorized warrantless arrests. Because there was probable cause in this case to believe that Watson had violated § 1708, the inspector and his subordinates, in arresting Watson, were acting strictly in accordance with the governing statute and regulations. The effect of the judgment of the Court of Appeals was to invalidate the statute as applied in this case and as applied to all the situations where a court fails to find exigent circumstances justifying a warrantless arrest. We reverse that judgment.
Under the Fourth Amendment, the people are to be “secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, . . . and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause . . . .” Section 3061 represents a judgment by Congress that it is not unreasonable under the Fourth Amendment for postal inspectors to arrest without a warrant provided they have probable cause to do so. This was not an isolated or quixotic judgment of the legislative branch. Other federal law enforcement officers have been expressly authorized by statute for many years to make felony arrests on probable cause but without a warrant. This is true of United States marshals, 18 U. S. C. § 3053, and of agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, 18 U. S. C. § 3052; the Drug Enforcement Administration, 84 Stat. 1273, 21 U. S. C. § 878; the Secret Service, 18 U. S. C. § 3056 (a); and the Customs Service, 26 U. S. C. § 7607.
Because there is a “strong presumption of constitutionality due to an Act of Congress, especially when it turns on what is 'reasonable,’” “[o]bviously the Court should be reluctant to decide that a search thus authorized by Congress was unreasonable and that the Act was therefore unconstitutional.” United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581, 585 (1948). Moreover, there is nothing in the Court’s prior cases indicating that under the Fourth Amendment a warrant is required to make a valid arrest for a felony. Indeed, the relevant prior decisions are uniformly to the contrary.
“The usual rule is that a police officer may arrest without warrant one believed by the officer upon reasonable cause to have been guilty of a felony . . . .” Carroll v. United States, 267 U. S. 132, 156 (1925). In Henry v. United States, 361 U. S. 98 (1959), the Court dealt with an FBI agent's warrantless arrest under 18 U. S. C. § 3052, which authorizes a warrantless arrest where there are reasonable grounds to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony. The Court declared that “[t]he statute states the constitutional standard . . . 361 U. S., at 100. The necessary inquiry, therefore, was not whether there was a warrant or whether there was time to get one, but whether there was probable cause for the arrest. In Abel v. United States, 362 U. S. 217, 232 (1960), the Court sustained an administrative arrest made without “a judicial warrant within the scope of the Fourth Amendment.” The crucial question in Draper v. United States, 358 U. S. 307 (1959), was whether there was probable cause for the warrant-less arrest. If there was, the Court said, “the arrest, though without a warrant, was lawful . . . .” Id., at 310. Ker v. California, 374 U. S. 23, 34-35 (1963) (opinion of Clark, J.), reiterated the rule that “[t]he lawfulness of the arrest without warrant, in turn, must be based upon probable cause . . .” and went on to sustain the warrantless arrest over other claims going to the mode of entry. Just last Term, while recognizing that maximum protection of individual rights could be assured by requiring a magistrate's review of the factual justification prior to any arrest, we stated that “such a requirement would constitute an intolerable handicap for legitimate law enforcement” and noted that the Court “has never invalidated an arrest supported by probable cause solely because the officers failed to secure a warrant.” Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103, 113 (1975).
The cases construing the Fourth Amendment thus reflect the ancient common-law rule that a peace officer was permitted to arrest without a warrant for a misdemeanor or felony committed in his presence as well as for a felony not committed in his presence if there was reasonable ground for making the arrest. 10 Halsbury’s Laws of England 344-345 (3d ed. 1955); 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *292; 1 J. Stephen, A History of the Criminal Law of England 193 (1883); 2 M. Hale, Pleas of the Crown *72-74; Wilgus, Arrest Without a Warrant, 22 Mich. L. Rev. 541, 547-550, 686-688 (1924) ; Samuel v. Payne, 1 Doug. 359, 99 Eng. Rep. 230 (K. B. 1780); Beckwith v. Philby, 6 Barn. & Cress. 635, 108 Eng. Rep. 585 (K. B. 1827). This has also been the prevailing rule under state constitutions and statutes. “The rule of the common law, that a peace officer or a private citizen may arrest a felon without a warrant, has been generally held by the courts of the several States to be in force in cases of felony punishable by the civil tribunals.” Kurtz v. Moffitt, 115 U. S. 487, 504 (1885).
In Rohan v. Sawin, 59 Mass. 281 (1850), a false-arrest case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts held that the common-law rule obtained in that State. Given probable cause to arrest, “[t]he authority of a constable, to arrest without warrant, in cases of felony, is most fully established by the elementary books, and adjudicated cases.” Id., at 284. In reaching this judgment the court observed:
“It has been sometimes contended, that an arrest of this character, without a warrant, was a violation of the great fundamental principles of our national and state constitutions, forbidding unreasonable searches and arrests, except by warrant founded upon a complaint made under oath. Those provisions doubtless had another and different purpose, being in restraint of general warrants to make searches, and requiring warrants to issue only upon a complaint made under oath. They do not conflict with the authority of constables or other peace-officers, or private persons under proper limitations, to arrest without warrant those who have committed felonies. The public safety, and the due apprehension of criminals, charged with heinous offences, imperiously require that such arrests should be made without warrant by officers of the law.” Id., at 284-285.
Also rejected, id., at 285-286, was the trial court’s view that to justify a warrantless arrest, the State must show “an immediate necessity therefor, arising from the danger, that the plaintiff would otherwise escape, or secrete the stolen property, before a warrant could be procured against him.” The Supreme Judicial Court ruled that there was no “authority for thus restricting a constable in the exercise of his authority to arrest for a felony without a warrant.” Id., at 286. Other early cases to similar effect were Wakely v. Hart, 6 Binn. 316 (Pa. 1814); Tolley v. Mix, 3 Wend. 350 (N. Y. Sup. Ct. 1829); State v. Brown, 5 Del. 505 (Ct. Gen. Sess. 1853); Johnson v. State, 30 Ga. 426 (1860); Wade v. Chaffee, 8 R. I. 224 (1865). See Reuck v. McGregor, 32 N. J. L. 70, 74 (Sup. Ct. 1866); Baltimore & O. R. Co. v. Cain, 81 Md. 87, 100, 102, 31 A. 801, 803, 804 (1895).
Because the common-law rule authorizing arrests without a warrant generally prevailed in the States, it is important for present purposes to note that in 1792 Congress invested United States marshals and their deputies with “the same powers in executing the laws of the United States, as sheriffs and their deputies in the several states have by law, in executing the laws of their respective states.” Act of May 2, 1792, c. 28, § 9, 1 Stat. 265. The Second Congress thus saw no inconsistency between the Fourth Amendment and legislation giving United States marshals the same power as local peace officers to arrest for a felony without a warrant. This provision equating the power of federal marshals with those of local sheriffs was several times reenacted and is today § 570 of Title 28 of the United States Code. That provision, however, was supplemented in 1935 by § 504a of the Judicial Code, which in its essential elements is now 18 U. S. C. § 3053 and which expressly empowered marshals to make felony arrests without warrant and on probable cause. • It was enacted to furnish a federal standard independent of the vagaries of state laws, the Committee Report remarking that under existing law a “marshal or deputy marshal may make an arrest without a warrant within his district in all cases where the sheriff might do so under the State statutes.” H. R. Rep. No. 283, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 1 (1935). See United States v. Riggs, 474 F. 2d 699, 702-703, n. 2 (CA2), cert. denied, 414 U. S. 820 (1973).
The balance struck by the common law in generally authorizing felony arrests on probable cause, but without a warrant, has survived substantially intact. It appears in almost all of the States in the form of express statutory authorization. In 1963, the American Law Institute undertook the task of formulating a model statute governing police powers and practice in criminal law enforcement and related aspects of pretrial procedure. In 1975, after years of discussion, A Model Code of Pre-arraignment Procedure was proposed. Among its provisions was § 120.1 which authorizes an officer to take a person into custody if the officer has reasonable cause to believe that the person to be arrested has committed a felony, or has committed a misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor in his presence. The commentary to this section said: “The Code thus adopts the traditional and almost universal standard for arrest without a warrant.”
This is the rule Congress has long directed its principal law enforcement officers to follow. Congress has plainly decided against conditioning warrantless arrest power on proof of exigent circumstances. Law enforcement officers may find it wise to seek arrest warrants where practicable to do so, and their judgments about probable cause may be more readily accepted where backed by a warrant issued by a magistrate. See United States v. Ventresca, 380 U. S. 102, 106 (1965); Aguilar v. Texas, 378 U. S. 108, 111 (1964); Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U. S. 471, 479-480 (1963). But we decline to transform this judicial preference into a constitutional rule when the judgment of the Nation and Congress has for so long been to authorize warrantless public arrests on probable cause rather than to encumber criminal prosecutions with endless litigation with respect to the existence of exigent circumstances, whether it was practicable to get a warrant, whether the suspect was about to flee, and the like.
Watson’s arrest did not violate the Fourth Amendment, and the Court of Appeals erred in holding to the contrary.
Ill
Because our judgment is that Watson’s arrest comported with the Fourth Amendment, Watson’s consent to the search of his car was not the product of an illegal arrest. To the extent that the issue of the voluntariness of Watson’s consent was resolved on the premise that his arrest was illegal, the Court of Appeals was also in error.
We are satisfied in addition that the remaining factors relied upon by the Court of Appeals to invalidate Watson’s consent are inadequate to demonstrate that, in the totality of the circumstances, Watson’s consent was not his own “essentially free and unconstrained choice” because his “will ha[d] been overborne and his capacity for self-determination critically impaired.” Schneckloth v. Bustamonte, 412 U. S. 218, 225 (1973). There was no overt act or threat of force against Watson proved or claimed. There were no promises made to him and no indication of more subtle forms of coercion that might flaw his judgment. He had been arrested and was in custody, but his consent was given while on a public street, not in the confines of the police station. Moreover, the fact of custody alone has never been enough in itself to demonstrate a coerced confession or consent to search. Similarly, under Schneckloth, the absence of proof that Watson knew he could withhold his consent, though it may be a factor in the overall judgment, is not to be given controlling significance. There is no indication in this record that Watson was a newcomer to the law, mentally deficient, or unable in the face of a custodial arrest to exercise a free choice. He was given Miranda warnings and was further cautioned that the results of the search of his car could be used against him. He persisted in his consent.
In these circumstances, to hold that illegal coercion is made out from the fact of arrest and the failure to inform the arrestee that he could withhold consent would not be consistent with Schneckloth and would distort the voluntariness standard that we reaffirmed in that case.
In consequence, we reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
So ordered.
Mr. Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
In the meantime the inspector had verified that the card was stolen.
Title 18 U. S. C. § 1708 punishes the theft of mail as well as the possession of stolen mail. The punishment is a fine of not more than $2,000 or imprisonment for not more than five years, or both.
Watson was acquitted on the second count. The fourth was dismissed prior to trial.
At least since approval of the Act of June 10, 1955, c. 137, §203, 69 Stat. 106, 39 U. S. C. § 3523 (a) (2) (K) (1964 ed.), postal inspectors’ duties have been thought to permit arrest without a warrant upon probable cause. Compare United States v. Helbock, 76 F. Supp. 985 (Ore. 1948), with United States v. Alexander, 415 F. 2d 1352 (CA7 1969), cert. denied, 397 U. S. 1014 (1970); Kelley v. Dunne, 344 F. 2d 129 (CAI 1965); and United States v. Bell, 294 F. Supp. 1314 (ND Ill. 1968). The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit held, however, that § 3523 (a) (2) (K) did not give the necessary express power to arrest, but that a warrantless arrest by a postal inspector could be upheld by resort to a citizen’s power to arrest. United States v. DeCatur, 430 F. 2d 365 (1970); Neggo v. United States, 390 F. 2d 609 (1968); Ward v. United States, 316 F. 2d 113, cert. denied, 375 U. S. 862 (1963).
In 1968 in the face of confusion generated by these decisions and two others striking down warrantless arrests by postal inspectors as not authorized by federal statute or by state law, Alexander v. United States, 390 F. 2d 101 (CA5 1968); United States v. Moderacki, 280 F. Supp. 633 (Del. 1968), the Congress enacted 18 U. S. C. §3061 to make clear that postal inspectors are empowered to arrest without warrant upon probable cause. Pub. L. 90-560, §5 (a), 82 Stat. 998; H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 1918, 90th Cong., 2d Sess., 6 (1968); H. R. Rep. No. 1725, 90th Cong., 2d Sess. (1968); 114 Cong. Rec. 20914r-20915, 26928, 2886A-28865 (1968).
There are other federal officers subject to a more restrictive statutory standard. See, e. g., 18 U. S. C. § 3050, with respect to employees of the Bureau of Prisons.
In the case before us the Court of Appeals relied heavily, but mistakenly, on Coolidge v. New Hampshire, 403 U. S. 443, 480-481 (1971), for as we noted in Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S., at 113 n. 13, the still unsettled question posed in that part of the Coolidge opinion was “whether and under what circumstances an officer may enter a suspect’s home to make a warrantless arrest.” Watson’s midday public arrest does not present that question.
In its proposed Model Code of Pre-arraignment Procedure, the American Law Institute has addressed the question and recommends that an officer who is empowered to make an arrest and has probable cause to believe the person to be arrested is on private premises be authorized to demand entry to such premises and thereupon to enter to make an arrest. ALI, Model Code of Pre-arraignment Procedure § 120.6 (1) (1975). In certain cases of necessity, however, notification and demand are not required. § 120.6 (2). Authority to make nighttime arrests on private premises is restricted to arrests with warrants authorizing nighttime execution and to certain cases of necessity. §120.6(3). The commentary states that 24 States (and the District of Columbia) authorize forcible entry whenever there is authority to arrest, six whenever the arrest is under a warrant or for a felony, six whenever the arrest is under a warrant, and two whenever the arrest is for a felony. Id., at 310, 696-697. Of these jurisdictions all but three have prior-notice requirements for entries to make an arrest similar to those 18 U. S. C. § 3109 imposes on entries to execute a search warrant. ALI Model Code, supra, at 310-313.
As Professor Wilgus observed in his article Arrest Without A Warrant, 22 Mich. L. Rev. 541, 549-550 (1924) (footnote omitted), “[i]t was early argued that similar provisions [to the Fourth Amendment of the Constitution] in state constitutions forbade arrests without a warrant; it was ruled otherwise as to arrests by officers and private persons according to the common law.”
Of equal import is the rule recognized by this Court that even in the absence of a federal statute granting or restricting the authority of federal law enforcement officers, “the law of the state where an arrest without warrant takes place determines its validity.” United States v. Di Re, 332 U. S. 581, 589 (1948). Accord, Miller V. United States, 357 U. S. 301, 305 (1958); Johnson v. United States, 333 U. S. 10, 15 n. 5 (1948); Bad Elk v. United States, 177 U. S. 529, 535 (1900). This rule is consistent with the express statutory authority of United States marshals discussed in the text, as well as with the Act of Sept. 24, 1789, c. 20, § 33, 1 Stat. 91, providing that for any offense against the United States the offender may be arrested by any judge or justice of the United States “agreeably to the usual mode of process against offenders in such state” as he might be found. See United States v. Di Re, supra, at 589 n. 8.
Act of Feb. 28, 1795, c. 36, § 9, 1 Stat. 425; Act of July 29, 1861, c. 25, §7, 12 Stat. 282; Rev. Stat. §788 (1874); Judicial Code of 1948, § 549, 62 Stat. 912.
Act of June 15,1935, c. 259, § 2, 49 Stat. 378.
Section 120.1 of the Model Code provides, in pertinent part:
“(1) Authority to Arrest Without a Warrant. A law enforcement officer may arrest a person without a warrant if the officer has reasonable cause to believe that such person has committed
“(a) a felony;
“(b) a misdemeanor, and the officer has reasonable cause to believe that such person
“(i) will not be apprehended unless immediately arrested; or
“(ii) may cause injury to himself or others or damage to property unless immediately arrested; or
“(c) a misdemeanor or petty misdemeanor in the officer’s presence.”
Id., at 289 (footnote omitted). The commentary goes on to say with respect to § 120.1:
“This Section does not require an officer to arrest under a warrant even if a reasonable opportunity to obtain a warrant exists. As to arrests on the street such a requirement would be entirely novel. Moreover the need for it is not urgent, and the subsequent inquiry such a requirement would authorize would be indeterminate and difficult.” Id., at 303 (footnotes omitted).
As the commentary notes, id., at 289 n. 1, a statute in the State of Georgia is more restrictive of the arrest power than the general standard. Ga. Code Ann. §27-207 (a) (Supp. 1975). See also Colo. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-102 (1973), which provides that an arrest warrant should be obtained “when practicable,” and Mont. Rev. Codes Ann. § 95-608 (d) (1969) which authorizes a warrantless arrest if “existing circumstances require” it. A North Carolina statute, N. C. Gen. Stat. § 15-41 (1965), similar to the Georgia statute, was replaced in 1975 by a provision permitting warrantless felony arrests on probable cause. N. C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-401 (b) (2) (1975).
Until 1951, 18 U. S. C. § 3052 conditioned the warrantless arrest powers of the agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation on there being reasonable grounds to believe that the person would escape before a warrant could be obtained. The Act of Jan. 10, 1951, c. 1221, § 1, 64 Stat. 1239, eliminated this condition. The House Report explained the purpose of the amendment, H. R. Rep. No. 3228, 81st Cong., 2d Sess., 1-2 (1950), and the amendment was given effect by the courts in accordance with its terms. Compare United States v. Coplon, 185 F. 2d 629, 633-636 (CA2 1950), cert. denied, 342 U. S. 920 (1952), with Coplon v. United States, 89 U. S. App. D. C. 103, 108-109, 191 F. 2d 749, 753-754 (1951), cert. denied, 342 U. S. 926 (1952).
On the contrary, the inspector making the arrest in this case had arrested Watson in 1971 for mail theft. Those charges were dropped when Watson cooperated with the prosecution. During the ensuing two years he also furnished information to the authorities.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice THOMAS delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case asks us to decide whether a court in Nevada may exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant on the basis that he knew his allegedly tortious conduct in Georgia would delay the return of funds to plaintiffs with connections to Nevada. Because the defendant had no other contacts with Nevada, and because a plaintiff's contacts with the forum State cannot be "decisive in determining whether the defendant's due process rights are violated," Rush v. Savchuk, 444 U.S. 320, 332, 100 S.Ct. 571, 62 L.Ed.2d 516 (1980), we hold that the court in Nevada may not exercise personal jurisdiction under these circumstances.
I
Petitioner Anthony Walden serves as a police officer for the city of Covington, Georgia. In August 2006, petitioner was working at the Atlanta Hartsfield-Jackson Airport as a deputized agent of the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA). As part of a task force, petitioner conducted investigative stops and other law enforcement functions in support of the DEA's airport drug interdiction program.
On August 8, 2006, Transportation Security Administration agents searched respondents Gina Fiore and Keith Gipson and their carry-on bags at the San Juan airport in Puerto Rico. They found almost $97,000 in cash. Fiore explained to DEA agents in San Juan that she and Gipson had been gambling at a casino known as the El San Juan, and that they had residences in both California and Nevada (though they provided only California identification). After respondents were cleared for departure, a law enforcement official at the San Juan airport notified petitioner's task force in Atlanta that respondents had boarded a plane for Atlanta, where they planned to catch a connecting flight to Las Vegas, Nevada.
When respondents arrived in Atlanta, petitioner and another DEA agent approached them at the departure gate for their flight to Las Vegas. In response to petitioner's questioning, Fiore explained that she and Gipson were professional gamblers. Respondents maintained that the cash they were carrying was their gambling " 'bank' " and winnings. App. 15, 24. After using a drug-sniffing dog to perform a sniff test, petitioner seized the cash.1 Petitioner advised respondents that their funds would be returned if they later proved a legitimate source for the cash. Respondents then boarded their plane.
After respondents departed, petitioner moved the cash to a secure location and the matter was forwarded to DEA headquarters. The next day, petitioner received a phone call from respondents' attorney in Nevada seeking return of the funds. On two occasions over the next month, petitioner also received documentation from the attorney regarding the legitimacy of the funds.
At some point after petitioner seized the cash, he helped draft an affidavit to show probable cause for forfeiture of the funds and forwarded that affidavit to a United States Attorney's Office in Georgia.2 According to respondents, the affidavit was false and misleading because petitioner misrepresented the encounter at the airport and omitted exculpatory information regarding the lack of drug evidence and the legitimate source of the funds. In the end, no forfeiture complaint was filed, and the DEA returned the funds to respondents in March 2007.
Respondents filed suit against petitioner in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada, seeking money damages under Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). Respondents alleged that petitioner violated their Fourth Amendment rights by (1) seizing the cash without probable cause; (2) keeping the money after concluding it did not come from drug-related activity; (3) drafting and forwarding a probable cause affidavit to support a forfeiture action while knowing the affidavit contained false statements; (4) willfully seeking forfeiture while withholding exculpatory information; and (5) withholding that exculpatory information from the United States Attorney's Office.
The District Court granted petitioner's motion to dismiss. Relying on this Court's decision in Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984), the court determined that petitioner's search of respondents and his seizure of the cash in Georgia did not establish a basis to exercise personal jurisdiction in Nevada. The court concluded that even if petitioner caused harm to respondents in Nevada while knowing they lived in Nevada, that fact alone did not confer jurisdiction. Because the court dismissed the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction, it did not determine whether venue was proper.
On appeal, a divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed. The Court of Appeals assumed the District Court had correctly determined that petitioner's search and seizure in Georgia could not support exercise of jurisdiction in Nevada. The court held, however, that the District Court could properly exercise jurisdiction over "the false probable cause affidavit aspect of the case." 688 F.3d 558, 577 (2011). According to the Court of Appeals, petitioner "expressly aimed" his submission of the allegedly false affidavit at Nevada by submitting the affidavit with knowledge that it would affect persons with a "significant connection" to Nevada. 3Id., at 581. After determining that the delay in returning the funds to respondents caused them "foreseeable harm" in Nevada and that the exercise of personal jurisdiction over petitioner was otherwise reasonable, the court found the District Court's exercise of personal jurisdiction to be proper.4Id., at 582, 585. The Ninth Circuit denied rehearing en banc, with eight judges, in two separate opinions, dissenting. Id., at 562, 568.
We granted certiorari to decide whether due process permits a Nevada court to exercise jurisdiction over petitioner. 568 U.S. ----, 133 S.Ct. 1493, 185 L.Ed.2d 547 (2013). We hold that it does not and therefore reverse.5
II
A
"Federal courts ordinarily follow state law in determining the bounds of their jurisdiction over persons." Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. ----, ----, 134 S.Ct. 746, 753, 187 L.Ed.2d 624 (2014). This is because a federal district court's authority to assert personal jurisdiction in most cases is linked to service of process on a defendant "who is subject to the jurisdiction of a court of general jurisdiction in the state where the district court is located." Fed. Rule of Civ. Proc. 4(k)(1)(A). Here, Nevada has authorized its courts to exercise jurisdiction over persons "on any basis not inconsistent with ... the Constitution of the United States." Nev.Rev.Stat. § 14.065 (2011). Thus, in order to determine whether the Federal District Court in this case was authorized to exercise jurisdiction over petitioner, we ask whether the exercise of jurisdiction "comports with the limits imposed by federal due process" on the State of Nevada. Daimler, supra, at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 753.
