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.
Justice GINSBURG delivered the opinion of the Court.
Is an unaccepted offer to satisfy the named plaintiff's individual claim sufficient to render a case moot when the complaint seeks relief on behalf of the plaintiff and a class of persons similarly situated? This question, on which Courts of Appeals have divided, was reserved in Genesis Healthcare Corp. v. Symczyk, 569 U.S. ----, ----, ----, n. 4, 133 S.Ct. 1523, 1528, 1529, n. 4, 185 L.Ed.2d 636 (2013). We hold today, in accord with Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that an unaccepted settlement offer has no force. Like other unaccepted contract offers, it creates no lasting right or obligation. With the offer off the table, and the defendant's continuing denial of liability, adversity between the parties persists.
This case presents a second question. The claim in suit concerns performance of the petitioner's contract with the Federal Government. Does the sovereign's immunity from suit shield the petitioner, a private enterprise, as well? We hold that the petitioner's status as a Government contractor does not entitle it to "derivative sovereign immunity," i.e., the blanket immunity enjoyed by the sovereign.
I
The Telephone Consumer Protection Act (TCPA or Act) 48 Stat. 1064, 47 U.S.C. § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii), prohibits any person, absent the prior express consent of a telephone-call recipient, from "mak[ing] any call... using any automatic telephone dialing system... to any