B
1
The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment constrains a State's authority to bind a nonresident defendant to a judgment of its courts. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson, 444 U.S. 286, 291, 100 S.Ct. 559, 62 L.Ed.2d 490 (1980). Although a nonresident's physical presence within the territorial jurisdiction of the court is not required, the nonresident generally must have "certain minimum contacts ... such that the maintenance of the suit does not offend 'traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.' " International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316, 66 S.Ct. 154, 90 L.Ed. 95 (1945) (quoting Milliken v. Meyer, 311 U.S. 457, 463, 61 S.Ct. 339, 85 L.Ed. 278 (1940)).
This case addresses the "minimum contacts" necessary to create specific jurisdiction.6 The inquiry whether a forum State may assert specific jurisdiction over a nonresident defendant "focuses on 'the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.' " Keeton v. Hustler Magazine, Inc., 465 U.S. 770, 775, 104 S.Ct. 1473, 79 L.Ed.2d 790 (1984) (quoting Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204, 97 S.Ct. 2569, 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977)). For a State to exercise jurisdiction consistent with due process, the defendant's suit-related conduct must create a substantial connection with the forum State. Two related aspects of this necessary relationship are relevant in this case.
First, the relationship must arise out of contacts that the "defendant himself " creates with the forum State. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174, 85 L.Ed.2d 528 (1985). Due process limits on the State's adjudicative authority principally protect the liberty of the nonresident defendant-not the convenience of plaintiffs or third parties. See World-Wide Volkswagen Corp., supra, at 291-292, 100 S.Ct. 559. We have consistently rejected attempts to satisfy the defendant-focused "minimum contacts" inquiry by demonstrating contacts between the plaintiff (or third parties) and the forum State. See Helicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 417, 104 S.Ct. 1868, 80 L.Ed.2d 404 (1984) ("[The] unilateral activity of another party or a third person is not an appropriate consideration when determining whether a defendant has sufficient contacts with a forum State to justify an assertion of jurisdiction"). We have thus rejected a plaintiff's argument that a Florida court could exercise personal jurisdiction over a trustee in Delaware based solely on the contacts of the trust's settlor, who was domiciled in Florida and had executed powers of appointment there. Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253-254, 78 S.Ct. 1228, 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958). We have likewise held that Oklahoma courts could not exercise personal jurisdiction over an automobile distributor that supplies New York, New Jersey, and Connecticut dealers based only on an automobile purchaser's act of driving it on Oklahoma highways. World-Wide Volkswagen Corp., supra, at 298, 100 S.Ct. 559. Put simply, however significant the plaintiff's contacts with the forum may be, those contacts cannot be "decisive in determining whether the defendant ' s due process rights are violated." Rush, 444 U.S., at 332, 100 S.Ct. 571.
Second, our "minimum contacts" analysis looks to the defendant's contacts with the forum State itself, not the defendant's contacts with persons who reside there. See, e.g.,International Shoe, supra, at 319, 66 S.Ct. 154 (Due process "does not contemplate that a state may make binding a judgment in personam against an individual ... with which the state has no contacts, ties, or relations"); Hanson, supra, at 251, 78 S.Ct. 1228 ("However minimal the burden of defending in a foreign tribunal, a defendant may not be called upon to do so unless he has had the 'minimal contacts' with that State that are a prerequisite to its exercise of power over him"). Accordingly, we have upheld the assertion of jurisdiction over defendants who have purposefully "reach[ed] out beyond" their State and into another by, for example, entering a contractual relationship that "envisioned continuing and wide-reaching contacts" in the forum State, Burger King, supra, at 479-480, 105 S.Ct. 2174, or by circulating magazines to "deliberately exploi[t]" a market in the forum State, Keeton, supra, at 781, 104 S.Ct. 1473. And although physical presence in the forum is not a prerequisite to jurisdiction, Burger King,supra, at 476, 105 S.Ct. 2174, physical entry into the State-either by the defendant in person or through an agent, goods, mail, or some other means-is certainly a relevant contact. See, e.g.,Keeton, supra, at 773-774, 104 S.Ct. 1473.
But the plaintiff cannot be the only link between the defendant and the forum. Rather, it is the defendant's conduct that must form the necessary connection with the forum State that is the basis for its jurisdiction over him. See Burger King, supra, at 478, 105 S.Ct. 2174 ("If the question is whether an individual's contract with an out-of-state party alone can automatically establish sufficient minimum contacts in the other party's home forum, we believe the answer clearly is that it cannot"); Kulko v. Superior Court of Cal., City and County of San Francisco, 436 U.S. 84, 93, 98 S.Ct. 1690, 56 L.Ed.2d 132 (1978) (declining to "find personal jurisdiction in a State ... merely because [the plaintiff in a child support action] was residing there"). To be sure, a defendant's contacts with the forum State may be intertwined with his transactions or interactions with the plaintiff or other parties. But a defendant's relationship with a plaintiff or third party, standing alone, is an insufficient basis for jurisdiction. See Rush, supra, at 332, 100 S.Ct. 571 ("Naturally, the parties' relationships with each other may be significant in evaluating their ties to the forum. The requirements of International Shoe, however, must be met as to each defendant over whom a state court exercises jurisdiction"). Due process requires that a defendant be haled into court in a forum State based on his own affiliation with the State, not based on the "random, fortuitous, or attenuated" contacts he makes by interacting with other persons affiliated with the State. Burger King, 471 U.S., at 475, 105 S.Ct. 2174 (internal quotation marks omitted).
2
These same principles apply when intentional torts are involved. In that context, it is likewise insufficient to rely on a defendant's "random, fortuitous, or attenuated contacts" or on the "unilateral activity" of a plaintiff. Ibid. (same). A forum State's exercise of jurisdiction over an out-of-state intentional tortfeasor must be based on intentional conduct by the defendant that creates the necessary contacts with the forum.
Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804, illustrates the application of these principles. In Calder, a California actress brought a libel suit in California state court against a reporter and an editor, both of whom worked for the National Enquirer at its headquarters in Florida. The plaintiff's libel claims were based on an article written and edited by the defendants in Florida for publication in the National Enquirer, a national weekly newspaper with a California circulation of roughly 600,000.
We held that California's assertion of jurisdiction over the defendants was consistent with due process. Although we recognized that the defendants' activities "focus[ed]" on the plaintiff, our jurisdictional inquiry "focuse[d] on 'the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.' " Id., at 788, 104 S.Ct. 1482 (quoting Shaffer, 433 U.S., at 204, 97 S.Ct. 2569). Specifically, we examined the various contacts the defendants had created with California (and not just with the plaintiff) by writing the allegedly libelous story.
We found those forum contacts to be ample: The defendants relied on phone calls to "California sources" for the information in their article; they wrote the story about the plaintiff's activities in California; they caused reputational injury in California by writing an allegedly libelous article that was widely circulated in the State; and the "brunt" of that injury was suffered by the plaintiff in that State. 465 U.S., at 788-789, 104 S.Ct. 1482. "In sum, California [wa]s the focal point both of the story and of the harm suffered." Id., at 789, 104 S.Ct. 1482. Jurisdiction over the defendants was "therefore proper in California based on the 'effects' of their Florida conduct in California." Ibid.
The crux of Calder was that the reputation-based "effects" of the alleged libel connected the defendants to California, not just to the plaintiff. The strength of that connection was largely a function of the nature of the libel tort. However scandalous a newspaper article might be, it can lead to a loss of reputation only if communicated to (and read and understood by) third persons. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 577, Comment b (1976); see also ibid. ("[R]eputation is the estimation in which one's character is held by his neighbors or associates"). Accordingly, the reputational injury caused by the defendants' story would not have occurred but for the fact that the defendants wrote an article for publication in California that was read by a large number of California citizens. Indeed, because publication to third persons is a necessary element of libel, see id., § 558, the defendants' intentional tort actually occurred in California. Keeton, 465 U.S., at 777, 104 S.Ct. 1473 ("The tort of libel is generally held to occur wherever the offending material is circulated"). In this way, the "effects" caused by the defendants' article- i.e., the injury to the plaintiff's reputation in the estimation of the California public-connected the defendants' conduct to California, not just to a plaintiff who lived there. That connection, combined with the various facts that gave the article a California focus, sufficed to authorize the California court's exercise of jurisdiction.7
III
Applying the foregoing principles, we conclude that petitioner lacks the "minimal contacts" with Nevada that are a prerequisite to the exercise of jurisdiction over him. Hanson, 357 U.S., at 251, 78 S.Ct. 1228. It is undisputed that no part of petitioner's course of conduct occurred in Nevada. Petitioner approached, questioned, and searched respondents, and seized the cash at issue, in the Atlanta airport. It is alleged that petitioner later helped draft a "false probable cause affidavit" in Georgia and forwarded that affidavit to a United States Attorney's Office in Georgia to support a potential action for forfeiture of the seized funds. 688 F.3d, at 563. Petitioner never traveled to, conducted activities within, contacted anyone in, or sent anything or anyone to Nevada. In short, when viewed through the proper lens-whether the defendant' s actions connect him to the forum-petitioner formed no jurisdictionally relevant contacts with Nevada.
The Court of Appeals reached a contrary conclusion by shifting the analytical focus from petitioner's contacts with the forum to his contacts with respondents. See Rush, 444 U.S., at 332, 100 S.Ct. 571. Rather than assessing petitioner's own contacts with Nevada, the Court of Appeals looked to petitioner's knowledge of respondents' "strong forum connections." 688 F.3d, at 577-579, 581. In the court's view, that knowledge, combined with its conclusion that respondents suffered foreseeable harm in Nevada, satisfied the "minimum contacts" inquiry.8Id., at 582.
This approach to the "minimum contacts" analysis impermissibly allows a plaintiff's contacts with the defendant and forum to drive the jurisdictional analysis. Petitioner's actions in Georgia did not create sufficient contacts with Nevada simply because he allegedly directed his conduct at plaintiffs whom he knew had Nevada connections. Such reasoning improperly attributes a plaintiff's forum connections to the defendant and makes those connections "decisive" in the jurisdictional analysis. See Rush, supra, at 332, 100 S.Ct. 571. It also obscures the reality that none of petitioner's challenged conduct had anything to do with Nevada itself.
Relying on Calder, respondents emphasize that they suffered the "injury" caused by petitioner's allegedly tortious conduct ( i.e., the delayed return of their gambling funds) while they were residing in the forum. Brief for Respondents 14. This emphasis is likewise misplaced. As previously noted, Calder made clear that mere injury to a forum resident is not a sufficient connection to the forum. Regardless of where a plaintiff lives or works, an injury is jurisdictionally relevant only insofar as it shows that the defendant has formed a contact with the forum State. The proper question is not where the plaintiff experienced a particular injury or effect but whether the defendant's conduct connects him to the forum in a meaningful way.
Respondents' claimed injury does not evince a connection between petitioner and Nevada. Even if we consider the continuation of the seizure in Georgia to be a distinct injury, it is not the sort of effect that is tethered to Nevada in any meaningful way. Respondents (and only respondents) lacked access to their funds in Nevada not because anything independently occurred there, but because Nevada is where respondents chose to be at a time when they desired to use the funds seized by petitioner. Respondents would have experienced this same lack of access in California, Mississippi, or wherever else they might have traveled and found themselves wanting more money than they had. Unlike the broad publication of the forum-focused story in Calder, the effects of petitioner's conduct on respondents are not connected to the forum State in a way that makes those effects a proper basis for jurisdiction.9
The Court of Appeals pointed to other possible contacts with Nevada, each ultimately unavailing. Respondents' Nevada attorney contacted petitioner in Georgia, but that is precisely the sort of "unilateral activity" of a third party that "cannot satisfy the requirement of contact with the forum State." Hanson, 357 U.S., at 253, 78 S.Ct. 1228. Respondents allege that some of the cash seized in Georgia "originated" in Nevada, but that attenuated connection was not created by petitioner, and the cash was in Georgia, not Nevada, when petitioner seized it. Finally, the funds were eventually returned to respondents in Nevada, but petitioner had nothing to do with that return (indeed, it seems likely that it was respondents' unilateral decision to have their funds sent to Nevada).
* * *
Well-established principles of personal jurisdiction are sufficient to decide this case. The proper focus of the "minimum contacts" inquiry in intentional-tort cases is " 'the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation.' " Calder, 465 U.S., at 788, 104 S.Ct. 1482. And it is the defendant, not the plaintiff or third parties, who must create contacts with the forum State. In this case, the application of those principles is clear: Petitioner's relevant conduct occurred entirely in Georgia, and the mere fact that his conduct affected plaintiffs with connections to the forum State does not suffice to authorize jurisdiction. We therefore reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It is so ordered.
The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader. See United States v. Detroit Timber & Lumber Co., 200 U.S. 321, 337, 26 S.Ct. 282, 50 L.Ed. 499.
Respondents allege that the sniff test was "at best, inconclusive," and there is no indication in the pleadings that drugs or drug residue were ever found on or with the cash. App. 21.
The alleged affidavit is not in the record. Because this case comes to us at the motion-to-dismiss stage, we take respondents' factual allegations as true, including their allegations regarding the existence and content of the affidavit.
The allegations in the complaint suggested to the Court of Appeals that petitioner "definitely knew, at some point after the seizure but before providing the alleged false probable cause affidavit, that [respondents] had a significant connection to Nevada." 688 F.3d, at 578.
Judge Ikuta dissented. In her view, the "false affidavit/forfeiture proceeding aspect" over which the majority found jurisdiction proper was not raised as a separate claim in the complaint, and she found it "doubtful that such a constitutional tort even exists." Id., at 593. After the court denied rehearing en banc, the majority explained in a postscript that it viewed the filing of the false affidavit, which effected a "continued seizure" of the funds, as a separate Fourth Amendment violation. Id., at 588-589. Petitioner does not dispute that reading here.
We also granted certiorari on the question whether Nevada is a proper venue for the suit under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2). Because we resolve the case on jurisdictional grounds, we do not decide whether venue was proper in Nevada.
"Specific" or "case-linked" jurisdiction "depends on an 'affiliatio[n] between the forum and the underlying controversy' " ( i.e., an "activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State and is therefore subject to the State's regulation"). Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. ----, ----, 131 S.Ct. 2846, 2851, 180 L.Ed.2d 796 (2011). This is in contrast to "general" or "all purpose" jurisdiction, which permits a court to assert jurisdiction over a defendant based on a forum connection unrelated to the underlying suit ( e.g., domicile). Respondents rely on specific jurisdiction only.
The defendants in Calder argued that no contacts they had with California were sufficiently purposeful because their employer was responsible for circulation of the article. See Calder v. Jones, 465 U.S. 783, 789, 104 S.Ct. 1482, 79 L.Ed.2d 804 (1984). We rejected that argument. Even though the defendants did not circulate the article themselves, they "expressly aimed" "their intentional, and allegedly tortious, actions" at California because they knew the National Enquirer "ha[d] its largest circulation" in California, and that the article would "have a potentially devastating impact" there. Id., at 789-790, 104 S.Ct. 1482.
Respondents propose a substantially similar analysis. They suggest that "a defendant creates sufficient minimum contacts with a forum when he (1) intentionally targets (2) a known resident of the forum (3) for imposition of an injury (4) to be suffered by the plaintiff while she is residing in the forum state." Brief for Respondents 26-27.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
D
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this appeal, we review a three-judge District Court’s determination that North Carolina’s Legislature used race as the “predominant factor” in drawing its 12th Congressional District’s 1997 boundaries. The court’s findings, in our view, are clearly erroneous. We therefore reverse its conclusion that the State violated the Equal Protection Clause. U. S. Const., Arndt. 14, § 1.
I
This “racial districting” litigation is before us for the fourth time. Our first two holdings addressed North Carolina’s former Congressional District 12, one of two North Carolina congressional districts drawn in 1992 that contained a majority of African-American voters. See Shaw v. Reno, 509 U.S. 630 (1993) (Shaw I); Shaw v. Hunt, 517 U.S. 899 (1996) (Shaw II).
A
In Shaw I, the Court considered whether plaintiffs’ factual allegation — that the legislature had drawn the former district’s boundaries for race-based reasons — if true, could underlie a legal holding that the legislature had violated the Equal Protection Clause. The Court held that it could. It wrote that a violation may exist where the legislature’s boundary drawing, though “race neutral on its face,” nonetheless can be understood only as an effort to “separate voters into different districts on the basis of race,” and where the “separation lacks sufficient justification.” 509 U. S., at 649.
In Shaw II, the Court reversed a subsequent three-judge District Court’s holding that the boundary-drawing law in question did not violate the Constitution. This Court found that the district’s “unconventional,” snakelike shape, the way in which its boundaries split towns and counties, its predominately African-American racial makeup, and its history, together demonstrated a deliberate effort to create a “majority-black” district in which race “could not be compromised,” not simply a district designed to “protec[t] Democratic incumbents.” 517 U. S., at 902-90B, 905-907. And the Court concluded that the legislature’s use of racial criteria was not justified. Id., at 909-918.
B
Our third holding focused on a new District 12, the boundaries of which the legislature had redrawn in 1997. Hunt v. Cromartie, 526 U.S. 541 (1999). A three-judge District Court, with one judge dissenting, had granted summary judgment in favor of those challenging the district’s boundaries. The court found that the legislature again had “used criteria... that are facially race driven,” in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. App. to Juris. Statement in No. 99-1864, p. 262a (hereinafter App. to Juris. Statement). It based this conclusion upon “uncontroverted material facts” showing that the boundaries created an unusually shaped district, split counties and cities, and in particular placed almost all heavily Democratic-registered, predominantly African-American voting preeinets, inside the district while locating some heavily Democratic-registered, predominantly white precincts, outside the district. This latter circumstance, said the court, showed that the legislature was trying to maximize new District 12’s African-American voting strength, not the district’s Democratic voting strength. Ibid.
This Court reversed. We agreed with the District Court that the new district’s shape, the way in which it split towns and counties, and its heavily African-American voting population all helped the plaintiffs’ case. 526 U.S., at 547-549. But neither that evidence by itself, nor when coupled with the evidence of Democratic registration, was sufficient to show, on summary judgment, the unconstitutional race-based objective that plaintiffs claimed. That is because there was a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the evidence also was consistent with a constitutional political objective, namely, the creation of a safe Democratic seat. Id., at 549-551.
We pointed to the affidavit of an expert witness for defendants, Dr. David W. Peterson. Dr. Peterson offered to show that, because North Carolina’s African-American voters are overwhelmingly Democratic voters, one cannot easily distinguish a legislative effort to create a majority-African-Ameriean district from a legislative effort to create a safely Democratic district. Id., at 550. And he also provided data showing that registration did not indicate how voters would actually vote. Id., at 550-551. We agreed that data showing how voters actually behave, not data showing only how those voters are registered, could affect the outcome of this litigation. Ibid. We concluded that the case was “not suited for summary disposition” and we reversed the District Court. Id., at 554.
C
On remand, the parties undertook additional discovery. The three-judge District Court held a 3-day trial. And the court again held (over a dissent) that the legislature had unconstitutionally drawn District 12’s new 1997 boundaries. It found that the legislature had tried “(1) [to] eur[e] the [previous district’s] constitutional defects” while also “(2) drawing the plan to maintain the existing partisan bal-anee in the State’s congressional delegation.” Cromartie v. Hunt, 133 F. Supp. 2d 407, 413 (EDNC 2000). It added that to "achieve the second goal,” the legislature “drew the new plan (1) to avoid placing two incumbents in the same district and (2) to preserve the partisan core of the existing districts.” Ibid. The court concluded that the "plan as enacted largely reflects these directives.” Ibid. But the court also found “as a matter of fact that the General Assembly... used criteria... that are facially race driven” without any compelling justification for doing so. Id., at 420.
The court based its latter, constitutionally critical, conclusion in part upon the district’s snakelike shape, the way in which it split cities and towns, and its heavily African-American (47%) voting population, id., at 413-415 — all matters that this Court had considered when it found summary judgment inappropriate, Cromartie, 526 U.S., at 544. The court also based this conclusion upon a specific finding — absent when we previously considered this litigation — that the legislature had drawn the boundaries in order “to collect precincts with high racial identification rather than political identification.” 133 F. Supp. 2d, at 420 (emphasis added).
This last-mentioned finding rested in turn upon five subsidiary determinations:
(1) that “the legislators excluded many heavily-Democratie precincts from District 12, even when those precincts immediately border the Twelfth and would have established a far more compact district,” id., at 419; see also id., at 421 ("more heavily Democratic precincts... were bypassed... in favor of precincts with a higher African-American population”);
(2) that “[additionally, Plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Weber, showed time and again how raee trumped party affiliation in the construction of the 12th District and how political explanations utterly failed to explain the composition of the district,” id., at 419;
(3) that Dr. Peterson’s testimony was “ ‘unreliable’ and not relevant,” id., at 420 (citing testimony of Dr. Weber);
(4) that a legislative redistricting leader, Senator Roy Cooper, had alluded at the time of redistrieting “to a need for ‘racial and partisan’ balance,” ibid.; and
(5) that the Senate’s redistricting coordinator, Gerry Cohen, had sent Senator Cooper an e-mail reporting that Cooper had “moved Greensboro Black community into the 12th, and now need[ed] to take [about] 60,000 out of the 12th,” App. 369; 133 P. Supp. 2d, at 420.
The State and intervenors filed a notice of appeal. 28 U. S. C. § 1253. We noted probable jurisdiction. 530 U. S. 1260 (2000). And we now reverse.
II
The issue in this case is evidentiary. We must determine whether there is adequate support for the District Court’s key findings, particularly the ultimate finding that the legislature’s motive was predominantly racial, not political. In making this determination, we are aware that, under Shaw I and later cases, the burden of proof on the plaintiffs (who attack the district) is a “demanding one.” Miller v. Johnson, 515 U.S. 900, 928 (1995) (O’Connor, J., concurring). The Court has specified that those who claim that a legislature has improperly used race as a criterion, in order, for example, to create a majority-minority district, must show at a minimum that the “legislature subordinated traditional race-neutral districting principles... to racial considerations.” Id., at 916 (majority opinion). Race must not simply have been “a motivation for the drawing of a majority-minority district,” Bush v. Vera, 517 U.S. 952, 959 (1996) (O’Connor, J., principal opinion) (emphasis in original), but “the ‘predominant factor’ motivating the legislature’s districting decision,” Cromartie, swpfa, at 547 (quoting Miller, supra, at 916) (emphasis added). Plaintiffs must show that a facially neutral law “'is “unexplainable on grounds other than race.”'” Cromartie, supra, at 546 (quoting Shaw I, 509 U. S., at 644, in turn quoting Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp., 429 U.S. 252, 266 (1977)).
The Court also has made clear that the underlying dis-tricting decision is one that ordinarily falls within a legislature’s sphere of competence. Miller, 515 U.S., at 915. Hence, the legislature “must have discretion to exercise the political judgment necessary to balance competing interests,” ibid., and courts must “exercise extraordinary caution in adjudicating claims that a State has drawn district lines on the basis of race,” id., at 916 (emphasis added). Caution is especially appropriate in this case, where the State has articulated a legitimate political explanation for its district-ing decision, and the voting population is one in which race and political affiliation are highly correlated. See Cromar-tie, supra, at 551-552 (noting that “[ejvidence that blacks constitute even a supermajority in one congressional district while amounting to less than a plurality in a neighboring district will not, by itself, suffice to prove that a jurisdiction was motivated by race in drawing its district lines when the evidence also shows a high correlation between race and party preference”).
We also are aware that we review the District Court’s findings only for “clear error.” In applying this standard, we, like any reviewing court, will not reverse a lower court’s finding of fact simply because we “would have decided the case differently.” Anderson v. Bessemer City, 470 U.S. 564, 578 (1985). Rather, a reviewing court must ask whether, “on the entire evidence,” it is “left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed.” United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 838 U.S. 364, 395 (1948).
Where an intermediate court reviews, and affirms, a trial court’s factual findings, this Court will not “lightly overturn” the concurrent findings of the two lower courts. E. g., Neil v. Biggers, 409 U.S. 188, 193, n. 3 (1972). But in this instance there is no intermediate court, and we are the only court of review. Moreover, the trial here at issue was not lengthy and the key evidence consisted primarily of documents and expert testimony. Credibility evaluations played a minor role. Accordingly, we find that an extensive review of the District Court’s findings, for clear error, is warranted. See Bose Corp. v. Consumers Union of United States, Inc., 466 U.S. 485, 500-501 (1984). That review leaves us “with the definite and firm conviction,” United States Gypsum Co., supra, at 395, that the District Court’s key findings are mistaken.
Ill
The critical District Court determination — the matter for which we remanded this litigation — consists of the finding that race rather than politics predominantly explains District 12’s 1997 boundaries. That determination rests upon three findings (the district’s shape, its splitting of towns and counties, and its high African-American voting population) that we previously found insufficient to support summary judgment. Cromartie, 526 U.S., at 547-549. Given the undisputed evidence that racial identification is highly correlated with political affiliation in North Carolina, these facts in and of themselves cannot, as a matter of law, support the District Court’s judgment. See Vera, 517 U.S., at 968 (O’Connor, J., principal opinion) (“If district lines merely correlate with race because they are drawn on the basis of political affiliation, which correlates with race, there is no racial classification to justify”). The District Court rested, however, upon five new subsidiary findings to conclude that District 12’s lines are the product of no “mer[e] correlation],” ibid., but are instead a result of the predominance of race in the legislature’s line-drawing process. See supra, at 240-241.
In considering each subsidiary finding, we have given weight to the fact that the District Court was familiar with this litigation, heard the testimony of each witness, and considered all the evidence with care. Nonetheless, we cannot accept the District Court’s findings as adequate for reasons which we shall spell out in detail and which we can summarize as follows:
First, the primary evidence upon which the District Court relied for its “race, not politics,” conclusion is evidence of voting registration, not voting behavior; and that is precisely the kind of evidence that we said was inadequate the last time this case was before us. See infra, at 245-246. Second, the additional evidence to which appellees’ expert, Dr. Weber, pointed, and the statements made by Senator Cooper and Gerry Cohen, simply do not provide significant additional support for the District Court’s conclusion. See infra, at 246-250, 258-254. Third, the District Court, while not accepting the contrary conclusion of appellants’ expert, Dr. Peterson, did not (and as far as the record reveals, could not) reject much of the significant supporting factual information he provided. See infra, at 251-253. Fourth, in any event, appellees themselves have provided us with charts summarizing evidence of voting behavior and those charts tend to refute the court’s “race, not politics,” conclusion. See infra, at 254-257; Appendixes, infra.
A
The District Court primarily based its “race, not politics,” conclusion upon its finding that “the legislators excluded many heavily-Democratie precincts from District 12, even when those precincts immediately border the Twelfth and would have established a far more compact district.” 133 F. Supp. 2d, at 419; see also id., at 420 (“[M]ore heavily Democratic precincts... were bypassed_in favor of precincts with a higher African-American population”). This finding, however — insofar as it differs from the remaining four— rests solely upon evidence that the legislature excluded heavily white precincts with high Democratic Party registra tion, while including heavily African-American precincts with equivalent, or lower, Democratic Party registration. See id., at 413-414,415. Indeed, the District Court cites at length figures showing that the legislature included “several precincts with racial compositions of 40 to 100 percent African-American,” while excluding certain adjacent precincts “with less than 35 percent African-American population” but which contain between 54% and 76% registered Democrats. Id., at 414.
As we said before, the problem with this evidence is that it focuses upon party registration, not upon voting behavior. And we previously found the same evidence, compare ibid. (District Court’s opinion after trial) with App. to Juris. Statement 249a-250a (District Court’s summary judgment opinion), inadequate because registration figures do not accurately predict preference at the polls. See id., at 174a; see also Cromartie, supra, at 550-551 (describing Dr. Peterson’s analysis as “more thorough” because in North Carolina, “party registration and party preference do not always correspond”). In part this is because white voters registered as Democrats “cross-over” to vote for a Republican candidate more often than do African-Americans, who register and vote Democratic between 95% and 97% of the time. See Record, Deposition of Gerry Cohen 37-42 (discussing data); App. 304 (stating that white voters east about 60% to 70% of their votes for Republican candidates); id., at 139 (Dr. Weber’s testimony that 95% to 97% of African-Americans register and vote as Democrats); see also id., at 118 (testimony by Dr. Weber that registration data were the least reliable information upon which to predict voter behavior). A legislature trying to secure a safe Democratic seat is interested in Democratic voting behavior. Hence, a legislature may, by placing reliable Democratic precincts within a district without regard to race, end up with a district containing more heavily African-American precincts, but the reasons would be political rather than racial.
Insofar as the District Court relied upon voting registration data, particularly data that were previously before us, it tells us nothing new; and the data do not help answer the question posed when we previously remanded this litigation. Cromartie, 526 U.S., at 551.
B
The District Court wrote that “[additionally, [plaintiffs’ expert, Dr. Weber, showed time and again how race trumped party affiliation in the construction of the 12th District and how political explanations utterly failed to explain the composition of the district.” 133 F. Supp. 2d, at 419. In support of this conclusion, the court relied upon six different citations to Dr. Weber’s trial testimony. We have examined each reference.
1
At the first cited pages of the trial transcript, Dr. Weber says that a reliably Democratic voting population of 60% is sufficient to create a safe Democratic seat. App. 91. Yet, he adds, the legislature created a more-than-60% reliable Democratic voting population in District 12. Hence (we read Dr. Weber to infer), the legislature likely was driven by race, not politics. Tr. 163; App. 314-315.
The record indicates, however, that, although Dr. Weber is right that District 12 is more than 60% reliably Democratic, it exceeds that figure by very little. Nor did Dr. Weber ask whether other districts, unchallenged by appellees, were significantly less "safe” than was District 12. Id., at 148. In fact, the figures the legislature used showed that District 12 would be 63% reliably Democratic. App. to Juris. Statement 80a (Democratic vote over three representative elections averaged 63%). By the same measures, at least two Republican districts (Districts 6 and 10) are 61% reliably Republican. Ibid. And, as Dr. Weber conceded, incumbents might have urged legislators (trying to maintain a six/six Democrat/Republican delegation split) to make their seats, not 60% safe, but as safe as possible. App. 149. In a field such as voting behavior, where figures are inherently uncertain, Dr. Weber’s tiny calculated percentage differences are simply too small to carry significant evidentiaiy weight.
2
The District Court cited two parts of the transcript where Dr. Weber testified about a table he had prepared listing all precincts in the six counties, portions of which make up District 12. Tr. 204-205, 262. Dr. Weber said that District 12 contains between 39% and 56% of the precincts (depending on the county) that are more-than-40% reliably Democratic, but it contains almost every precinct with more-than-40% African-American voters. Id., at 204-205. Why, he essentially asks, if the legislature had had polities primarily in mind, would its effort to place reliably Democratic precincts within District 12 not have produced a greater racial mixture?
Dr. Weber’s own testimony provides an answer to this question. As Dr. Weber agreed, the precincts listed in the table were at least 40% reliably Democratic, but virtually all the African-American precincts included in District 12 were wore than 40% reliably Democratic. Moreover, none of the excluded white preeinets were as reliably Democratic as the African-American precincts that were included in the district. App. 140. Yet the legislature sought precincts that were reliably Democratic, not precincts that were 40% reliably Democratic, for obvious political reasons.
Neither does the table specify whether the excluded white-reliably-Democratie precincts were located near enough to District 12’s boundaries or each other for the legislature as a practical matter to have drawn District 12’s boundaries to have included them, without sacrificing other important political goals. The contrary is suggested by the fact that Dr. Weber’s own proposed alternative plan, see id., at 106-107, would have pitted two incumbents against each other (Sue Myriek, a Republican from former District 9 and Mel Watt, a Democrat from former District 12). Dr. Weber testified that such a result — “a very competitive race with one of them losing their seat” — was desirable. Id., at 153. But the legislature, for political, not racial, reasons, believed the opposite. And it drew its plan to protect incumbents— a legitimate political goal recognized by the District Court. 133 F. Supp. 2d, at 412-413.
For these reasons, Dr. Weber’s table offers little insight into the legislature’s true motive.
3
The next part of the transcript the District Court cited contains Dr. Weber’s testimony about a Mecklenburg County precinct (precinct 77) which the legislature split between Districts 9 and 12. Tr. 221. Dr. Weber apparently thought that the legislature did not have to split this precinct, placing the more heavily African-American segment within District 12 — unless, of course, its motive was racial rather than political. But Dr. Weber simultaneously conceded that he had not considered whether District 9’s incumbent Republican would have wanted the whole of precinct 77 left in her own district where it would have burdened her with a significant additional number of reliably Democratic voters. App. 156-157. Nor had Dr. Weber “test[ed]” his conclusion that this split helped to show a racial (rather than political) motive, say, by adjusting other boundary lines and determining the political, or other nonraeial, consequences of such adjustments. Id., at 132.
The maps in evidence indicate that to have placed all of precinct 77 within District 12 would have created a District 12 peninsula that invaded District 9, neatly dividing that latter district in two, see id., at 496 — a conclusive nonracial reason for the legislature’s decision not to do so.
4
The District Court cited Dr. Weber’s conclusion that “race is the predominant factor.” Tr. 251. But this statement of the conclusion is no stronger than the evidence that underlies it.
5
The District Court’s final citation is to Dr. Weber’s assertion that there are other ways in which the legislature could have created a safely Democratic district without placing so many primarily African-American districts within District 12. Id., at 288. And we recognize that some such other ways may exist. But, unless the evidence also shows that these hypothetical alternative districts would have better satisfied the legislature’s other nonraeial political goals as well as traditional nonraeial districting principles, this fact alone cannot show an improper legislative motive. After all, the Constitution does not place an affirmative obligation upon the legislature to avoid creating districts that turn out to be heavily, even majority, minority. It simply imposes an obligation not to create such districts for predominantly racial, as opposed to political or traditional, districting motivations. And Dr. Weber’s testimony does not, at the pages cited, provide evidence of a politically, practical alternative plan that the legislature failed to adopt predominantly for racial reasons.
6
In addition, we have read the whole of Dr. Weber’s testimony, including portions not cited by the District Court. Some of those portions further undercut Dr. Weber’s conclusions. Dr. Weber said, for example, that he had developed those conclusions while under the erroneous impression that the legislature’s computer-based districting program provided information about racial, but not political, balance. App. 187-138; see also id., at 302 (reflecting Dr. Weber’s erroneous impression in the declaration he submitted to the District Court). He also said he was not aware of “anything about political dynamics going on in the [legislature involving” District 12, id., at 135, sometimes expressing disdain for a process that we have cautioned courts to respect, id., at 150-151; Miller, 515 U.S., at 915-916.
Other portions support Dr. Weber’s conclusions. Dr. Weber testified, for example, about a different alternative plan that, in his view, would have provided both greater racial balance and political security, namely, a plan that the legislature did enact in 1998, and which has been in effect during the time the courts have been reviewing the constitutionality of the 1997 plan, App. 156-157. The existence of this alternative plan, however, cannot help appellees significantly. Although it created a somewhat more compact district, it still divides many communities along racial lines, while providing fewer reliably Democratic District 12 voters and transferring a group of highly Democratic precincts into two safely Republican districts, namely, the 5th and 6th Districts, which political result the 1997 plan sought to avoid. See Tr. 352, 355. Furthermore, the 1997 plan before this Court, unlike the 1998 plan, joined three major cities in a manner legislators regarded as reflecting “a real commonality of urban interests, with inner city schools, urban health care... problems, public housing problems.” App. 430 (statement of Sen. Winner); see also id., at 421 (statement of Sen. Martin). Consequently, we cannot tell whether the existence of the 1998 plan shows that the 1997 plan was drawn with racial considerations predominant. And, in any event, the District Court did not rely upon the existence of the 1998 plan to support its ultimate conclusion. See Kelley v. Everglades Drainage Dist, 319 U.S. 415, 420-422 (1943) (per curiam).
We do not see how Dr. Weber’s testimony, taken as a whole, could have provided more than minimal support for the District Court’s conclusion that race predominantly underlay the legislature’s districting decision.
C
The District Court found that the testimony of the State’s primary expert, Dr. Peterson, was “'unreliable’ and not relevant.” 188 F. Supp. 2d, at 420 (quoting Dr. Weber and citing Tr. 222-224, 232). Dr. Peterson’s testimony was designed to show that African-American Democratic voters were more reliably Democratic and that District 12’s boundaries were drawn to include reliable Democrats. Specifically, Dr. Peterson compared precincts immediately within District 12 and those immediately without to determine whether the boundaries of the district corresponded better with race than with politics. The principle underlying Dr. Peterson’s analysis is that if the district were drawn with race predominantly in mind, one would expect the boundaries of the district to correlate with race more than with politics.
The pages cited in support of the District Court’s rejection of Dr. Peterson’s conclusions contain testimony by Dr. Weber, who says that Dr. Peterson’s analysis is unreliable because (1) it “ignor[es] the core” of the district, id., at 223, and (2) it fails to take account of the fact that different precincts have different populations, id., at 223-224. The first matter — ignoring the “core” — apparently reflects Dr. Weber’s view that in context the fact that District 12’s heart or “core” is heavily African-American by itself shows that the legislature’s motive was predominantly racial, not political. The District Court did not argue that the racial makeup of a district’s “core” is critical. Nor do we see why “core” makeup alone could help the court discern the relevant legislative motive. Nothing here suggests that only “core” makeup could answer the “political/racM” question that this Court previously found critical. Cromartie, 526 U. S., at 551-552.
The second matter — that Dr. Peterson’s boundary segment analysis did not account for differences in population between precincts — relates to one aspect of Dr. Peterson’s testimony., Appellants presented Dr. Peterson’s testimony and data in support of four propositions: first, that registration figures do not accurately reflect actual voting behavior, see App. to Juris. Statement 178a-174a; second, that African-Americans are more reliable Democrats than whites, see id., at 159a-160a; third, that political affiliation explains splitting cities and counties as well as does race, see id., at 189a, 191a-192a, 182a-185a; and fourth, that differences in the racial and political makeup of the precincts just inside and outside the boundaries of District 12 show that polities is as good an explanation as is race for the district’s boundaries, see id., at 161a~167a; 181a-182a. The District Court’s criticism of Dr. Peterson’s testimony at most affects the reliability of the fourth element of Dr. Peterson’s testimony, his special boundary segment analysis. The District Court’s criticism of Dr. Peterson’s boundary segment analysis does not undermine the data related to the split communities. The criticism does not undercut Dr. Peterson’s presentation of statistical evidence showing that registration was a poor indicator of party preference and that African-Americans are much more reliably Democratic voters, nor have we found in the record any significant evidence refuting that data.
At the same time, appellees themselves have used the information available in the record to create maps comparing the district’s boundaries with Demoeratie/Republican voting behavior. See Appendixes A, B, and C, infra. Because no one challenges the accuracy of these maps, we assume that they are reliable; and we can assume that Dr. Peterson’s testimony is reliable insofar as it confirms what the maps themselves contain and appellees themselves concede. Those maps, with certain exceptions discussed below, see infra, at 254-257, further indicate that the legislature drew boundaries that, in general, placed more-reliably Democratic voters inside the district, while placing less-reliably Democratic voters outside the district. And that fact, in turn, supports the State’s answers to the questions we previously found critical.
D
The District Court also relied on two pieces of “direct” evidence of discriminatory intent.
1
The court found that a legislative redistricting leader, Senator Roy Cooper, when testifying before a legislative committee in 1997, had said that the 1997 plan satisfies a “need for ‘racial and partisan’ balance.” 133 F. Supp. 2d, at 419. The court concluded that the words “racial balance” referred to a 10-to-2 Caucasian/African-American balance in the State’s 12-member congressional delegation. Ibid. Hence, Senator Cooper had admitted that the legislature had drawn the plan with race in mind.
Senator Cooper’s full statement reads as follows:
“Those of you who dealt with Redistricting before realize that you cannot solve each problem that you encounter and everyone can find a problem with this Plan. However, I think that overall it provides for a fair, geographic, racial and partisan balance throughout the State of North Carolina. I think in order to come to an agreement all sides had to give a little bit, but I think we’ve reached an agreement that we can live with.” App. 460.
We agree that one can read the statement about “racial... balance” as the District Court read it — to refer to the current congressional delegation’s racial balance. But even as so read, the phrase shows that the legislature considered race, along with other partisan and geographic considerations; and as so read it says little or nothing about whether race played a predominant role comparatively speaking. See Vera, 517 U.S., at 958 (O’Connor, J., principal opinion) (“Strict scrutiny does not apply merely because redistricting is performed with consciousness of race”); see also Miller, 515 U.S., at 916 (legislatures “will... almost always be aware of racial demographics”); Shaw I, 509 U. S., at 646 (same).
2
The second piece of “direct” evidence relied upon by the District Court is a February 10, 1997, e-mail sent from Gerry Cohen, a legislative staff member responsible for drafting districting plans, to Senator Cooper and Senator Leslie Winner. Cohen wrote: “I have moved Greensboro Black community into the 12th, and now need to take [about] 60,000 out of the 12th. I await your direction on this.” App. 369.
The reference to race — i. e., “Black community” — is obvious. But the e-mail does not discuss the point of the reference. It does not discuss why Greensboro’s African-American voters were placed in the 12th District; it does not discuss the political consequences of failing to do so; it is addressed only to two members of the legislature; and it suggests that the legislature paid less attention to raee in respect to the 12th District than in respect to the 1st District, where the e-mail provides a far more extensive, detailed discussion of racial percentages. It is less persuasive than the kinds of direct evidence we have found significant in other redistricting cases. See Vera, supra, at 959 (O’Con-nor, J., principal opinion) (State conceded that one of its goals was to create a majority-minority district); Miller, supra, at 907 (State set out to create majority-minority district); Shaw II, 517 U. S., at 906 (recounting testimony by Cohen that creating a majority-minority district was the “principal reason” for the 1992 version of District 12). Nonetheless, the e-mail offers some support for the District Court’s conclusion.
E
As we have said, we assume that the maps appended to appellees’ brief reflect the record insofar as that record describes the relation between District 12’s boundaries and reliably Democratic voting behavior. Consequently we shall consider appellees’ related claims, made on appeal, that the maps provide significant support for the District Court, in that they show how the legislature might have “swapped” several more heavily African-American District 12 precincts for other less heavily African-American adjacent precincts— without harming its basic “safely Democratic” political objective. Cf. supra, at 246-247.
First, appellees suggest, without identifying any specific swap, that the legislature could have brought within District 12 several reliably Democratic, primarily white, precincts in Forsyth County. See Brief for Appellees 30. None of these precincts, however, is more reliably Democratic than the precincts immediately adjacent and within District 12. See Appendix A, infra (showing Democratic strength reflected by Republican victories in each precinct); App. 484 (showing Democratic strength reflected by Democratic registration). One of them, the Brown/Douglas Recreation Precinct, is heavily African-American. See ibid. And the remainder form a buffer between the home
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which Justice Stevens, Justice Souter, and Justice Ginsburg join.
This case presents the question whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was violated by the refusal of a state trial court to instruct the jury in the penalty phase of a capital trial that under state law the defendant was ineligible for parole. We hold that where the defendant’s future dangerousness is at issue, and state law prohibits the defendant’s release on parole, due process requires that the sentencing jury be informed that the defendant is parole ineligible.
I
A
In July 1990, petitioner beat to death an elderly woman, Josie Lamb, in her home in Columbia, South Carolina. The week before petitioner’s capital murder trial was scheduled to begin, he pleaded guilty to first-degree burglary and two counts of criminal sexual conduct in connection with two prior assaults on elderly women. Petitioner’s guilty pleas resulted in convictions for violent offenses, and those convictions rendered petitioner ineligible for parole if convicted of any subsequent violent-crime offense. S. C. Code Ann. §24-21-640 (Supp. 1993).
Prior to jury selection, the prosecution advised the trial judge that the State “[o]bviously [was] going to ask you to exclude any mention of parole throughout this trial.” App. 2. Over defense counsel’s objection, the trial court granted the prosecution’s motion for an order barring the defense from asking any question during voir dire regarding parole. Under the court’s order, defense counsel was forbidden even to mention the subject of parole, and expressly was prohibited from questioning prospective jurors as to whether they understood the meaning of a “life” sentence under South Carolina law. After a 3-day trial, petitioner was convicted of the murder of Ms. Lamb.
During the penalty phase, the defense brought forward mitigating evidence tending to show that petitioner’s violent behavior reflected serious mental disorders that stemmed from years of neglect and extreme sexual and physical abuse petitioner endured as an adolescent. While there was some disagreement among witnesses regarding the extent to which petitioner’s mental condition properly could be deemed a “disorder,” witnesses for both the defense and the prosecution agreed that petitioner posed a continuing danger to elderly women.
In its closing argument the prosecution argued that petitioner’s future dangerousness was a factor for the jury to consider when fixing the appropriate punishment. The question for the jury, said the prosecution, was “what to do with [petitioner] now that he is in our midst.” Id., at 110. The prosecution further urged that a verdict for death would be “a response of society to someone who is a threat. Your verdict will be an act of self-defense.” Ibid.
Petitioner sought to rebut the prosecution’s generalized argument of future dangerousness by presenting evidence that, due to his unique psychological problems, his dangerousness was limited to elderly women, and that there was no reason to expect further acts of violence once he was isolated in a prison setting. In support of his argument, petitioner introduced testimony from a female medical assistant and from two supervising officers at the Richland County jail where petitioner had been held prior to trial. All three testified that petitioner had adapted well to prison life during his pretrial confinement and had not behaved in a violent manner toward any of the other inmates or staff. Petitioner also offered expert opinion testimony from Richard L. Boyle, a clinical social worker and former correctional employee, who had reviewed and observed petitioner’s institutional adjustment. Mr. Boyle expressed the view that, based on petitioner’s background and his current functioning, petitioner would successfully adapt to prison if he was sentenced to life imprisonment.
Concerned that the jury might not understand that “life imprisonment” did not carry with it the possibility of parole in petitioner’s case, defense counsel asked the trial judge to clarify this point by defining the term “life imprisonment” for the jury in accordance with S. C. Code Ann. § 24-21-640 (Supp. 1993). To buttress his request, petitioner proffered, outside the presence of the jury, evidence conclusively establishing his parole ineligibility. On petitioner’s behalf, attorneys for the South Carolina Department of Corrections and the Department of Probation, Parole and Pardons testified that any offender in petitioner’s position was in fact ineligible for parole under South Carolina law. The prosecution did not challenge or question petitioner’s parole ineligibility. Instead, it sought to elicit admissions from the witnesses that, notwithstanding petitioner’s parole ineligibility, petitioner might receive holiday furloughs or other forms of early release. Even this effort was unsuccessful, however, as the cross-examination revealed that Department of Corrections regulations prohibit petitioner’s release under early release programs such as work-release or supervised furloughs, and that no convicted murderer serving life without parole ever had been furloughed or otherwise released for any reason.
Petitioner then offered into evidence, without objection, the results of a statewide public-opinion survey conducted by. the University of South Carolina’s Institute for Public Affairs. The survey had been conducted a few days before petitioner’s trial, and showed that only 7.1 percent of all jury-eligible adults who were questioned firmly believed that an inmate sentenced to life imprisonment in South Carolina actually would be required to spend the rest of his life in prison. See App. 152-154. Almost half of those surveyed believed that a convicted murderer might be paroled within 20 years; nearly three-quarters thought that release certainly would- occur in less than 30 years. Ibid. More than 75 percent of those surveyed indicated that if they were called upon to make a capital sentencing decision as jurors, the amount of time the convicted murderer actually would have to spend in prison would be an “extremely important” or a “very important” factor in choosing between life and death. Id., at 155.
Petitioner argued that, in view of the public’s apparent misunderstanding about the meaning of “life imprisonment” in South Carolina, there was a reasonable likelihood that the jurors would vote for death simply because they believed, mistakenly, that petitioner eventually would be released on parole.
The prosecution opposed the proposed instruction, urging the court “not to allow... any argument by state or defense about parole and not charge the jury on anything concerning parole.” Id., at 37. Citing the South Carolina Supreme Court’s opinion in State v. Torrence, 305 S. C. 45, 406 S. E. 2d 315 (1991), the trial court refused petitioner’s requested instruction. Petitioner then asked alternatively for the following instruction:
“I charge you that these sentences mean what they say. That is, if you recommend that the defendant Jonathan Simmons be sentenced to death, he actually will be sentenced to death and executed. If, on the other hand, you recommend that he be sentenced to life imprisonment, he actually will be sentenced to imprisonment in the state penitentiary for the balance of his natural life.
“In your deliberations, you are not to speculate that these sentences mean anything other than what I have just told you, for what I have told you is exactly what will happen to the defendant, depending on what your sentencing decision is.” App. 162.
The trial judge also refused to give this instruction, but indicated that he might give a similar instruction if the jury inquired about parole eligibility.
After deliberating on petitioner’s sentence for 90 minutes, the jury sent a note to the judge asking a single question: “Does the imposition of a life sentence carry with it the possibility of parole?” Id., at 145. Over petitioner’s objection, the trial judge gave the following instruction:
“You are instructed not to consider parole or parole eligibility in reaching your verdict. Do not consider parole or parole eligibility. That is not a proper issue for your consideration. The terms life imprisonment and death sentence are to be understood in their plan [sic] and ordinary meaning.” Id., at 146.
Twenty-five minutes after receiving this response from the court, the jury returned to the courtroom with a sentence of death.
On appeal to the South Carolina Supreme Court, petitioner argued that the trial judge’s refusal to provide the jury accurate information regarding his parole ineligibility violated the Eighth Amendment and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The South Carolina Supreme Court declined to reach the merits of petitioner’s challenges. With one justice dissenting, it concluded that, regardless of whether a trial court’s refusal to inform a sentencing jury about a defendant’s parole ineligibility might be error under some circumstances, the instruction given to petitioner’s jury “satisfie[d] in substance [petitioner’s] request for a charge on parole ineligibility,” and thus there was no reason to consider whether denial of such an instruction would be constitutional error in this case. 310 S. C. 439, 444, 427 S. E. 2d 175, 179 (1993). We granted certiorari, 510 U. S. 811 (1993).
II
The Due Process Clause does not allow the execution of a person “on the basis of information which he had no opportunity to deny or explain.” Gardner v. Florida, 430 U. S. 349, 362 (1977). In this case, the jury reasonably may have believed that petitioner could be released on parole if he were not executed. To the extent this misunderstanding pervaded the jury’s deliberations, it had the effect of creating a false choice between sentencing petitioner to death and sentencing him to a limited period of incarceration. This grievous misperception was encouraged by the trial court’s refusal to provide the jury with accurate information regarding petitioner’s parole ineligibility, and by the State’s repeated suggestion that petitioner would pose a future danger to society if he were not executed. Three times petitioner asked to inform the jury that in fact he was ineligible for parole under state law; three times his request was denied. The State thus succeeded in securing a death sentence on the ground, at least in part, of petitioner’s future dangerousness, while at the same time concealing from the sentencing jury the true meaning of its noncapital sentencing alternative, namely, that life imprisonment meant life without parole. We think it is clear that the State denied petitioner due process.
A
This Court has approved the jury’s consideration of future dangerousness during the penalty phase of a capital trial, recognizing that a defendant’s future dangerousness bears on all sentencing determinations made in our criminal justice system. See Jurek v. Texas, 428 U. S. 262, 275 (1976) (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.) (noting that “any sentencing authority must predict a convicted person’s probable future conduct when it engages in the process of determining what punishment to impose”); California v. Ramos, 463 U. S. 992, 1003, n. 17 (1983) (explaining that it is proper for a sentencing jury in a capital case to consider “the defendant’s potential for reform and whether his probable future behavior counsels against the desirability of his release into society”).
Although South Carolina statutes do not mandate consideration of the defendant’s future dangerousness in capital sentencing, the State’s evidence in aggravation is not limited to evidence relating to statutory aggravating circumstances. See Barclay v. Florida, 463 U. S. 939, 948-951 (1983) (plurality opinion); California v. Ramos, 463 U. S., at 1008 (“Once the jury finds that the defendant falls within the legislatively defined category of persons eligible for the death penalty... the jury then is free to consider a myriad of factors to determine whether death is the appropriate punishment”). Thus, 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; they urge the jury to sentence the defendant to death so that he will not be a danger to the public if released from prison. Eisenberg & Wells, Deadly Confusion: Juror Instructions in Capital Cases, 79 Cornell L. Rev. 1, 4 (1993).
Arguments relating to a defendant’s future dangerousness ordinarily would be inappropriate at the guilt phase of a trial, as the jury is not free to convict a defendant simply because he poses a future danger; nor is a defendant’s future dangerousness likely relevant to the question whether each element of an alleged offense has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt. But where the jury has sentencing responsibilities in a capital trial, many issues that are irrelevant to the guilt-innocence determination step into the foreground and require consideration at the sentencing phase. The defendant’s character, prior criminal history, mental capacity, background, and age are just a few of the many factors, in addition to future dangerousness, that a jury may consider in fixing appropriate punishment. See Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586 (1978); Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104, 110 (1982); Barclay v. Florida, 463 U. S., at 948-951.
In assessing future dangerousness, the actual duration of the defendant’s prison sentence is indisputably relevant. Holding all other factors constant, it is entirely reasonable for a sentencing jury to view a defendant who is eligible for parole as a greater threat to society than a defendant who is not. Indeed, there may be no greater assurance of a defendant’s future nondangerousness to the public than the fact that he never will be released on parole. The trial court’s refusal to apprise the jury of information so crucial to its sentencing determination, particularly when the prosecution alluded to the defendant’s future dangerousness in its argument to the jury, cannot be reconciled with our well-established precedents interpreting the Due Process Clause.
B
In Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U. S. 1 (1986), this Court held that a defendant was denied due process by the refusal of the state trial court to admit evidence of the defendant’s good behavior in prison in the penalty phase of his capital trial. Although the majority opinion stressed that the defendant’s good behavior in prison was “relevant evidence in mitigation of punishment,” and thus admissible under the Eighth Amendment, id., at 4, citing Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S., at 604 (plurality opinion), the Skipper opinion expressly noted that the Court’s conclusion also was compelled by the Due Process Clause. The Court explained that where the prosecution relies on a prediction of future dangerousness in requesting the death penalty, elemental due process principles operate to require admission of the defendant’s relevant evidence in rebuttal. 476 U. S., at 5, n. 1. See also id., at 9 (Powell, J., opinion concurring in judgment) (“[Bjecause petitioner was not allowed to rebut evidence and argument used against him,” the defendant clearly was denied due process).
The Court reached a similar conclusion in Gardner v. Florida, 430 U. S. 349 (1977). In that case, a defendant was sentenced to death on the basis of a presentence report which was not made available to him and which he therefore could not rebut. A plurality of the Court explained that sending a man to his death “on the basis of information which he had no opportunity to deny or explain” violated fundamental notions of due process. Id., at 362. The principle announced in Gardner was reaffirmed in Skipper, and it compels our decision today. See also Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U. S. 683, 690 (1986) (due process entitles a defendant to “ ‘a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense’ ”) (citation omitted); Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U. S. 68, 83-87 (1985) (where the State presents psychiatric evidence of a defendant’s future dangerousness at a capital sentencing proceeding, due process entitles an indigent defendant to the assistance of a psychiatrist for the development of his defense).
Like the defendants in Skipper and Gardner, petitioner was prevented from rebutting information that the sentencing authority considered, and upon which it may have relied, in imposing the sentence of death. The State raised the specter of petitioner’s future dangerousness generally, but then thwarted all efforts by petitioner to demonstrate that, contrary to the prosecutor’s intimations, he never would be released on parole and thus, in his view, would not pose a future danger to society. The logic and effectiveness of petitioner’s argument naturally depended on the fact that he was legally ineligible for parole and thus would remain in prison if afforded a life sentence. Petitioner’s efforts to focus the jury’s attention on the question whether, in prison, he would be a future danger were futile, as he repeatedly was denied any opportunity to inform the jury that he never would be released on parole. The jury was left to speculate about petitioner’s parole eligibility when evaluating petitioner’s future dangerousness, and was denied a straight answer about petitioner’s parole eligibility even when it was requested.
C
The State and its amici contend that petitioner was not entitled to an instruction informing the jury that petitioner is ineligible for parole because such information is inherently misleading. Essentially, they argue that because future exigencies such as legislative reform, commutation, clemency, and escape might allow petitioner to be released into society, petitioner was not entitled to inform the jury that he is parole ineligible. Insofar as this argument is targeted at the specific wording of the instruction petitioner requested, the argument is misplaced. Petitioner’s requested instruction (“If... you recommend that [the defendant] be sentenced to life imprisonment, he actually will be sentenced to imprisonment in the state penitentiary for the balance of his natural life,” App. 162) was proposed only after the trial court ruled that South Carolina law prohibited a plain-language instruction that petitioner was ineligible for parole under state law. To the extent that the State opposes even a simple parole-ineligibility instruction because of hypothetical future developments, the argument has little force. Respondent admits that an instruction informing the jury that petitioner is ineligible for parole is legally accurate. Certainly, such an instruction is more accurate than no instruction at all, which leaves the jury to speculate whether “life imprisonment” means life without parole or something else.
The State’s asserted accuracy concerns are further undermined by the fact that a large majority of States which provide for life imprisonment without parole as an alternative to capital punishment inform the sentencing authority of the defendant’s parole ineligibility. The few States that do not provide capital sentencing juries with any information regarding parole ineligibility seem to rely, as South Carolina does here, on the proposition that California v. Ramos, 463 U. S. 992 (1983), held that such determinations are purely matters of state law.
It is true that Ramos stands for the broad proposition that we generally will defer to a State’s determination as to what a jury should and should not be told about sentencing. In a State in which parole is available, how the jury’s knowledge of parole availability will affect the decision whether or not to impose the death penalty is speculative, and we shall not lightly second-guess a decision whether or not to inform a jury of information regarding parole. States reasonably may conclude that truthful information regarding the availability of commutation, pardon, and the like should be kept from the jury in order to provide “greater protection in [the States’] criminal justice system than the Federal Constitution requires.” Id., at 1014. Concomitantly, nothing in the Constitution prohibits the prosecution from arguing any truthful information relating to parole or other forms of early release.
But if the State rests its case for imposing the death penalty at least in part on the premise that the defendant will be dangerous in the future, the fact that the alternative sentence to death is life without parole will necessarily undercut the State’s argument regarding the threat the defendant poses to society. Because truthful information of parole ineligibility allows the defendant to “deny or explain” the showing of future dangerousness, due process plainly requires that he be allowed to bring it to the jury’s attention by way of argument by defense counsel or an instruction from the court. See Gardner, 430 U. S., at 362.
Ill
There remains to be considered whether the South Carolina Supreme Court was correct in concluding that the trial court “satisfie[d] in substance [petitioner’s] request for a charge on parole ineligibility,” 310 S. C., at 444, 427 S. E. 2d, at 179, when it responded to the jury’s query by stating that life imprisonment was to be understood in its “plain and ordinary meaning,” ibid. In the court’s view, petitioner basically received the parole-ineligibility instruction he requested. We disagree.
It can hardly be questioned that most juries lack accurate information about the precise meaning of “life imprisonment” as defined by the States. For much of our country’s history, parole was a mainstay of state and federal sentencing regimes, and every term (whether a term of life or a term of years) in practice was understood to be shorter than the stated term. See generally Lowenthal, Mandatory Sentencing Laws: Undermining the Effectiveness of Determinate Sentencing Reform, 81 Calif. L. Rev. 61 (1993) (describing the development of mandatory sentencing laws). Increasingly, legislatures have enacted mandatory sentencing laws with severe penalty provisions, yet the precise contours of these penal laws vary from State to State. See Cheatwood, The Life-Without-Parole Sanction: Its Current Status and a Research Agenda, 34 Crime & Delinq. 43, 45, 48 (1988). Justice Chandler of the South Carolina Supreme Court observed that it is impossible to ignore “the reality, known to the ‘reasonable juror/ that, historically, life-term defendants have been eligible for parole.” State v. Smith, 298 S. C. 482, 489-490, 381 S. E. 2d 724, 728 (1989) (opinion concurring and dissenting), cert. denied, 494 U. S. 1060 (1990).
An instruction directing juries that life imprisonment should be understood in its “plain and ordinary” meaning does nothing to dispel the misunderstanding reasonable jurors may have about the way in which any particular State defines “life imprisonment.” See Boyde v. California, 494 U. S. 370, 380 (1990) (where there is a “reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way that prevents the consideration of constitutionally relevant evidence,” the defendant is denied due process).
It is true, as the State points out, that the trial court admonished the jury that “you are instructed not to consider parole” and that parole “is not a proper issue for your consideration.” App. 146. Far from ensuring that the jury was not misled, however, this instruction actually suggested that parole was available but that the jury, for some unstated reason, should be blind to this fact. Undoubtedly, the instruction was confusing and frustrating to the jury, given the arguments by both the prosecution and the defense relating to petitioner’s future dangerousness, and the obvious relevance of petitioner’s parole ineligibility to the jury’s formidable sentencing task. While juries ordinarily are presumed to follow the court’s instructions, see Greer v. Miller, 483 U. S. 756, 766, n. 8 (1987), we have recognized that in some circumstances “the risk that the jury will not, or cannot, follow instructions is so great, and the consequences of failure so vital to the defendant, that the practical and human limitations of the jury system cannot be ignored.” Bruton v. United States, 391 U. S. 123, 135 (1968). See also Beck v. Alabama, 447 U. S. 625, 642 (1980); Barclay v. Florida, 463 U. S., at 950 (“Any sentencing decision calls for the exercise of judgment. It is neither possible nor desirable for a person to whom the State entrusts an important judgment to decide in a vacuum, as if he had no experiences”).
But even if the trial court’s instruction successfully prevented the jury from considering parole, petitioner’s due process rights still were not honored. Because petitioner’s future dangerousness was at issue, he was entitled to inform the jury of his parole ineligibility. An instruction directing the jury not to consider the defendant’s likely conduct in prison would not have satisfied due process in Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U. S. 1 (1986), and, for the same reasons, the instruction issued by the trial court in this case does not satisfy due process.
IV
The State may not create a false dilemma by advancing generalized arguments regarding the defendant’s future dangerousness while, at the same time, preventing the jury from learning that the defendant never will be released on parole. The judgment of the South Carolina Supreme Court accordingly is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
Justice Souter,
with whom Justice Stevens joins, concurring.
I join in Justice Blackmun’s opinion that, at least when future dangerousness is an issue in a capital sentencing determination, the defendant has a due process right to require that his sentencing jury be informed of his ineligibility for parole. I write separately because I believe an additional, related principle also compels today’s decision, regardless of whether future dangerousness is an issue at sentencing.
The Eighth Amendment entitles a defendant to a jury capable of a reasoned moral judgment about whether death, rather than some lesser sentence, ought to be imposed. The Court has explained that the Amendment imposes a heightened standard “for reliability in the determination that death is the appropriate punishment in a specific case,” Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280, 305 (1976) (plurality opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.); see also, e. g., Godfrey v. Georgia, 446 U. S. 420, 427-428 (1980); Mills v. Maryland, 486 U. S. 367, 383-384 (1988). Thus, it requires provision of “accurate sentencing information [as] an indispensable prerequisite to a reasoned determination of whether a defendant shall live or die,” Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 190 (1976) (joint opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.), and invalidates “procedural rules that ten[d] to diminish the reliability of the sentencing determination,” Beck v. Alabama, 447 U. S. 625, 638 (1980).
That same need for heightened reliability also mandates recognition of a capital defendant’s right to require instructions on the meaning of the legal terms used to describe the sentences (or sentencing recommendations) a jury is required to consider, in making the reasoned moral choice between sentencing alternatives. Thus, whenever there is a reasonable likelihood that a juror will misunderstand a sentencing term, a defendant may demand instruction on its meaning, and a death sentence following the refusal of such a request should be vacated as having been “arbitrarily or discriminatorily” and “wantonly and... freakishly imposed.” Furman v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238, 249 (1972) (Douglas, J., concurring) (internal quotation marks omitted); id., at 310 (Stewart, J., concurring).
While I join the other Members of the Court’s majority in holding that, at least, counsel ought to be permitted to inform the jury of the law that it must apply, see ante, at 169 (plurality opinion); post, at 174 (Ginsburg, J., concurring); post, at 178 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment), I also accept the general rule that, on matters of law, arguments of counsel do not effectively substitute for statements by the court.
“[Arguments of counsel generally carry less weight with a jury than do instructions from the court. The former are usually billed in advance to the jury as matters of argument, not evidence, and are likely viewed as the statements of advocates; the latter, we have often recognized, are viewed as definitive and binding statements of the law.” Boyde v. California, 494 U. S. 370, 384 (1990) (citation omitted).
I would thus impose that straightforward duty on the court.
Because Justice Blackmun persuasively demonstrates that juries in general are likely to misunderstand the meaning of the term “life imprisonment” in a given context, see ante, at 159, 169-170, and n. 9, the judge must tell the jury what the term means, when the defendant so requests. It is, moreover, clear that at least one of these particular jurors did not understand the meaning of the term, since the jury sent a note to the judge asking, “Does the imposition of a life sentence carry with it the possibility of parole?” Ante, at 160,170, n. 10. The answer here was easy and controlled by state statute. The judge should have said no. Justice Blackmun shows that the instruction actually given was at best a confusing, “equivocal direction to the jury on a basic issue,” Bollenbach v. United States, 326 U. S. 607, 613 (1946), and that “there is a reasonable likelihood that the jury has applied the challenged instruction in a way” that violated petitioner’s rights. Boyde, supra, at 380. By effectively withholding from the jury the life-without-parole alternative, the trial court diminished the reliability of the jury’s decision that death, rather than that alternative, was the appropriate penalty in this case.
While States are, of course, free to provide more protection for the accused than the Constitution requires, see California v. Ramos, 463 U. S. 992, 1014 (1983), they may not provide less. South Carolina did so here. For these reasons, as well as those set forth by Justice Blackmun, whose opinion I join, the judgment of the Supreme Court of South Carolina must be reversed.
The venire was informed, however, of the meaning of the term “death” under South Carolina law. The trial judge specifically advised the prospective jurors that “[b]y the death penalty, we mean death by electrocution.” The sentencing jury was also so informed. App. 129.
Section 24-21-640 states: “The board must not grant parole nor is parole authorized to any prisoner serving a sentence for a second or subsequent conviction, following a separate sentencing from a prior conviction, for violent crimes as defined in Section 16-1-60.” Petitioner’s earlier convictions for burglary in the first degree and criminal sexual assault in the first degree are violent offenses under § 16-1-60.
Specifically, petitioner argued that under the Eighth Amendment his parole ineligibility was “ ‘mitigating’ in the sense that [it] might serve ‘as a basis for a sentence less than death,’ ” Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U. S. 1, 4-5 (1986), quoting Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586, 604 (1978) (plurality opinion), and that therefore he was entitled to inform the jury of his parole ineligibility. He also asserted that by withholding from the jury the fact that it had a life-without-parole sentencing alternative, the trial court impermissibly diminished the reliability of the jury’s determination that death was the appropriate punishment. Cf. Beck v. Alabama, 447 U. S. 625 (1980). Finally, relying on the authority of Gardner v. Florida, 430 U. S. 349 (1977), petitioner argued that his due process right to rebut the State’s argument that petitioner posed a future danger to.society had been violated by the trial court’s refusal to permit him to show that a noncapital sentence adequately could protect the public from any future acts of violence by him.
We express no opinion on the question whether the result we reach today is also compelled by the Eighth Amendment.
Of course, the fact that a defendant is parole ineligible does not prevent the State from arguing that the defendant poses a future danger. The State is free to argue that the defendant will pose a danger to others in prison and that executing him is the only means of eliminating the threat to the safety of other inmates or prison staff But the State may not mislead the jury by concealing accurate information about the defendant’s parole ineligibility. The Due Process Clause will not tolerate placing a capital defendant in a straitjacket by barring him from rebutting the prosecution’s arguments of future dangerousness with the fact that he is ineligible for parole under state law.
In this regard, the State emphasizes that no statute prohibits petitioner’s eventual release into society. While this technically may be true, state regulations unambiguously prohibit work-release and virtually all other furloughs for inmates who are ineligible for parole. See App. 16. As for pardons, the statute itself provides that they are available only in “the most extraordinary circumstances.” S. C. Code Ann. §24-21-950D (1989).
At present, there are 26 States that both employ juries in capital sentencing and provide for life imprisonment without parole as an alternative to capital punishment. In 17 of these, the jury expressly is informed of the defendant’s ineligibility for parole. Nine States simply identify the jury’s sentencing alternatives as death and life without parole. See Ala. Code §13A-5-46(e) (1982); Ark. Code Ann. §5-4-603(b) (1993); Cal. Penal Code Ann. §190.3 (West 1988); Conn. Gen. Stat. §53a-46a(f) (1985); Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, § 4209(a) (1987); La. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 905.6 (West Supp. 1994); Mo. Rev. Stat. §565.030.4 (Supp. 1993); N. H. Rev. Stat. Ann. §630:5 (Supp. 1992); Wash. Rev. Code §10.95.030 (1994). Eight States allow the jury to specify whether the defendant should or should not be eligible for parole. See Ga. Code Ann. § 17-10-31.1(a) (Supp. 1993); Ind. Code §35-50-2-9 (Supp. 1993); Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27, § 413(c)(3) (Supp. 1993); Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.554(2)(c)(2) (1993); Okla. Stat. Ann. Tit. 21, § 701.10(A) (Supp. 1993-1994); Ore. Rev. Stat. §163.105 (1991); Tenn. Code Ann. §§39-13-204(a)-(f)(2) (Supp. 1993); Utah Code Ann. §76-3-207(4) (Supp. 1993).
In three States, statutory or decisional law requires that the sentencing jury be instructed, where accurate, that the defendant will be ineligible for parole. See Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-ll-103(l)(b) (Supp. 1993); People v. Gacho, 122 Ill. 2d 221, 262, 522 N. E. 2d 1146, 1166 (1988); Turner v. State, 573 So. 2d 657, 675 (Miss. 1990), cert. denied, 500 U. S. 910 (1991).
Three States have not considered the question whether jurors should be instructed that the defendant is ineligible for parole under state law. See Fla. Stat. Ann. §775.0823(1) (Supp. 1994); S. D. Codified Laws §24-15-4 (1988); Wyo. Stat. §§ 6-2-101(b), 7-13-402(a) (1993). The Florida Supreme Court, however, has approved for publication pattern jury instructions that inform capital
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented on this appeal is whether a statutory scheme by which a State distributes income derived from its natural resources to the adult citizens of the State in varying amounts, based on the length of each citizen’s residence, violates the equal protection rights of newer state citizens. The Alaska Supreme Court sustained the constitutionality of the statute. 619 P. 2d 448 (1980). We stayed the distribution of dividend funds, 449 U. S. 989 (1980), and noted probable jurisdiction, 450 U. S. 908 (1981). We reverse.
I
The 1967 discovery of large oil reserves on state-owned land in the Prudhoe Bay area of Alaska resulted in a windfall to the State. The State, which had a total budget of $124 million in 1969, before the oil revenues began to flow into the state coffers, received $3.7 billion in petroleum revenues during the 1981 fiscal year. This income will continue, and most likely grow for some years in the future. Recognizing that its mineral reserves, although large, are finite and that the resulting income will not continue in perpetuity, the State took steps to assure that its current good fortune will bring long-range benefits. To accomplish this, Alaska in 1976 adopted a constitutional amendment establishing the Permanent Fund into which the State must deposit at least 25% of its mineral income each year. Alaska Const., Art. IX, § 15. The amendment prohibits the legislature from appropriating any of the principal of the Fund but permits use of the Fund’s earnings for general governmental purposes.
In 1980, the legislature enacted a dividend program to distribute annually a portion of the Fund’s earnings directly to the State’s adult residents. Under the plan, each citizen 18 years of age or older receives one dividend unit for each year of residency subsequent to 1959, the first year of statehood. The statute fixed the value of each dividend unit at $50 for the 1979 fiscal year; a one-year resident thus would receive one unit, or $50, while a resident of Alaska since it became a State in 1959 would receive 21 units, or $1,050. The value of a dividend unit will vary each year depending on the income of the Permanent Fund and the amount of that income the State allocates for other purposes. The State now estimates that the 1985 fiscal year dividend will be nearly four times as large as that for 1979.
Appellants, residents of Alaska since 1978, brought this suit in 1980 challenging the dividend distribution plan as vio-lative of their right to equal protection guarantees and their constitutional right to migrate to Alaska, to establish residency there and thereafter to enjoy the full rights of Alaska citizenship on the same terms as all other citizens of the State. The Superior Court for Alaska’s Third Judicial District granted summary judgment in appellants’ favor, holding that the plan violated the rights of interstate travel and equal protection. A divided Alaska Supreme Court reversed and upheld the statute.
II
The Alaska dividend distribution law is quite unlike the durational residency requirements we examined in Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U. S. 393 (1975); Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U. S. 250 (1974); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330 (1972); and Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618 (1969). Those cases involved laws which required new residents to reside in the State a fixed minimum period to be eligible for certain benefits available on an equal basis to all other residents. The asserted purpose of the durational residency requirements was to assure that only persons who had established bona fide residence received rights and benefits provided for residents.
The Alaska statute does not impose any threshold waiting period on those seeking' dividend benefits; persons with less than a full year of residency are entitled to share in the distribution. Alaska Stat. Ann. §43.23.010 (Supp. 1981). Nor does the statute purport to establish a test of the bona fides of state residence. Instead, the dividend statute creates fixed, permanent distinctions between an ever-increasing number of perpetual classes of concededly bona fide residents, based on how long they have been in the State.
Appellants established residence in Alaska two years before the dividend law was passed. The distinction they complain of is not one which the State makes between those who arrived in Alaska after the enactment of the dividend distribution law and those who were residents prior to its enactment. Appellants instead challenge the distinctions made within the class of persons who were residents when the dividend scheme was enacted in 1980. The distinctions appellants attack include the preference given to persons who were residents when Alaska became a State in 1959 over all those who have arrived since then, as well as the distinctions made between all bona fide residents who settled in Alaska at different times during the 1959 to 1980 period.
When a state distributes benefits unequally, the distinctions it makes are subject to scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Generally, a law will survive that scrutiny if the distinction it makes rationally furthers a legitimate state purpose. Some particularly invidious distinctions are subject to more rigorous scrutiny. Appellants claim that the distinctions made by the Alaska law should be subjected to the higher level of scrutiny applied to the durational residency requirements in Shapiro v. Thompson, supra, and Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, supra. The State, on the other hand, asserts that the law need only meet the minimum rationality test. In any event, if the statutory scheme cannot pass even the minimal test proposed by the State, we need not decide whether any enhanced scrutiny is called for.
A
The State advanced and the Alaska Supreme Court accepted three purposes justifying the distinctions made by the dividend program: (a) creation of a financial incentive for individuals to establish and maintain residence in Alaska; (b) encouragement of prudent management of the Permanent Fund; and (c) apportionment of benefits in recognition of undefined “contributions of various kinds, both tangible and intangible, which residents have made during their years of residency,” 619 P. 2d, at 458.
As the Alaska Supreme Court apparently realized, the first two state objectives — creating a financial incentive for individuals to establish and maintain Alaska residence, and assuring prudent management of the Permanent Fund and the State’s natural and mineral resources — are not rationally related to the distinctions Alaska seeks to make between newer residents and those who have been in the State since 1959. Assuming, arguendo, that granting increased dividend benefits for each year of continued Alaska residence might give some residents an incentive to stay in the State in order to reap increased dividend benefits in the future, the State’s interest is not in any way served by granting greater dividends to persons for their residency during the 21 years prior to the enactment.
Nor does the State’s purpose of furthering the prudent management of the Permanent Fund and the State’s resources support retrospective application of its plan to the date of statehood. On this score the State’s contention is straightforward:
“[A]s population increases, each individual share in the income stream is diluted. .The income must be divided equally among increasingly large numbers of people. If residents believed that twenty years from now they would be required to share permanent fund income on a per capita basis with the large population that Alaska will no doubt have by then, the temptation would be great to urge the legislature to provide immediately for the highest possible percentage return on the investments of the permanent fund principal, which would require investments in riskier ventures.” Id., at 462.
The State similarly argues that equal per capita distribution would encourage rapacious development of natural resources. Ibid. Even if we assume that the state interest is served by increasing the dividend for each year of residency beginning with the date of enactment, is it rationally served by granting greater dividends in varying amounts to those who resided in Alaska during the 21 years prior to enactment? We think not.
The last of the State’s objectives — to reward citizens for past contributions — alone was relied upon by the Alaska Supreme Court to support the retrospective application of the law to 1959. However, that objective is not a legitimate state purpose. A similar “past contributions” argument was made and rejected in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S., at 632-633:
“Appellants argue further that the challenged classification may be sustained as an attempt to distinguish between new and old residents on the basis of the contributions they have made to the community through the payment of taxes. . . . Appellants’ reasoning would . . . permit the State to apportion all benefits and services according to the past tax [or intangible] contributions of its citizens. The Equal Protection Clause prohibits such an apportionment of state services.” (Emphasis added.)
Similarly, in Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U. S. 441 (1973), we noted that “apportionment of] tuition rates on the basis of old and new residency . . . would give rise to grave problems under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id., at 449-450, and n. 6.
If the states can make the amount of a cash dividend depend on length of residence, what would preclude varying university tuition on a sliding scale based on years of residence — or even limiting access to finite public facilities, eligibility for student loans, for civil service jobs, or for government contracts by length of domicile? Could states impose different taxes based on length of residence? Alaska’s reasoning could open the door to state apportionment of other rights, benefits, and services according to length of residency. It would permit the states to divide citizens into expanding numbers of permanent classes. Such a result would be clearly impermissible.
B
We need not consider whether the State could enact the dividend program prospectively only. Invalidation of a portion of a statute does not necessarily render the whole invalid unless it is evident that the legislature would not have enacted the legislation without the invalid portion. Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U. S. 1, 108 (1976); United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570, 585 (1968); Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Comm’n of Oklahoma, 286 U. S. 210, 234 (1932). Here, we need not speculate as to the intent of the Alaska Legislature; the legislation expressly provides that invalidation of any portion of the statute renders the whole invalid:
“Sec. 4. If any provision enacted in sec. 2 of this Act [which included the dividend distribution plan in its entirety] is held to be invalid by the final judgment, decision or order of a court of competent jurisdiction, then that provision is nonseverable, and all provisions enacted in sec. 2 of this Act are invalid and of no force or effect.” 1980 Alaska Sess. Laws, ch. 21, §4.
However, it is of course for the Alaska courts to pass on the severability clause of the statute.
h-4 4 t — 4
The only apparent justification for the retrospective aspect of the program, “favoring established residents over new residents,” is constitutionally unacceptable. Vlandis v. Kline, supra, at 450. In our view Alaska has shown no valid state interests which are rationally served by the distinction it makes between citizens who established residence before 1959 and those who have become residents since then.
We hold that the Alaska dividend distribution plan violates the guarantees of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Accordingly, the judgment of the Alaska Supreme Court is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Alaska Dept, of Revenue, Revenue Sources FY 1981-1983 (Sept. 1981). (Includes General Fund unrestricted petroleum revenues of $3.3 billion and petroleum revenues directly deposited in the Permanent Fund in the amount of $400 million. An additional $900 million was transferred from the General Fund to the Permanent Fund in the 1981 fiscal year.) The 1980 census reports that Alaska’s adult population is 270,265; per capita 1981 oil revenues amount to $13,632 for each adult resident. Petroleum revenues now amount to 89% of the State’s total government revenue. Ibid.
The infusion of Permanent Fund earnings into state general revenues also led the Alaska Legislature to enact a statute giving residents a one-third exemption from state income taxes for each year of residence; this operated to exempt entirely anyone with three or more years of residency. The Alaska Supreme Court, again by a 3-2 vote, held that this statute violated the State Constitution’s equal protection clause. Williams v. Zobel, 619 P. 2d 422 (1980). Chief Justice Rabinowitz, the only justice in the majority in both cases, found that the tax exemption statute, but not the dividend distribution plan, could “be perceived as a penalty imposed on a person who chooses to exercise his or her right to move into Alaska.” 619 P. 2d, at 458.
In the durational residency cases, we examined state laws which imposed waiting periods on access to divorce courts, Sosna v. Iowa; eligibility for free nonemergency medical care, Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County; voting rights, Dunn v. Blumstein; and welfare assistance, Shapiro v. Thompson.
Section 43.23.010(b) provides:
“For each year, an individual is eligible to receive payment of the permanent fund dividends for which he is entitled under this section if he
“(1) is at least 18 years of age; and
“(2) is a state resident during all or part of the year for which the permanent fund dividend is paid.”
The remainder of §43.23.010 establishes the number of dividend units residents are entitled to receive and the method of payment. Section 43.23.010(f) provides that a resident entitled to benefits under subsection (b) who was a resident for less than a full year is entitled to a dividend prorated on the basis of the number of months of state residence.
The Alaska statute does not simply make distinctions between native-born Alaskans and those who migrate to Alaska from other states; it does not discriminate only against those who have recently exercised the right to travel, as did the statute involved in Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S. 618 (1969). The Alaska statute also discriminates among long-time residents and even native-born residents. For example, a person bom in Alaska in 1962 would have received $100 less than someone who was bom in the State in 1960. Of course the native Alaskan bom in 1962 would also receive $100 less than the person who moved to the State in 1960.
The statute does not involve the kind of discrimination which the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Art. IV was designed to prevent. That Clause “was designed to insure to a citizen of State A who ventures into State B the same privileges which the citizens of State B enjoy." Toomer v. Witsell, 334 U. S. 385, 395 (1948). The Clause is thus not applicable to this case.
The Alaska courts considered whether the dividend distribution law violated appellants’ constitutional right to travel. The right to travel and to move from one state to another has long been accepted, yet both the nature and the source of that right have remained obscure. See Jones v. Helms, 452 U. S. 412, 417-419, and nn. 12 and 13 (1981); Shapiro v. Thompson, supra, at 629-631; United States v. Guest, 383 U. S. 745, 757-759 (1966). See also Z. Chafee, Three Human Rights in the Constitution of 1787, pp. 188-193 (1956). In addition to protecting persons against the erection of actual barriers to interstate movement, the right to travel, when applied to residency requirements, protects new residents of a state from being disadvantaged because of their recent migration or from otherwise being treated differently from longer term residents. In reality, right to travel analysis refers to little more than a particular application of equal protection analysis. Right to travel cases have examined, in equal protection terms, state distinctions between newcomers and longer term residents. See Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U. S. 250 (1974); Dunn v. Blumstein, 405 U. S. 330 (1972); Shapiro v. Thompson, supra. This case also involves distinctions between residents based on when they arrived in the State and is therefore also subject to equal protection analysis.
These purposes were enumerated in the first section of the Act creating the dividend distribution plan, 1980 Alaska Sess. Laws, ch. 21, § 1(b):
“(b) The purposes of this Act are
“(1) to provide a mechanism for equitable distribution to the people of Alaska of at least a portion of the state’s energy wealth derived from the development and production of the natural resources belonging to them as Alaskans;
“(2) to encourage persons to maintain their residence in Alaska and to reduce population turnover in the state; and
“(3) to encourage increased awareness and involvement by the residents of the state in the management and expenditure of the Alaska permanent fund (art. IX, sec. 15, state constitution)."
Thus we need not speculate as to the objectives of the legislature.
In response to the argument that the objectives of stabilizing population and encouraging prudent management of the Permanent Fund and of the State’s natural resources did not justify the application of the dividend program to the years 1959 to 1980, the Alaska Supreme Court maintained that the retrospective aspect of the program was justified by the objective of rewarding state citizens for past contributions. 619 P. 2d, at 461-462, n. 37. See also dissenting opinion of Justice Dimond, id., at 469-471.
In fact, newcomers seem more likely to become dissatisfied and to leave the State than well-established residents; it would thus seem that the State would give a larger, rather than a smaller, dividend to new residents if it wanted to discourage emigration. The separation of residents into classes hardly seems a likely way to persuade new Alaskans that the State welcomes them and wants them to stay.
Of course, the State’s objective of reducing population turnover cannot be interpreted as an attempt to inhibit migration into the State without encountering insurmountable constitutional difficulties. See Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U. S., at 629.
Even if the objective of rewarding past contributions were valid, it would be ironic to apply that rationale here. As Representative Randolph noted during debate in the state legislature on the dividend statute:
“The pipeline is the entity that has allowed us all this latitude to do all the things we’re considering doing, not only today but throughout the session. And without. . . newcomers, we couldn’t have built that pipeline. Without their skill, without their ability, without their money, the pipeline wouldn’t be there. So I get a little bit tired of — and I’ve got a hunch an awful lot of people who have been here five or six or seven or ten years, whatever we knock off as newcomers, get a little bit tired of being chastized and penalized and discriminated against for having not been born here or not have been here 30 or 40 or 50 years."
Apportionment would thus be prohibited only when it involves “fundamental rights” and services deemed to involve “basic necessities of life.” See Memorial Hospital v. Maricopa County, 415 U. S., at 259.
“Such a power in the States could produce nothing but discord and mutual irritation, and they very clearly do not possess it.” Passenger Cases, 7 How. 283, 492 (1849) (Taney, C. J., dissenting).
Starns v. Malkerson, 326 F. Supp. 234 (Minn. 1970), summarily aff’d, 401 U. S. 985 (1971), cannot be read as a contrary decision of this Court. First, summary affirmance by this Court is not to be read as an adoption of the reasoning supporting the judgment under review. Fusari v. Steinberg, 419 U. S. 379, 391 (1975) (concurring opinion). See also Colorado Springs Amusements, Ltd. v. Rizzo, 428 U. S. 913, 920-921 (1976) (BRENNAN, J., dissenting); Edelman v. Jordan, 415 U. S. 651, 671 (1974). Moreover, as we pointed out in Vlandis v. Kline, 412 U. S. 441, 452-453, n. 9 (1973), we considered the Minnesota one-year residency requirement examined in Stams a test of bona fide residence, not a return on prior contributions to the commonweal.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This case concerns disapproval by the Interstate Commerce Commission of a proposed merger on the ground that “control and management in a common interest” over the two applicant-carriers had been unlawfully effectuated prior to the merger application in violation of § 5 (4) of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, 54 Stat. 907, 49 U. S. C. § 5 (4).
The applicant-carriers are L. Nelson & Sons Transportation Co. and Gilbertville Trucking Co., both of whom are certificated by the Commission as common carrier motor carriers. The principal stockholders of Nelson Co. are two half brothers, Charles Chilberg and Clifford Nelson; Gilbertville Co. is wholly owned by a third brother, Kenneth Nelson.
The merger application was filed October 6,1955, by the two carriers and their stockholders pursuant to § 5 (2) of the. Act. Two and a half months later the Commission initiated an investigation into the possibility of a § 5 (4) violation pursuant to authority granted by § 5 (7) of the Act. The two proceedings were consolidated for hearing. The trial examiner determined that § 5 (4) was being violated, but recommended that the merger be approved on the ground that the violation was neither intentional nor flagrant. Division 4 affirmed the finding of a violation, but disapproved the merger, and ordered the violation terminated. 75 M. C. C. 45. On reconsideration, the full Commission affirmed the Division, but further ordered that Kenneth Nelson divest himself of Gilbertville Co. 80 M. C. C. 257. A suit before a three-judge United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts to enjoin and set aside the Commission’s orders was dismissed on the ground that the orders were reasonable and supported by substantial evidence. 196 F. Supp. 351. An appeal was taken to this Court contesting (1) the finding of a § 5 (4) violation, (2) the denial of the merger, and (3) the order of divestiture. We noted probable jurisdiction. 368 U. S. 983.
The factual issue in this case turns upon the development of family, management, and operational relationships between Nelson, Gilbertville, and a third carrier, R. A. Byrnes, Inc., which is owned by the principal stockholders of Nelson.
The Nelson transportation business was first organized in 1930 as'a partnership. In 1947 it was incorporated as L. Nelson & Sons Transportation Co. and stock issued to Mrs.. Nelson (formerly Mrs. Chilberg) and four of her seven children (including Kenneth Nelson, Clifford Nelson, and Charles Chilberg). Upon Mrs. Nelson’s death in 1950, equal numbers of shares of her stock in Nelson Co. were devised to her seven children. In 1951, Kenneth Nelson sold his original shares received in 1947 to Charles Chilberg and Clifford Nelson, and agreed to sell to them the remainder to which he was entitled on distribution of the estate. The distribution and transfer were made on January 23, 1953. Since that date, Charles and Clifford have been the principal stockholders in Nelson Co. Charles is now president and treasurer; Clifford is secretary and assistant treasurer.
Upon the sale of his stock in 1951, Kenneth Nelson resigned as an officer and director of Nelson Co. However, he kept his office at Nelson Co. headquarters in Ellington, Connecticut, and was retained by the company as a “free-lance tariff consultant.” In such capacity he was paid approximately $15,000 in 1952 and $13,000 in 1953. While he claims to have been an independent contractor, his only client was Nelson Co. In the third week of January 1953, Kenneth Nelson wrote to Nelson Co.Js accountant, Mr. Sanol Solomon, requesting advice on thé acquisition of Gilbertville Trucking Co. Soon thereafter Kenneth began negotiations with Gilbertville’s owner, and on March 3, 1953, took over control. Since July 1953, all the stock in Gilbertville has been controlled by Kenneth.
In April of 1954 Charles Chilberg and Clifford Nelson obtained temporary authority from the Commission to take over the operations of R. A. Byrnes, Inc.; their acquisition of Byrnes stock was approved in August 1956.
The routes of these three carriers form a cohesive network along the eastern seaboard from Massachusetts to the District of Columbia. Gilbertville is presently certificated by the Commission as a common carrier for general commodities over regular and irregular routes between points in Massachusetts, Connecticut, Rhode Island, and New York City. Byrnes is certificated as a common carrier for general commodities over irregular routes between New York City, Philadelphia, the District of Columbia, and points adjacent to these cities. It is also certificated as a contract carrier of canned goods in Massachusetts, Connecticut, and Rhode Island. Nelson is certificated as a common carrier for textile commodities over irregular routes between points in Massachusetts, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Connecticut, and areas adjacent to New York and Philadelphia. It is also certificated for general commodities in intrastate traffic in Connecticut and Massachusetts. Thus, the Gilbertville and Byrnes general-commodity routes complement each other perfectly and overlap to a considerable degree the textile routes of Nelson.
Soon after his acquisition of Gilbertville, Kenneth Nelson instituted a number of permanent changes in the carrier’s operations tending to integrate the terminal facilities of Nelson and Gilbertville; he received where necessary the cooperation of Nelson Co. Kenneth obtained permission from the Commission to move the business records and head offices of the acquired company from Gilbertville, Massachusetts, the place of incorporation, to Ellington, Connecticut, and took over the second floor of the Nelson Co. office 'building. Where possible Gilbert-ville used the Nelson terminals, subletting from Nelson in Ellington, Connecticut; New York City; Newton, Massachusetts ; and Woonsocket, Rhode Island. Its only other terminal was at Gilbertville, Massachusetts. In seven cities, Gilbertville and Nelson were listed under the same telephone number, and they shared interterminal telephone lines. Almost identical changes took place in 1954 upon Commission approval of Charles Chilberg and Clifford Nelson’s acquisition of Byrnes. Byrnes’ offices were moved from Mullica Hill, New Jersey, to the Nelson Co. headquarters in Ellington, Connecticut; Byrnes shared the Nelson terminal in New York; it listed under the Nelson telephone number; it shared interterminal telephone lines. Since the Byrnes changes were the direct result of control and management in a common interest of Byrnes and Nelson in the hands of Charles and Clifford, it might be inferred that the Gilbertville changes were similarly indicative of control and management in a common interest of Nelson and Gilbertville.
Further substantiation of this terminal integration is provided by a fourth corporation, Bergson Company, a real estate corporation formed to receive the residual properties of Mrs. Linnea Nelson’s estate. Bergson owns the terminals leased to Nelson Co. at Philadelphia, Ellington, Woonsocket, and Newton, three of which are sublet to Gilbertville. Since Bergson is owned in equal shares by all seven children, all of whom are directors, it provides a direct corporate tie-in between Kenneth Nelson and his brothers.
While it is not unusual for independent carriers to share terminal facilities, as indeed Gilbertville and Nelson do with unrelated carriers in New York and Woonsocket, the repetition of such practices throughout their respective systems makes their alleged independence suspect. When these practices are then supplemented by further day-today practices integrating business, equipment, and managerial policies, the Commission is justified in concluding the carriers are in fact being managed and controlled in a common interest. Such additional practices are readily found in the record of this case.
Most significant is the equipment interdependence between Nelson and Gilbertville. When acquired for $35,000 in 1953, Gilbertville had a deficit about equal to the purchase price, assets of only $69,000, and a 1953 operating revenue of only $75,000. By 1956 Kenneth Nelson had increased the operating revenue to a seven-month figure of $444,777. This impressive growth was made in the face of a continuaLshort-term credit squeeze and lack of working capital and equipment. Nelson Co., however, was operating in a declining textile market in the Northeast with highly periodic demands for carriage. As a result, Nelson had a fluctuating overcapacity in equipment which was leased only to Gilbertville and occasionally Byrnes. Kenneth Nelson estimated that Gilbertville had from one to six tractor-trailer units on trip-lease from Nelson Co. every day and up to five other pieces of equipment on permanent lease, an amount equal at times to over one-half of Gilbertville’s own carriage capacity. Added to this equipment interdependence between Nelson and Gilbertville were certain interlining practices. Gilbertville interlined between 25% and 30% of its business. Over one-third of this interline business was with Nelson Co. and Byrnes, the majority being in truckload quantities. Owing to its equipment shortage, Gilbertville interlined with Nelson pursuant to a practice whereby a trip-lease was made out at the start of a run to take effect at the point of transfer to Gilbert-ville routes so that the Nelson tractor-trailer operated throughout the trip; moreover, the same driver might stay with the unit, changing employers at the point of transfer.
Finally, the record includes evidence that on four occasions Commission employees discovered on highway spot checks that one of the carriers carried small shipments belonging to the other; that Nelson did about one-quarter of the Gilbertville repairs; and that Charles Chilberg and Kenneth Nelson each exercised managerial control over employees of both Nelson and Gilbertville
This evidence is sufficient to show that Nelson and Gilbertville were in fact being controlled and managed in a common interest to a considerable degree. If § 5 (4) was intended by Congress to reach such de facto relationships, the Commission was warranted in concluding the section was being violated.
I.
Section 5 (4) is part of a comprehensive legislative scheme designed to place ownership, management, and operational control over common carriers within the regulatory jurisdiction of the Commission. Simply, § 5. (2) (a) gives the Commission power to authorize and approve the joint operation of properties belonging to two or more common carriers or the merger of such carriers; § 5 (4) then declares,
“It shall be unlawful for any person, except as provided in paragraph (2), to enter into any transaction within the scope of subparagraph (a) thereof, or to accomplish or effectuate, or to participate in accomplishing or effectuating, the control or management in a common interest of any two or more carriers, however such result is attained, whether directly or indirectly, by use of common directors, officers, or stockholders, a holding or investment company or companies, a voting trust or trusts, or in any other manner whatsoever. ... As used in this paragraph . . . the words 'control or management’ shall be construed to include the power to exercise control or management.”
The complementary character of these two sections was discussed at some length in United States v. Marshall Transport Co., 322 U. S. 31. As originally enacted in the Emergency Railroad Transportation Act of 1933, 48 Stat. 217, § 5 (4) was applicable only to railroads; it was extended to cover motor carriers in the Transportation Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 905, 907-908. As the appellants correctly state, Congress, in passing § 5 (4) and the supplementary § 5 (5) and (6), was primarily concerned with reaching the elaborate corporate devices used to centralize control over the railroads “without commission supervision and in defiance of the will of Congress.” Although Congress had intended the Transportation Act of 1920 to provide complete supervision, the Act proved inadequate to reach the holding company system. On the basis of this history, the appellants argue that § 5 (4) is limited to proscription of corporate devices and will not reach the informal relationships shown on this record.
Such a narrow interpretation of the statute, however, confuses the particular manifestation of the problem with which Congress was faced in 1933 with the ultimate congressional intention of effectuating the Commission’s jurisdiction under § 5 (2). On its face, § 5 (4) proscribes not just corporate and legal devices, but control effectuated “in any other manner whatsoever.” Any doubt as to the scope of this phrase was removed when Congress added the definition of “control” to § 1 (3) (b) of the Act in the Transportation Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 899-900. This section states that for purposes of § 5 and other sections, “control” “shall be construed to include actual as well as legal control, whether maintained or exercised through or by reason of the method of or circumstances surrounding organization or operation . . . .” We have construed this language to encompass every type of control in fact and have left to the agency charged with enforcement the determination from the facts whether “control” exists, subject to normal standards of review. Marshall Transport Co., supra, p. 38; Alleghany Corp. v. Breswick & Co., 353 U. S. 151, 163-165; Rochester Telephone Corp. v. United States, 307 U. S. 125, 145-146. In this manner, the Commission may adapt § 5 (4) to the actualities and current practices of the industry involved and apply it to the extent it feels necessary to protect its jurisdiction under § 5 (2) without having to return to Congress for additional authority every time industry practices change.
A cursory glance at Commission experience shows the type of informal practices in the motor carrier industry which the Commission has decided are covered by § 5 (4) and must first be approved under § 5 (2). Typical of these practices have been attempts by active carriers to effectively lease the routes of a dormant carrier by interlining and trip-leasing their equipment continuously over the dormant carrier’s routes, e. g., Nigro Freight Lines, Inc.- — Purchase—Coady Trucking Co., 90 M. C. C. 113; attempts by carriers to acquire other carriers by supplying funds to allegedly independent third-party purchasers, e. g., Black — Investigation oj Control — Colony Motor Transportation, 75 M. C. C. 275; Coldway Food Express, Inc. — Control and Merger — Foodway Express, Inc., 87 M. C. C. 123; attempts by inactive owners to allow an employee of another carrier to manage and merge operations of the two carriers, e. g., Gate City Transport Co.— Control — Square Deal Cartage Co., 87 M. C. C. 591. In the present case, the trial examiner held that the facts in this record “require a finding” of control and management in a common interest in violation of § 5 (4). Division 4, after a similar review of the facts, concurred. On reconsideration, the full Commission affirmed the finding and conclusion of the examiner and Division 4. Judicial review of this conclusion is limited to consideration of whether it has a rational basis and is supported by substantial evidence. United States v. Pierce Auto Lines, Inc., 327 U. S. 515; Mississippi Barge Line Co. v. United States, 292 U. S. 282, 286-287. After our review of the facts and statutory sections involved, we detect no reason to disturb this finding.
II.
However, even admitting a § 5 (4) violation, the appellants protest as arbitrary the denial of their application for approval of the proposed merger of Nelson and Gilbertville. Section 5 (2) provides that a transaction within its scope is to be approved if found to be “consistent with the public interest.” The statute entrusts the Commission with the duty to decide what considerations other than those specifically mentioned in § 5 (2) (c) shall be given weight. Cf. McLean Trucking Co. v. United States, 321 U. S. 6-7, 86-88; Schwabacher v. United States, 334 U. S. 182, 193. As in the case of an original application for a certificate, the Commission has chosen to give weight to an applicant’s fitness. E. g., Transamerican Freight Lines, Inc. — Control and Merger — The Cumberland Motor Express Corp., 75 M. C. C. 423, 428; cf. Interstate Commerce Act, § 207, 49 Stat. 551, 49 U. S. C. § 307. Integral to a determination of fitness is the applicant’s willingness and ability to fulfill its obligations to the Commission, considerations which may be demonstrated in part by past or continuing violations of Commission regulations. E. g., Powell — Purchase—Rampy, 57 M. C. C. 597. This has not been contested by the appellants, and its relevance to a finding of consistency with the public interest is self-evident. Nor do they dispute the principle recently stated by the Commission in Central of Georgia R. Co. Control, 307 I. C. C. 39, 43, that a § 5 (4) violation may alone bar approval of a merger unless, “upon consideration of all the facts, it clearly appears that the public interest will be served best by such approval.” Rather, they contend that in this case the Commission refused to consider all the facts presented and, in effect, made a § 5 (4) violation an automatic bar to approval of a subsequent merger. To support this allegation, the appellants point to the undisputed findings of the trial examiner that the violation in this case was neither willful, flagrant, nor the result of persistent disregard for regulation. They compare these findings with past Commission holdings that violations will be overlooked in the absence of willfulness, e. g., Gate City Transport Co. — Control—Square Deal Cartage Co., supra, and conclude that the rule applied in the present case must have been automatic.
However, even an automatic rule is not necessarily arbitrary. As already noted, § 5 (4) is integral to the success of the regulatory scheme. To approve a merger in the face of a § 5 (4) violation may encourage others whose merger may or may not be consistent with the public interest to either present the Commission with a fait accompli or avoid its jurisdiction altogether. As the Commission pointed out in Central of Georgia, if such practices were encouraged, “our administration of the statute in the public interest would be seriously hindered, if not defeated.” 307 I. C. C., at 44. This additional interest in the proper administration of the statute places upon the applicant a heavier burden than may be the case for other regulatory violations, and mere lack of willfulness or alleged innocence need not suffice.
In fact, the Commission’s rule is not automatic and will give way to a clear showing of public interest in approval. However, the appellants cannot attack the Commission’s order under even this less stringent rule since they made no clear showing of a public interest in approval such as a public need for’ the merged service or for larger consolidated carriers. The order denying the merger is therefore affirmed.
III.
The Commission’s final order requires Kenneth Nelson to divest himself of his stock in Gilbertville Co. in order to terminate the § 5 (4) violation. No other reference to divestiture can be found. In view of his recommendation that the merger be approved, the trial examiner made no findings or recommendations on a remedy for the violation. Division 4, upon denial of the merger, simply ordered that each of the applicants is hereby “required to terminate the violation.” On reconsideration, the full Commission reinstated Division 4’s order, but added, without explanation in its report, the order to divest. The District Court attempted to provide the rationale by suggesting that divestiture was so perfectly suited to the nature of the violation, an unlawful acquisition, that no explanation was necessary.
There is little question that divestiture is within the scope of -the Commission’s power since, with respect to a § 5 (4) violation, it may order any party to “take such action as may be necessary, in the opinion of the Commission, to prevent continuance of such violation.” § 5 (7). Where the unlawful control is the result of an acquisition, divestiture may be the only effective remedy. However, as § 5 (7) itself implies, the Commission’s power is corrective, not punitive. The justification for the remedy is the removal of the violation.
The use of equitable powers to expunge a statutory violation has been fully developed in the context of the antitrust laws and is, in many respects, applicable to § 5 (7). The “most drastic, but most effective” of these remedies is divestiture. And “[i]f the Court concludes that other measures will not be effective to redress a violation, and that complete divestiture is a necessary element of effective relief, the Government cannot be denied the latter remedy because economic hardship, however severe, may result.” United States v. E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co., 366 U. S. 316, 326-327. Our duty is to give “complete and efficacious effect to the prohibitions of the statute” with as little injury as possible to the interests of private parties or the general public. United States v. American Tobacco Co., 221 U. S. 106, 185. As these cases indicate, the choice of remedy is as important a decision as the initial construction of the statute and finding of a violation. The court or agency charged with this choice has a heavy responsibility to tailor the remedy to the particular facts of each case so as to best effectuate the remedial objectives just described. Cf. Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U. S. 321, 329-331.
As § 5 (7) expressly states, the Commission is charged with choosing the proper remedy in this case. Judicial review is accordingly limited. “It extends no further than to ascertain whether the Commission made an allowable judgment in its choice of the remedy.” Jacob Siegel Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, 327 U. S. 608, 612. But prerequisite to such review is evidence that a judgment was in fact made, that the parties were heard on the issue, that the proper standards were applied. We find no such evidence in this record. Rather we are faced with evidence that the statutory violation occurred not just from Kenneth Nelson’s act of acquiring Gilbertville, but from the acquisition plus subsequent practices integrating the management and operations of Nelson and Gilbertville, practices that could conceivably be discontinued without divestiture. In addition the trial examiner found that the violation was not willful and that the parties’ experience in this proceeding would make them more responsive to regulation in the future.
By referring to these mitigating considerations, we have no intention of prejudging the Commission or implying that divestiture would be unwarranted after proper treatment of the issue. These considerations merely indicate that a doubt can be raised and that a remand to the Commission is not purely academic for the sake of procedural regularity. When the Commission has exercised its judgment and issued its considered opinion, the propriety of the remedy chosen will be ripe for review. Jacob Siegel Co. v. Federal Trade Comm’n, supra; Administrative Procedure Act, § 8 (b), 60 Stat. 242, 5 U. S. C. § 1007 (b).
The judgment of the District Court is reversed in part and the case remanded for further proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The Interstate Commerce Act, 49 U. S. C. § 1 et seq., is hereinafter referred to as “the Act” or by the section number alone.
“Interlining” is the practice whereby a carrier, whose certificated routes do not reach the shipment destination, transfers the shipment to another carrier for delivery. “Interchanging” is a form of interlining whereby the two interlining carriers switch trailers at the point of transfer. An interchange is most common where the shipment involves a truckload quantity, and the exchange of trailers obviates the necessity of unloading the shipment from the trailer of the transferor and loading it on the trailer of the transferee. The trailer taken in exchange for the shipment-trailer may be either empty or loaded with an interline shipment in the other direction. A further form of interlining involves the use of a trip-lease for the transferee’s leg of the journey. There the shipment-trailer is taken by the transferee, but no trailer is given in exchange; instead the transferor will lease the shipment-trailer to the transferee for the completion of the trip.
Commission employee Edward D. Shea testified that Gilbert-ville’s terminal manager, John Kashady, had informed him that both these practices were regularly employed. Gilbertville records also indicate that Gilbertville lists the names of all Nelson drivers and keeps their doctor’s certificates on file. Other records indicate that Nelson drivers are often hired by Gilbertville during the same week and sometimes on the same day. The trip-lease arrangement is also supported by the fact that the majority of Nelson-Gilbertville interlining is at Monson, Connecticut, where Gilbertville Co. keeps only an open lot and, when possible, an empty, unguarded trailer for the receipt of less-than-truekload shipments. Kenneth Nelson’s testimony on these practices is ambiguous but, if anything, supports their occurrence.
Edward D. Shea testified that he observed Charles Chilberg hire and dispatch a Gilbertville driver at Newton.
He also testified that he observed Kenneth Nelson receive a teletype message in the Nelson Co. offices in Ellington, Connecticut, and direct Nelson Co. employees. The incident is disputed on the ground that Shea did not hear all the remarks made. On the other hand, it is to be noted that Kenneth Nelson refused to turn over upon request the teletype message he received on that occasion, an action in violation of Commission regulations.
Section 5(4) is supplemented by §5(5) and (6) to cover specific instances where control over another carrier is accomplished with the aid of an intermediary. Section 5 (5) provides in part that control or management in a common interest is conclusively presumed whenever a person “affiliated” with a carrier joins with that carrier to acquire, or on his own acquires, control over another carrier. Section 5 (6) then provides that:
“For the purposes of this section a person shall be held to be affiliated with a carrier if, by reason of the relationship of such person to such carrier ... , it is reasonable to believe that the affairs of any carrier of which control may be acquired by such person will be managed in the interest of such other carrier.” Parenthetically, § 5 (6) states that the relationship may be shown “by reason of the method of, or circumstances surrounding organization or operation . . . .”
The Committee reports on these sections prior to their passage in the Emergency Railroad Transportation Act of 1933 stated their purpose as follows:
“These paragraphs have been planned in the light of what has already been done through myriad devices without commission supervision and in defiance of the will of Congress. . . . The provisions of paragraph [(4)] ... would be of little effect unless the language contained therein were construed to include control or management effectuated or exercised indirectly through the use of legal devices such as holding companies, voting trusts, and combinations of affiliated interests. It is therefore intended by the provisions of paragraphs [(5)], [(6)] ... to make sure that paragraph [(4)] ... covers such types of control and management.” S. Rep. No. 87, 73d Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 9-10; H. R. Rep. No. 193, 73d Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 16-17.
The House manager of the bill similarly observed, 77 Cong. Rec. 4857:
“The important point is that unifications and groupings of railroads have been accomplished entirely without supervision by the Commission and without any opportunity to consider the question of public interest. ... It is to correct this .condition, and to prevent through the use of holding companies and other devices the defeat of the congressional will, that this bill has been drawn.”
Concrete examples of the devices Congress intended to reach are found in the testimony of Committee counsel Mr. Walter Splawn and Interstate Commerce Commissioner Joseph Eastman during the Hearings on H. R. 9059 before the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce, 72d Cong., 1st Sess., at 21-25, 34, 48-50, 61, 69-74 (1932).
Hearings, op. cit., supra, note 6, pp. 16-19, 24 — 26; H. R. Rep. No. 650, 66th Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 63-64 (1920).
In Rochester Telephone Corp. v. United States, supra, pp. 145-146, this Court gave the following test for reviewing a similar finding of “control” by the Federal Communications Commission as that word is used in the Federal Communications Act, 48 Stat. 1064, 47 U. S. C. § 152 (b): “This is an issue of fact to be determined by the special circumstances of each case. So long as there is warrant in the record for the judgment of the expert body it must stand.”
In view of the direct finding of a § 5 (4) violation by the Commission and our determination that such a finding was warranted by the statute and evidence, we find it unnecessary to consider the Commission’s alternative holding that Kenneth Nelson was “affiliated” with Nelson within the meaning of § 5 (6) and is therefore presumed to have effectuated control or management in a common interest pursuant to § 5 (5) when he acquired Gilbertville.
The appellants attack the opinion of the District Court on the ground that there are variations between its statement of facts and the findings of the Commission. Such variations are insignificant in light of the fact that the court then quotes the findings of the Commission giving record citations for each statement. The appellants also contend that when the District Court found certain of the Commission’s findings to be “trivial” and “irrelevant,” it should have remanded for further findings. However, as the court itself pointed out, its disagreements with the Commission were minor and did not affect the substance of the Commission’s ultimate finding of a violation. Cf. Communist Party v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 367 U. S. 1, 67.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
In this case, we consider whether an abstention-based remand order is appealable as a final order under 28 U. S. C. § 1291, and whether the abstention doctrine first recognized in Burford v. Sun Oil Co., 319 U. S. 315 (1943), can be applied in a common-law suit for damages.
r-H
Petitioner, the Insurance Commissioner for the State of California, was appointed trustee over the assets of the Mission Insurance Company and its affiliates (Mission companies) in 1987, after those companies were ordered into liquidation by a California court. In an effort to gather the assets of the defunct Mission companies, the Commissioner filed the instant action against respondent Allstate Insurance Company in state court, seeking contract and tort damages for Allstate’s alleged breach of certain reinsurance agreements, as well as a general declaration of Allstate’s obligations under those agreements.
Allstate removed the action to federal court on diversity grounds and filed a motion to compel arbitration under the Federal Arbitration Act, 9 U. S. C. § 1 et seq. (1988 ed. and Supp. V). The Commissioner sought remand to state court, arguing that the District Court should abstain from hearing the case under Burford, supra, because its resolution might interfere with California’s regulation of the Mission insolvency. Specifically, the Commissioner indicated that Allstate would be asserting its right to set off its own contract claims against the Commissioner’s recovery under the contract, that the viability of these setoff claims was a hotly disputed question of state law, and that this question was currently pending before the state courts in another case arising out of the Mission insolvency.
The District Court observed that “California has an overriding interest in regulating insurance insolvencies and liquidations in a uniform and orderly manner,” and that in this case “this important state interest could be undermined by inconsistent rulings from the federal and state courts.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 34a. Based on these observations, and its determination that the setoff question should be resolved in state court, the District Court concluded this case was an appropriate one for the exercise of Burford abstention. The District Court did not stay its hand pending the California courts’ resolution of the setoff issue, but instead remanded the entire case to state court. The District Court entered this remand order without ruling on Allstate’s motion to compel arbitration.
After determining that appellate review of the District Court’s remand order was not barred by 28 U. S. C. § 1447(d), see Garamendi v. Allstate Ins. Co., 47 F. 3d 350, 352 (CA9 1995) (citing Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U. S. 336 (1976)), and that the remand order was appeal-able under 28 U. S. C. § 1291 as a final collateral order, see 47 F. 3d, at 353-354 (citing Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., 460 U. S. 1 (1983)), the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit vacated the District Court’s decision and ordered the case sent to arbitration. The Ninth Circuit concluded that federal courts can abstain from hearing a case under Burford only when the relief being sought is equitable in nature, and therefore held that abstention was inappropriate in this case because the Commissioner purported to be seeking only legal relief. 47 F. 3d, at 354-356; App. to Pet. for Cert. 35a-37a (order denying petition for rehearing because Commissioner had waived any argument that this case involved a request for equitable relief).
The Ninth Circuit’s holding that abstention-based remand orders are appealable conflicts with the decisions of other Courts of Appeals, see Doughty v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s, London, 6 F. 3d 856, 865 (CA1 1993) (order not appealable); Corcoran v. Ardra Insurance Co., Ltd., 842 F. 2d 31, 34 (CA2 1988) (same); In re Burns & Wilcox, Ltd., 54 F. 3d 475, 477, n. 7 (CA8 1995) (same); but see Minot v. Eckardt-Minot, 13 F. 3d 590, 593 (CA2 1994) (order appealable under collateral order doctrine), as does its determination that Burford abstention can only be exercised in cases in which equitable relief is sought, see Lac D’Amiante du Quebec, Ltee v. American Home Assurance Co., 864 F. 2d 1033, 1045 (CA3 1988) (Burford abstention appropriate in case seeking declaratory relief); Brandenburg v. Seidel, 859 F. 2d 1179, 1192, n. 17 (CA4 1988) (Burford abstention appropriate in action for damages); Wolfson v. Mutual Benefit Life Ins. Co., 51 F. 3d 141, 147 (CA8 1995) (same); but see Fragoso v. Lopez, 991 F. 2d 878, 882 (CA1 1993) (federal court can abstain under Burford only if it is “sitting in equity”); University of Maryland v. Peat Marwick Main & Co., 923 F. 2d 265, 272 (CA3 1991) (same); Baltimore Bank for Cooperatives v. Farmer’s Cheese Cooperative, 583 F. 2d 104, 111 (CA3 1978) (same). We granted certiorari to resolve these conflicts, 516 U. S. 929 (1995), and now affirm on grounds different from those provided by the Ninth Circuit.
II
We first consider whether the Court of Appeals had jurisdiction to hear Allstate’s appeal under 28 U. S. C. § 1291, which confers jurisdiction over appeals from “final decisions” of the district courts, and 28 U. S. C. § 1447(d), which provides that “[a]n order remanding a case to the State court from which it was removed is not reviewable on appeal or otherwise.”
We agree with the Ninth Circuit and the parties that § 1447(d) interposes no bar to appellate review of the remand order at issue in this case. See 47 F. 3d, at 352; Brief for Petitioner 29-30; Brief for Respondent 13-14, n. 12. As we held in Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, supra, at 345-346, and reiterated this Term in Things Remembered, Inc. v. Petrarca, 516 U. S. 124, 127 (1995), “§ 1447(d) must be read in pari materia with § 1447(c), so that only remands based on grounds specified in § 1447(c) are immune from review under § 1447(d).” This gloss renders § 1447(d) inapplicable here: The District Court’s abstention-based remand order does not fall into either category of remand order described in § 1447(c), as it is not based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction or defects in removal procedure.
Finding no affirmative bar to appellate review of the District Court’s remand order, we must determine whether that review may be obtained by appeal under § 1291. The general rule is that “a party is entitled to a single appeal, to be deferred until final judgment has been entered, in which claims of district court error at any stage of the litigation may be ventilated.” Digital Equipment Corp. v. Desktop Direct, Inc., 511 U. S. 863, 868 (1994) (citations omitted). Accordingly, we have held that a decision is ordinarily considered final and appealable under § 1291 only if it “ends the litigation on the merits and leaves nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment.” Catlin v. United States, 324 U. S. 229, 233 (1945); see also Digital, supra, at 867 (quoting this standard). We have also recognized, however, a narrow class of collateral orders which do not meet this definition of finality, but which are nevertheless immediately appealable under § 1291 because they “ ‘conclusively determine [a] disputed question’ ” that is “ ‘completely separate from the merits of the action,’ ” “ ‘effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment,’ ” Richardson-Merrell Inc. v. Roller, 472 U. S. 424, 431 (1985) (quoting Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U. S. 463, 468 (1978)), and “too important to be denied review,” Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541, 546 (1949).
The application of these principles to the appealability of the remand order before us is controlled by our decision in Moses H. Cone Memorial Hospital v. Mercury Constr. Corp., supra. The District Court in that case entered an order, under Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U. S. 800 (1976), staying a federal diversity suit pending the completion of a declaratory judgment action that had been filed in state court. The Court of Appeals held that this stay order was appealable under §1291, and we affirmed that determination on two independent grounds.
We first concluded that the abstention-based stay order was appealable as a “final decision” under § 1291 because it put the litigants “ ‘effectively out of court,’ ” 460 U. S., at 11, n. 11 (quoting Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, 370 U. S. 713, 715, n. 2 (1962) (per curiam)), and because its effect was “precisely to surrender jurisdiction of a federal suit to a state court,” 460 U. S., at 11, n. 11. These standards do not reflect our oft-repeated definition of finality, see supra, at 712 (citing Catlin, supra, at 233); see, e. g., Digital, supra, at 867 (citing the Catlin definition); Lauro Lines s.r.l. v. Chasser, 490 U. S. 495, 497 (1989) (same); Van Cauwenberghe v. Biard, 486 U. S. 517, 521-522 (1988) (same), but in Moses H. Cone we found their application to be compelled by precedent, see 460 U. S., at 11, n. 11 (“Idlewild’s reasoning is limited to cases where (under Colorado River, abstention, or a closely similar doctrine) the object of the stay is to require all or an essential part of the federal suit to be litigated in a state forum”).
As an alternative to this reliance on Idlewild, we also held that the stay order at issue in Moses H. Cone was appealable under the collateral order doctrine. 460 U. S., at 11. We determined that a stay order based on the Colorado River doctrine “presents an important issue separate from the merits” because it “amounts to a refusal to adjudicate” the case in federal court; that such orders could not be reviewed on appeal from a final judgment in the federal action because the district court would be bound, as a matter of res judicata, to honor the state court’s judgment; and that unlike other stay orders, which might readily be reconsidered by the district court, abstention-based stay orders of this ilk are “conclusive” because they are the practical equivalent of an order dismissing the case. 460 U. S., at 12.
The District Court’s order remanding on grounds of Bur-ford abstention is in all relevant respects indistinguishable from the stay order we found to be appealable in Moses H. Cone. No less than an order staying a federal court action pending adjudication of the dispute in state court, it puts the litigants in this case “‘effectively out of court,”’ Moses H. Cone, supra, at 11, n. 11 (quoting Idlewild Bon Voyage Liquor Corp. v. Epstein, supra, at 715, n. 2), and its effect is “precisely to surrender jurisdiction of a federal suit to a state court,” 460 U. S., at 11, n. 11. Indeed, the remand order is clearly more “final” than a stay order in this sense. When a district court remands a case to a state court, the district court disassociates itself from the case entirely, retaining nothing of the matter on the federal court’s docket.
The District Court’s order is also indistinguishable from the stay order we considered in Moses H. Cone in that it conclusively determines an issue that is separate from the merits, namely, the question whether the federal court should decline to exercise its jurisdiction in the interest of comity and federalism. See infra, at 716-717, 727-728. In addition, the rights asserted on appeal from the District Court’s abstention decision are, in our view, sufficiently important to Warrant an immediate appeal. See infra, at 716, 723-728 (describing interests weighed in decision to abstain under Burford); cf. Digital, 511 U. S., at 878 (review under collateral order doctrine limited to those issues “ ‘too important to be denied review’”) (quoting Cohen, supra, at 546). And, like the stay order we found appealable in Moses H. Cone, the District Court’s remand order in this case will not be subsumed in any other appealable order entered by the District Court.
We have previously stated that “an order remanding a removed action does not represent a final judgment reviewable by appeal.” Thermtron Products, Inc. v. Hermansdorfer, 423 U. S., at 352-353. Petitioner asks that we adhere to that statement and hold that appellate review of the District Court’s remand order can only be obtained through a petition for writ of mandamus. To the extent Thermtron would require us to ignore the implications of our later holding in Moses H. Cone, however, we disavow it. Thermtron’s determination that remand orders are not reviewable “final judgments” doubtless was necessary to the resolution of that case, see 423 U. S., at 352 (posing the question whether mandamus was the appropriate vehicle), but our principal concern in Thermtron was the interpretation of the bar to appellate review embodied in 28 U. S. C. § 1447(d), see supra, at 711-712, and our statement concerning the appropriate procedural vehicle for reviewing a district court’s remand order was peripheral to that concern. Moreover, the parties in Thermtron did not brief the question, our opinion does not refer to Catlin or its definition of “final decisions,” and our opinion nowhere addresses whether any class of remand order might be appealable under the collateral order doctrine. Indeed, the only support Thermtron cites for the proposition that remand orders are reviewable only by mandamus, not by appeal, is Railroad Co. v. Wiswall, 23 Wall. 507 (1875), the superannuated reasoning of which is of little vitality today, compare id., at 508 (deeming a “writ of error to review what has been done” an inappropriate vehicle for reviewing a court of appeals’ “refusal to hear and decide”), with Moses H. Cone, 460 U. S., at 10-11, n. 11 (holding that a stay order is appealable because it amounts to a refusal to hear and decide a case).
Admittedly, remand orders like the one entered in this case do not meet the traditional definition of finality — they do not “en[d] the litigation on the merits and leav[e] nothing for the court to do but execute the judgment,” Catlin, 324 U. S., at 233. But because the District Court’s remand order is functionally indistinguishable from the stay order we found appealable in Moses H. Cone, see supra, at 714, we conclude that it is appealable, and turn to the merits of the Ninth Circuit’s decision respecting Burford abstention.
III
A
We have often acknowledged that federal courts have a strict duty to exercise the jurisdiction that is conferred upon them by Congress. See, e. g., Colorado River, 424 U. S., at 821 (“[F]ederal courts have a ‘virtually unflagging obligation... to exercise the jurisdiction given them'”); England v. Louisiana Bd. of Medical Examiners, 375 U. S. 411, 415 (1964) (“ ‘When a federal court is properly appealed to in a case over which it has by law jurisdiction, it is its duty to take such jurisdiction’”) (quoting Willcox v. Consolidated Gas Co., 212 U. S. 19, 40 (1909)); Cohens v. Virginia, 6 Wheat. 264, 404 (1821) (federal courts “have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which is given, than to usurp that which is not”). This duty is not, however, absolute. See Canada Malting Co. v. Paterson S. S., Ltd., 285 U. S. 413, 422 (1932) (“[T]he proposition that a court having jurisdiction must exercise it, is not universally true”). Indeed, we have held that federal courts may decline to exercise their jurisdiction, in otherwise “‘exceptional circumstances,’” where denying a federal forum would clearly serve an important countervailing interest, Colorado River, supra, at 813 (quoting County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co., 360 U. S. 185, 189 (1959)), for example, where abstention is warranted by considerations of “proper constitutional adjudication,” “regard for federal-state relations,” or “wise judicial administration,” Colorado River, supra, at 817 (internal quotation marks omitted).
We have thus held that federal courts have the power to refrain from hearing cases that would interfere with a pending state criminal proceeding, see Younger v. Harris, 401 U. S. 37 (1971), or with certain types of state civil proceedings, see Huffman v. Pursue, Ltd., 420 U. S. 592 (1975); Juidice v. Vail, 430 U. S. 327 (1977); cases in which the resolution of a federal constitutional question might be obviated if the state courts were given the opportunity to interpret ambiguous state law, see Railroad Comm’n of Tex. v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496 (1941); cases raising issues “intimately involved with [the States’] sovereign prerogative,” the proper adjudication of which might be impaired by unsettled questions of state law, see Louisiana Power & Light Co. v. City of Thibodaux, 360 U. S. 25, 28 (1959); id., at 31 (Stewart, J., concurring); cases whose resolution by a federal court might unnecessarily interfere with a state system for the collection of taxes, see Great Lakes Dredge & Dock Co. v. Huffman, 319 U. S. 293 (1943); and cases which are duplica-tive of a pending state proceeding, see Colorado River Water Conservation Dist. v. United States, 424 U. S. 800 (1976); Pennsylvania v. Williams, 294 U. S. 176 (1935).
Our longstanding application of these doctrines reflects “the common-law background against which the statutes conferring jurisdiction were enacted,” New Orleans Public Service, Inc. v. Council of City of New Orleans, 491 U. S. 350, 359 (1989) (NOPSI) (citing Shapiro, Jurisdiction and Discretion, 60 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 543, 570-577 (1985)). And, as the Ninth Circuit correctly indicated, 47 F. 3d, at 354, it has long been established that a federal court has the authority to decline to exercise its jurisdiction when it “is asked to employ its historic powers as a court of equity,” Fair Assessment in Real Estate Assn., Inc. v. McNary, 454 U. S. 100, 120 (1981) (Brennan, J., concurring). This tradition informs our understanding of the jurisdiction Congress has conferred upon the federal courts, and explains the development of our abstention doctrines. In Pullman, for example, we explained the principle underlying our abstention doctrines as follows:
“... The history of equity jurisdiction is the history of regard for public consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of the injunction.... New public interests have a higher claim upon the discretion of a federal chancellor than the avoidance of needless friction with state policies, whether the policy relates to the enforcement of the criminal law, or the administration of a specialized scheme for liquidating embarrassed business enterprises, or the final authority of a state court to interpret doubtful regulatory laws of the state. These cases reflect a doctrine of abstention appropriate to our federal system, whereby the federal courts, ‘exercising a wise discretion,’ restrain their authority because of ‘scrupulous regard for the rightful independence of the state governments’ and for the smooth working of the federal judiciary. This use of equitable powers is a contribution of the courts in furthering the harmonious relation between state and federal authority without the need of rigorous congressional restriction of those powers.” 312 U. S., at 500-501 (citations omitted).
Though we have thus located the power to abstain in the historic discretion exercised by federal courts “sitting in equity,” we have not treated abstention as a “technical rule of equity procedure.” Thibodaux, supra, at 28. Rather, we have recognized that the authority of a federal court to abstain from exercising its jurisdiction extends to all cases in which the court has discretion to grant or deny relief. See NOPSI, supra, at 359 (mandate of federal jurisdiction “does not eliminate... the federal courts’ discretion in determining whether to grant certain types of relief”). Accordingly, we have not limited the application of the abstention doctrines to suits for injunctive relief, but have also required federal courts to decline to exercise jurisdiction over certain classes of declaratory judgments, see, e. g., Huffman, 319 U. S., at 297 (federal court must abstain from hearing declaratory judgment action challenging constitutionality of a state tax); Samuels v. Mackell, 401 U. S. 66, 69-70, 72-73 (1971) (extending Younger abstention to declaratory judgment actions), the granting of which is generally committed to the courts’ discretion, see Wilton v. Seven Falls Co., 515 U. S. 277, 282 (1995) (federal courts have “discretion in determining whether and when to entertain an action under the Declaratory Judgment Act, even when the suit otherwise satisfies subject matter jurisdictional prerequisites”).
Nevertheless, we have not previously addressed whether the principles underlying our abstention cases would support the remand or dismissal of a common-law action for damages. Cf. Deakins v. Monaghan, 484 U. S. 193, 202, and n. 6 (1988) (reserving the question whether Younger requires abstention in an action for damages); Ankenbrandt v. Richards, 504 U. S. 689 (1992) (discussing, without applying, Burford abstention in damages action). To be sure, we held in Fair Assessment in Real Estate Assn., Inc. v. McNary, supra, that a federal court should not entertain a 42 U. S. C. § 1983 suit for damages based on the enforcement of a state tax scheme, see 454 U. S., at 115, but we have subsequently indicated that Fair Assessment was a case about the scope of the § 1983 cause of action, see National Private Truck Council, Inc. v. Oklahoma Tax Comm’n, 515 U. S. 582, 589-590 (1995), not the abstention doctrines. To the extent Fair Assessment does apply abstention principles, its holding is very limited. The damages action in that case was based on the unconstitutional application of a state tax law, and the award of damages turned first on a declaration that the state tax was in fact unconstitutional. We therefore drew an analogy to Huffman and other cases in which we had approved the application of abstention principles in declaratory judgment actions, and held that the federal court should decline to hear the action because “[t]he recovery of damages under the Civil Rights Act first requires a ‘declaration’ or determination of the unconstitutionality of a state tax scheme that would halt its operation.” Fair Assessment, supra, at 115.
Otherwise, we have applied abstention principles to actions “at law” only to permit a federal court to enter a stay order that postpones adjudication of the dispute, not to dismiss the federal suit altogether. See, e. g., Thibodaux, supra, at 28-30 (approving stay order); Fornaris v. Ridge Tool Co., 400 U. S. 41, 44 (1970) (per curiam) (directing District Court to “hold its hand until the Puerto Rican Supreme Court has authoritatively ruled on the local law question in light of the federal claims” (footnote omitted)) (emphasis added); United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. Ideal Cement Co., 369 U. S. 134, 135-136 (1962) (per curiam) (“Wise judicial administration in this case counsels that decision of the federal question be deferred until the potentially controlling state-law issue is authoritatively put to rest”); Clay v. Sun Ins. Office Ltd., 363 U. S. 207, 212 (1960) (approving “postponement of decision” in damages suit).
Our decisions in Thibodaux and County of Allegheny v. Frank Mashuda Co., 360 U. S. 185 (1959), illustrate the distinction we have drawn between abstention-based remand orders or dismissals and abstention-based decisions merely to stay adjudication of a federal suit. In Thibodaux, a city in Louisiana brought an eminent domain proceeding in state court, seeking to condemn for public use certain property owned by a Florida corporation. After the corporation removed the action to federal court on diversity grounds, the Federal District Court decided on its own motion to stay the case, pending a state cdurt’s determination whether the city could exercise the power of eminent domain under state law. The case did not arise within the “equity” jurisdiction of the federal courts, 360 U. S., at 28, because the suit sought compensation for a taking, and the District Court lacked discretion to deny relief on the corporation’s claim. Nonetheless, the issues in the suit were “intimately involved with [the State’s] sovereign prerogative.” Ibid. We concluded that “[t]he considerations that prevailed in conventional equity suits for avoiding the hazards of serious disruption by federal courts of state government or needless friction between state and federal authorities are similarly appropriate in a state eminent domain proceeding brought in, or removed to, a federal court.” Ibid. And based on that conclusion, we affirmed the District Court’s order staying the case.
County of Allegheny was decided the same day as Thib-odaux, and like Thibodaux it involved review of a District Court order abstaining from the exercise of diversity jurisdiction over a state law eminent domain action. Unlike in Thibodaux, however, the District Court in County of Allegheny had not merely stayed adjudication of the federal action pending the resolution of an issue in state court, but rather had dismissed the federal action altogether. Based in large measure on this distinction, we reversed the District Court’s order. See 360 U. S., at 190; Thibodaux, 360 U. S., at 31 (Stewart, J., concurring) (“In Mashuda, the Court holds that it was error for the District Court to dismiss the complaint” (emphasis added)).
We were careful to note in Thibodaux that the District Court had only stayed the federal suit pending adjudication of the dispute in state court. Unlike the outright dismissal or remand of a federal suit, we held, an order merely staying the action “does not constitute abnegation of judicial duty. On the contrary, it is a wise and productive discharge of it. There is only postponement of decision for its best fruition.” Id., at 29. We have thus held that in cases where the relief being sought is equitable in nature or otherwise discretionary, federal courts not only have the power to stay the action based on abstention principles, but can also, in otherwise appropriate circumstances, decline to exercise jurisdiction altogether by either dismissing the suit or remanding it to state court. By contrast, while we have held that federal courts may stay actions for damages based on abstention principles, we have not held that those principles support the outright dismissal or remand of damages actions.
One final line of cases bears mentioning. Though we deal here with our abstention doctrines, we have recognized that federal courts have discretion to dismiss damages actions, in certain narrow circumstances, under the common-law doctrine of forum non conveniens. The seminal case recognizing this authority is Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbert, 330 U. S. 501 (1947), in which we considered whether a Federal District Court sitting in diversity in New York could dismiss a tort action for damages on the grounds that Virginia provided a more appropriate locale for adjudicating the dispute. Id., at 503. We conceded that the application of this doctrine should be “rare,” id., at 509, but also held that the exercise of forum non conveniens is not limited to actions in equity:
“This Court[,] in recognizing and approving it by name has never indicated that it was rejecting application of the doctrine to law actions which had been an integral and necessary part of [the] evolution of the doctrine. Wherever it is applied in courts in other jurisdictions, its application does not depend on whether the action is at law or in equity.” Id., at 505, n. 4 (citations omitted).
The dispute in Gulf Oil was over venue, not jurisdiction, and the expectation was that after dismissal of the suit in New York the parties would refile in federal court, not the state courts of Virginia. This transfer of venue function of the forum non conveniens doctrine has been superseded by statute, see 28 U. S. C. § 1404(a); Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U. S. 235, 253 (1981), and to the extent we have continued to recognize that federal courts have the power to dismiss damages actions under the common-law forum non conve-niens doctrine, we have done so only in “cases where the alternative forum is abroad.” American Dredging Co. v. Miller, 510 U. S. 443, 449, n. 2 (1994); see, e. g., Piper, supra, at 265-269 (dismissal of wrongful death action).
The fact that we have applied the forum non conveniens doctrine in this manner does not change our analysis in this case, where we deal with the scope of the Burford abstention doctrine. To be sure, the abstention doctrines and the doctrine of forum non conveniens proceed from a similar premise: In rare circumstances, federal courts can relinquish their jurisdiction in favor of another forum. But our abstention doctrine is of a distinct historical pedigree, and the traditional considerations behind dismissal for forum non con-veniens differ markedly from those informing the decision to abstain. Compare American Dredging, supra, at 448-449 (describing “multifarious factors,” including both public and private interests, which might allow a district court to dismiss a case under doctrine of forum non conveniens), with Burford, 319 U. S., at 332-333 (describing “federal-state conflict” that requires a federal court to yield jurisdiction in favor of a state forum). Federal courts abstain out of deference to the paramount interests of another sovereign, and the concern is with principles of comity and federalism. See, e. g., ibid.; Younger, 401 U. S., at 44-45. Dismissal for forum non conveniens, by contrast, has historically reflected a far broader range of considerations, see Piper, supra, at 241, 257-262 (describing the interests which bear on forum non conveniens decision); Gulf Oil, supra, at 508-509 (same), most notably the convenience to the parties and the practical difficulties that can attend the adjudication of a dispute in a certain locality, see Piper, supra, at 257-259 (evidentiary problems, unavailability of witnesses, difficulty of coordinating multiple suits); Gulf Oil, supra, at 511 (availability of witnesses, need to interplead Virginia corporation, location of evidence).
B
With these background principles in mind, we consider the contours of the Burford doctrine. The principal issue presented in Burford was the “reasonableness” of an order issued by the Texas Railroad Commission, which granted “a permit to drill four oil wells on a small plot of land in the East Texas oil field.” 319 U. S., at 317. Due to the potentially overlapping claims of the many parties who might have an interest in a common pool of oil and the need for uniform regulation of the oil industry, Texas endowed the Railroad Commission with exclusive regulatory authority in the area. Texas also placed the authority to review the Commission’s orders in a single set of state courts, “[t]o prevent the confusion of multiple review,” id., at 326, and to permit an experienced cadre of state judges to obtain “specialized knowledge” in the field, id., at 327. Though Texas had thus demonstrated its interest in maintaining uniform review of the Commission’s orders, the federal courts had, in the years preceding Burford, become increasingly involved in reviewing the reasonableness of the Commission’s orders, both under a constitutional standard imposed under the Due Process Clause, see, e. g., Railroad Comm’n of Tex. v. Rowan & Nichols Oil Co., 310 U. S. 573, 577 (1940), and under state law, which established a similar standard, see Burford, 319 U. S., at 317, 326.
Viewing the case as “a simple proceeding in equity to enjoin the enforcement of the Commissioner’s order,” id., at 317, we framed the question presented in terms of the power of a federal court of equity to abstain from exercising its jurisdiction:
“Although a federal equity court does have jurisdiction of a particular proceeding, it may, in its sound discretion, whether its jurisdiction is invoked on the ground of diversity of citizenship or otherwise, ‘refuse to enforce or protect legal rights, the exercise of which may be prejudicial to the public interest,’ for it ‘is in the public interest that federal courts of equity should exercise their discretionary power with proper regard for the rightful independence of state governments in carrying out their domestic policy.’ While many other questions are argued, we find it necessary to decide only one: Assuming that the federal district court had jurisdiction, should 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:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
Mr. Justice Powell 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:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The preamble to the Voting Rights Act of 1965 establishes that the central purpose of the Act is “[t]o enforce the fifteenth amendment to the Constitution of the United States.” The Fifteenth Amendment provides:
“The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.” U. S. Const., Amdt. 15, §1.
In 1982, Congress amended §2 of the Voting Rights Act to make clear that certain practices and procedures that result in the denial or abridgment of the right to vote are forbidden even though the absence of proof of discriminatory intent protects them from constitutional challenge. The question presented by these cases is whether this “results test” protects the right to vote in state judicial elections. We hold that the coverage provided by the 1982 amendment is coextensive with the coverage provided by the Act prior to 1982 and that judicial elections are embraced within that coverage.
HH
Petitioners in No. 90-757 represent a class of approximately 135,000 black registered voters in Orleans Parish, Louisiana. App. 6-7, 13. They brought this action against the Governor and other state officials (respondents) to challenge the method of electing justices of the Louisiana Supreme Court from the New Orleans area. The United States, petitioner in No. 90-1032, intervened to support the claims advanced by the plaintiff class.
The Louisiana Supreme Court consists of seven justices, five of whom are elected from five single-member Supreme Court Districts, and two of whom are elected from one multi-member Supreme Court District. Each of the seven members of the court must be a resident of the district from which he or she is elected and must have resided there for at least two years prior to election. App. to Pet. for Cert. 7a. Each of the justices on the Louisiana Supreme Court serves a term of 10 years. The one multimember district, the First Supreme Court District, consists of the parishes of Orleans, St. Bernard, Plaquemines, and Jefferson. Orleans Parish contains about half of the population of the First Supreme Court District and about half of the registered voters in that district. Chisom v. Edwards, 839 F. 2d 1056, 1057 (CA5 1988). More than one-half of the registered voters of Orleans Parish are black, whereas more than three-fourths of the registered voters in the other three parishes are white. App. 8.
Petitioners allege that “the present method of electing two Justices to the Louisiana Supreme Court at-large from the New Orleans area impermissibly dilutes minority voting strength” in violation of § 2 of the Voting Rights Act. Id., at 9. Furthermore, petitioners claimed in the courts below that the current electoral system within the First Supreme Court District violates the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments of the Federal Constitution because the purpose and effect of this election practice “is to dilute, minimize, and cancel the voting strength” of black voters in Orleans Parish. Ibid. Petitioners seek a remedy that would divide the First District into two districts, one for Orleans Parish and the second for the other three parishes. If this remedy were adopted, the seven members of the Louisiana Supreme Court would each represent a separate single-member judicial district, and each of the two new districts would have approximately the same population. Id., at 8. According to petitioners, the new Orleans Parish district would also have a majority black population and majority black voter registration. Id., at 8, 47.
The District Court granted respondents’ motion to dismiss the complaint. Chisom v. Edwards, 659 F. Supp. 183 (ED La. 1987). It held that the constitutional claims were insufficient because the complaint did not adequately allege a specific intent to discriminate. Id., at 189. With respect to the statutory claim, the court held that § 2 is not violated unless there is an abridgment of minority voters’ opportunity “to elect representatives of their choice.” Id., at 186-187. The court concluded that because judges are not “representatives,” judicial elections are not covered by §2. Id., at 187.
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit reversed. Chisom v. Edwards, 839 F. 2d 1056, cert. denied sub nom. Roemer v. Chisom, 488 U. S. 955 (1988). Before beginning its analysis, the court remarked that “[i]t is particularly significant that no black person has ever been elected to the Louisiana Supreme Court, either from the First Supreme Court District or from any one of the other five judicial districts.” 839 F. 2d, at 1058. After agreeing with the recently announced opinion in Mallory v. Eyrich, 839 F. 2d 275 (CA6 1988), it noted that the broad definition of the terms “voting” and “vote” in § 14(c)(1) of the original Act expressly included judicial elections within the coverage of §2. It also recognized Congress’ explicit intent to expand the coverage of § 2 by enacting the 1982 amendment. 839 F. 2d, at 1061. Consistent with Congress’ efforts to broaden coverage under the Act, the court rejected the State’s contention that the term “representatives” in the 1982 amendment was used as a word of limitation. Id., at 1063 (describing State’s position as “untenable”). Instead, the court concluded that representative “ ‘denotes anyone selected or chosen by popular election from among a field of candidates to fill an office, including judges.’” Ibid. (quoting Martin v. Allain, 658 F. Supp. 1183, 1200 (SD Miss. 1987)). The court buttressed its interpretation by noting that “section 5 and section 2, virtually companion sections, operate in tandem to prohibit discriminatory practices in voting, whether those practices originate in the past, present, or future.” 839 F. 2d, at 1064. It also gleaned support for its construction of § 2 from the fact that the Attorney General had “consistently supported an expansive, not restrictive, construction of the Act.” Ibid. Finally, the court held that the constitutional allegations were sufficient to warrant a trial, and reinstated all claims. Id., at 1065.
After the case was remanded to the District Court, the United States filed a complaint in intervention in which it alleged that the use of a multimember district to elect two members of the Louisiana Supreme Court is a “standard, practice or procedure” that “results in a denial or abridgment of the right to vote on account of race or color in violation of Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act.” App. 48. After a nonjury trial, however, the District Court concluded that the evidence did not establish a violation of § 2 under the standards set forth in Thornburg v. Gingles, 478 U. S. 30 (1986). App. to Pet. for Cert. 62a. The District Court also dismissed the constitutional claims. Id., at 63a-64a. Petitioners and the United States appealed. While their appeal was pending, the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc in another case, held that judicial elections were not covered under § 2 of the Act as amended. League of United Latin American Citizens Council No. 4434 v. Clements, 914 F. 2d 620 (1990) (hereinafter LULAC).
The majority in LULAC concluded that Congress’ use of the word “representatives” in the phrase “to elect representatives of their choice” in § 2(b) of the Act indicated that Congress did not intend to authorize vote dilution claims in judicial elections. The en banc panel reached this conclusion after considering (1) the “precise language” of the amendment, id., at 624; (2) the character of the judicial office, with special emphasis on “the cardinal reason that judges need not be elected at all,” id., at 622; and (3) the fact that the one-person, one-vote rule had been held inapplicable to judicial elections before 1982, id., at 626.
The precise language of § 2 on which the LULAC majority focused provides that a violation of § 2 is established if the members of a protected class
“ ‘have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.’ ” Id., at 625 (quoting 42 U. S. C. § 1973(b)).
Noting that this language protects both the “the broad and general opportunity to participate in the political process and the specific one to elect representatives,” LULAC, 914 F. 2d, at 625, the court drew a distinction between claims involving tests or other devices that interfere with individual participation in an election, on the one hand, and claims of vote dilution that challenge impairment of a group’s opportunity to elect representatives of their choice, on the other hand. The majority assumed that the amended §2 would continue to apply to judicial elections with respect to claims in the first category, see ibid., but that the word “representatives” excludes judicial elections from claims in the second category, see id., at 625-628.
In the majority’s view, it was “factually false” to characterize judges as representatives because public opinion is “irrelevant to the judge’s role,” id., at 622; “the judiciary serves no representative function whatever: the judge represents no one,” id., at 625. The majority concluded that judicial offices “are not ‘representative’ ones, and their occupants are not representatives.” Id., at 631. Thus, Congress would not have used the word “representatives,” as it did in § 2(b) of the Act, if it intended that subsection to apply to vote dilution claims in judicial elections.
The majority also assumed that Congress was familiar with Wells v. Edwards, 347 F. Supp. 453 (MD La. 1972), summarily aff’d, 409 U. S. 1095 (1973), a reapportionment case in which the District Court held that “the concept of one-man, one-vote apportionment does not apply to the judicial branch of the government.” 347 F. Supp., at 454. The express reference in the Senate Report to the fact that the “‘principle that the right to vote is denied or abridged by dilution of voting strength derives from the one-person, one-vote reapportionment case of Reynolds v. Sims, [377 U. S. 533 (1964)],’” LULAC, 914 F. 2d, at 629 (quoting S. Rep. No. 97-417, p. 19 (1982)), persuaded the majority that, in light of the case law holding that judges were not representatives in the context of one-person, one-vote reapportionment cases, see LULAC, 914 F. 2d, at 626 (citing cases), Congress would not have authorized vote dilution claims in judicial elections without making an express, unambiguous statement to that effect.
Following the en banc decision in LULAC, the Court of Appeals remanded this litigation to the District Court with directions to dismiss the complaint. 917 F. 2d 187 (1990) (per curiam). It expressed no opinion on the strength of petitioners’ evidentiary case. We granted certiorari, 498 U. S. 1060 (1991), and set the case for argument with LULAC, see post, p. 419.
II
Our decision today is limited in character, and thus, it is useful to begin by identifying certain matters that are not in dispute. No constitutional claims are before us. Unlike Wells v. Edwards, White v. Regester, and Mobile v. Bolden, this case presents us solely with a question of statutory construction. That question involves only the scope of the coverage of §2 of the Voting Rights Act as amended in 1982. We therefore do not address any question concerning the elements that must be proved to establish a violation of the Act or the remedy that might be appropriate to redress a violation if proved.
It is also undisputed that § 2 applied prior to the 1982 amendment, and that §5 of the amended statute continues to apply to judicial elections, see Clark v. Roemer, 500 U. S. 646 (1991). Moreover, there is no question that the terms “standard, practice, or procedure” are broad enough to encompass the use of multimember districts to minimize a racial minority’s ability to influence the outcome of an election covered by § 2. The only matter in dispute is whether the test for determining the legality of such a practice, which was added to the statute in 1982, applies in judicial elections as well as in other elections.
} — I HH
The text of §2 of the Voting Rights Act as originally enacted read as follows:
“Sec. 2. No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision to deny or abridge the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color.” 79 Stat. 437.
The terms “vote” and “voting” were defined elsewhere in the Act to include “all action necessary to make a vote effective in any primary, special, or general election” § 14(c)(1) of the Act, 79 Stat. 445 (emphasis added). The statute further defined vote and voting as “votes cast with respect to candidates for public or party office and propositions for which votes are received in an election.” Ibid.
At the time of the passage of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, § 2, unlike other provisions of the Act, did not provoke significant debate in Congress because it was viewed largely as a restatement of the Fifteenth Amendment. See H. R. Rep. No. 439, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 23 (1965) (§2 “grants... a right to be free from enactment or enforcement of voting qualifications... or practices which deny or abridge the right to vote on account of race or color”); see also S. Rep. No. 162, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 3, pp. 19-20 (1965). This Court took a similar view of §2 in Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S. 55, 60-61 (1980). There, we recognized that the coverage provided by § 2 was unquestionably coextensive with the coverage provided by the Fifteenth Amendment; the provision simply elaborated upon the Fifteenth Amendment. Ibid. Section 2 protected the right to vote, and it did so without making any distinctions or imposing any limitations as to which elections would fall within its purview. As Attorney General Katzenbach made clear during his testimony before the House, “[e]very election in which registered electors are permitted to vote would be covered” under §2.
The 1965 Act right to vote “on account of race or color.” 79 Stat. 437. Congress amended §2 in 1975 by expanding the original prohibition against discrimination “on account of race or color” to include non-English-speaking groups. It did this by replacing “race or color” with “race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2)” of the Act. 89 Stat. 402. The 1982 amendment further expanded the protection afforded by § 2.
Justice Stewart’s opinion for the plurality in Mobile v. Bolden, supra, which held that there was no violation of either the Fifteenth Amendment or §2 of the Voting Rights Act absent proof of intentional discrimination, served as the impetus for the 1982 amendment. One year after the decision in Mobile, Chairman Rodino of the House Judiciary Committee introduced a bill to extend the Voting Rights Act and its bilingual requirements, and to amend § 2 by striking out “to deny or abridge” and substituting “in a manner which results in a denial or abridgment of.” The “results” test proposed by Chairman Rodino was incorporated into S. 1992, and ultimately into the 1982 amendment to § 2, and is now the focal point of this litigation.
Under the amended statute, proof of intent is no longer required to prove a §2 violation. Now plaintiffs can prevail under § 2 by demonstrating that a challenged election practice has resulted in the denial or abridgment of the right to vote based on color or race. Congress not only incorporated the results test in the paragraph that formerly constituted the entire § 2, but also designated that paragraph as subsection (a) and added a new subsection (b) to make clear that an application of the results test requires an inquiry into “the totality of the circumstances.” The full text of §2 as amended in 1982 reads as follows:
“Sec. 2. (a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2), as provided in subsection (b).
“(b) A violation of subsection (a) is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.” 96 Stat. 134.
The two purposes of the amendment are apparent from its text.' Subsection (a) adopts a results test, thus providing that proof of discriminatory intent is no longer necessary to establish any violation of the section. Subsection (b) provides guidance about how the results test is to be applied.
Respondents contend, and the LULAC majority agreed, that Congress’ choice of the word “representatives” in the phrase “have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice” in subsection (b) is evidence of congressional intent to exclude vote dilution claims involving judicial elections from the coverage of § 2. We reject that construction because we are convinced that if Congress had such an intent, Congress would have made it explicit in the statute, or at least some of the Members would have identified or mentioned it at some point in the unusually extensive legislative history of the 1982 amendment. Our conclusion is confirmed when we review the justifications offered by the LULAC majority and respondents in support of their construction of the statute; we address each of their main contentions in turn.
IV
The LULAC majority assumed that §2 provides two distinct types of protection for minority voters — it protects their opportunity “to participate in the political process” and their opportunity “to elect representatives of their choice.” See LULAC, 914 F. 2d, at 625. Although the majority interpreted “representatives” as a word of limitation, it assumed that the word eliminated judicial elections only from the latter protection, without affecting the former. Id., at 625, 629. In other words, a standard, practice, or procedure in a judicial election, such as a limit on the times that polls are open, which has a disparate impact on black voters’ opportunity to cast their ballots under § 2, may be challenged even if a different practice that merely affects their opportunity to elect representatives of their choice to a judicial office may not. This reading of § 2, however, is foreclosed by the statutory text and by our prior cases.
Any abridgment of the opportunity of members of a protected class to participate in the political process inevitably impairs their ability to influence the outcome of an election. As the statute is written, however, the inability to elect representatives of their choice is not sufficient to establish a violation unless, under the totality of the circumstances, it can also be said that the members of the protected class have less opportunity to participate in the political process. The statute does not create two separate and distinct rights. Subsection (a) covers every application of a qualification, standard, practice, or procedure that results in a denial or abridgment of “the right” to vote. The singular form is also used in subsection (b) when referring to an injury to members of the protected class who have less “opportunity” than others “to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” 42 U. S. C. § 1973 (emphasis added). It would distort the plain meaning of the sentence to substitute the word “or” for the word “and.” Such radical surgery would be required to separate the opportunity to participate from the opportunity to elect.
The statutory language is patterned after the language used by Justice White in his opinions for the Court in White v. Regester, 412 U. S. 755 (1973), and Whitcomb v. Chavis, 403 U. S. 124 (1971). See n. 22, supra. In both opinions, the Court identified the opportunity to participate and the opportunity to elect as inextricably linked. In White v. Regester, the Court described the connection as follows: “The plaintiffs’ burden is to produce evidence... that its members had less opportunity than did other residents in the district to participate in the political processes and to elect legislators of their choice.” 412 U. S., at 766 (emphasis added). And earlier, in Whitcomb v. Chavis, the Court described the plaintiffs’ burden as entailing a showing that they “had less opportunity than did other... residents to participate in the political processes and to elect legislators of their choice.” 403 U. S., at 149 (emphasis added).
The results cable to all claims arising under § 2. If the word “representatives” did place a limit on the coverage of the Act for judicial elections, it would exclude all claims involving such elections from the protection of § 2. For all such claims must allege an abridgment of the opportunity to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of one’s choice. Even if the wisdom of Solomon would support the LULAC majority’s proposal to preserve claims based on an interference with the right to vote in judicial elections while eschewing claims based on the opportunity to elect judges, we have no authority to divide a unitary claim created by Congress.
V
Both respondents and the LULAC majority place their principal reliance on Congress’ use of the word “representatives” instead of “legislators” in the phrase “to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice.” 42 U. S. C. § 1973. When Congress borrowed the phrase from White v. Regester, it replaced “legislators” with “representatives.” This substitution indicates, at the very least, that Congress intended the amendment to cover more than legislative elections. Respondents argue, and the majority agreed, that the term “representatives” was used to extend § 2 coverage to executive officials, but not to judges. We think, however, that the better reading of the word “representatives” describes the winners of representative, popular elections. If executive officers, such as prosecutors, sheriffs, state attorneys general, and state treasurers, can be considered “representatives” simply because they are chosen by popular election, then the same reasoning should apply to elected judges.
Respondents suggest that if Congress had intended to have the statute’s prohibition against vote dilution apply to the election of judges, it would have used the word “candidates” instead of “representatives.” Brief for Respondents 20, and n. 9. But that confuses the ordinary meaning of the words. The word “representative” refers to someone who has prevailed in a popular election, whereas the word “candidate” refers to someone who is seeking an office. Thus, a candidate is nominated, not elected. When Congress used “candidate” in other parts of the statute, it did so precisely because it was referring to people who were aspirants for an office. See, e. g., 42 U. S. C. §§ 1971(b) (“any candidate for the office of President”), 1971(e) (“candidates for public office”), 1973i(c) (“any candidate for the office of President”), 1973i(e)(2) (“any candidate for the office of President”), 1973l(c) (“candidates for public or party office”), 1973ff-2 (“In the case of the offices of President and Vice President, a vote for a named candidate”), 1974 (“candidates for the office of President”), 1974e (“candidates for the office of President”).
The LULAC majority was, of course, entirely correct in observing that “judges need not be elected at all,” 914 F. 2d, at 622, and that ideally public opinion should be irrelevant to the judge’s role because the judge is often called upon to disregard, or even to defy, popular sentiment. The Framers of the Constitution had a similar understanding of the judicial role, and as a consequence, they established that Article III judges would be appointed, rather than elected, and would be sheltered from public opinion by receiving life tenure and salary protection. Indeed, these views were generally shared by the States during the early years of the Republic. Louisiana, however, has chosen a different course. It has decided to elect its judges and to compel judicial candidates to vie for popular support just as other political candidates do.
The fundamental tension between the ideal character of the judicial office and the real world of electoral politics cannot be resolved by crediting judges with total indifference to the popular will while simultaneously requiring them to run for elected office. When each of several members of a court must be a resident of a separate district, and must be elected by the voters of that district, it seems both reasonable and realistic to characterize the winners as representatives of that district. Indeed, at one time the Louisiana Bar Association characterized the members of the Louisiana Supreme Court as representatives for that reason: “Each justice and judge now in office shall be considered as a representative of the judicial district within which is situated the parish of his residence at the time of his election.” Louisiana could, of course, exclude its judiciary from the coverage of the Voting Rights Act by changing to a system in which judges are appointed, and, in that way, it could enable its judges to be indifferent to popular opinion. The reasons why Louisiana has chosen otherwise are precisely the reasons why it is appropriate for § 2, as well as § 5, of the Voting Rights Act to continue to apply to its judicial elections.
The close connection between §§ 2 and 5 further undermines respondents’ view that judicial elections should not be covered under § 2. Section 5 requires certain States to submit changes in their voting procedures to the District Court of the District of Columbia or to the Attorney General for preclearance. Section 5 uses language similar to that of § 2 in defining prohibited practices: “any voting qualification or prerequisite to voting, or standard, practice, or procedure with respect to voting.” 42 U. S. C. § 1973c. This Court has already held that § 5 applies to judicial elections. Clark v. Roemer, 500 U. S. 646 (1991). If § 2 did not apply to judicial elections, a State covered by § 5 would be precluded from implementing a new voting procedure having discriminatory effects with respect to judicial elections, whereas a similarly discriminatory system already in place could not be challenged under § 2. It is unlikely that Congress intended such an anomalous result.
< h — l
Finally, both respondents and the LULAC majority suggest that no judicially manageable standards for deciding vote dilution claims can be fashioned unless the standard is based on the one-person, one-vote principle. They reason that because we have held the one-person, one-vote rule inapplicable to judicial elections, see Wells v. Edwards, 409 U. S. 1095 (1973), aff’g 347 F. Supp., at 454, it follows that judicial elections are entirely immune from vote dilution claims. The conclusion, however, does not follow from the premise.
The holding in Wells rejected a constitutional challenge based on the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. It has no more relevance to a correct interpretation of this statute than does our decision in Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S. 55 (1980), which also rejected a constitutional claim. The statute was enacted to protect voting rights that are not adequately protected by the Constitution itself. Cf. City of Rome v. United States, 446 U. S. 156, 172-183 (1980). The standard that should be applied in litigation under § 2 is not at issue here. Even if serious problems lie ahead in applying the “totality of circumstances” standard described in § 2(b), that task, difficult as it may prove to be, cannot justify a judicially created limitation on the coverage of the broadly worded statute, as enacted and amended by Congress.
VII
Congress enacted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 for the broad remedial purpose of “rid [ding] the country of racial discrimination in voting.” South Carolina v. Katzenbach, 383 U. S. 301, 315 (1966). In Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U. S. 544, 567 (1969), we said that the Act should be interpreted in a manner that provides “the broadest possible scope” in combating racial discrimination. Congress amended the Act in 1982 in order to relieve plaintiffs of the burden of proving discriminatory intent, after a plurality of this Court had concluded that the original Act, like the Fifteenth Amendment, contained such a requirement. See Mobile v. Bolden, 446 U. S. 55 (1980). Thus, Congress made clear that a violation of § 2 could be established by proof of discriminatory results alone. It is difficult to believe that Congress, in an express effort to broaden the protection afforded by the Voting Rights Act, withdrew, without comment, an important category of elections from that protection. Today we reject such an anomalous view and hold that state judicial elections are included within the ambit of § 2 as amended.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals cases are remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Pub. L. 89-110, 79 Stat. 437, 42 U. S. C. § 1973 et seq. (1964 ed., Supp. I).
Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended, now reads:
“Sec. 2. (a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 4(f)(2), as provided in subsection (b).
“(b) A violation of subsection (a) is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: Provided, That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.” 96 Stat. 134. Section 2 has been codified at 42 U. S. C. § 1973.
La. Const., Art. 5, § 3; La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13:101 (West 1983).
La. Const., Art. 5, § 22(A); La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13:101 (West 1983).
La. Const., Art. 5, § 3.
La. Const., Art. 5, § 4; La. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13:101 (West 1983).
“Section 14(c)(1), which defines ‘voting’ and ‘vote’ for purposes of the Act, sets forth the types of election practices and elections which are encompassed within the regulatory sphere of the Act. Section 14(c)(1) states:
“The terms ‘vote’ or ‘voting’ shall include all action necessary to make a vote effective in any primary, special, or general election, including, but not limited to, registration, listing pursuant to this subehapter or other action required by law prerequisite to voting, easting a ballot, and having such ballot counted properly and included in the appropriate totals of votes cast with respect to candidates for public or party office and propositions for which votes are received in an election.” See 42 U. S. C. § 1973l(c)(1). “Clearly, judges are ‘candidates for public or party office’ elected in a primary, special, or general election; therefore, section 2, by its express terms, extends to state judicial elections. This truly is the only construction consistent with the plain language of the Act.” 839 F. 2d, at 1059-1060.
“It is difficult, if not impossible, for this Court to conceive of Congress, in an express attempt to expand the coverage of the Voting Rights Act, to have in fact amended the Act in a manner affording minorities less protection from racial discrimination than that provided by the Constitution.... [Sjection 2 necessarily embraces judicial elections within its scope. Any other construction of section 2 would be wholly inconsistent with the plain language of the Act and the express purpose which Congress sought to attain in amending section 2; that is, to expand the protection of the Act.” Id., at 1061.
After remand, but before trial, plaintiffs (here petitioners) moved for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the October 1, 1988, election for one of the two Louisiana Supreme Court seats from the First Supreme Court District. The District Court granted plaintiffs’ motion, having found that they satisfied the four elements required for injunctive relief. Chisom v. Edwards, 690 F. Supp. 1524, 1531 (ED La. 1988). The Court of Appeals, however, vacated the preliminary injunction and ordered that the election proceed as scheduled. Chisom v. Roemer, 853 F. 2d 1186, 1192 (CA5 1988). It reasoned that if the election were enjoined, the resulting uncertainty would have a deleterious effect on the Louisiana Supreme Court and the administration of justice that would outweigh any potential harm plaintiffs might suffer if the election went forward. Id., at 1190-1192.
Petitioners did not seek review in this Court of the disposition of their constitutional claims. Brief for Petitioners in No. 90-757
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.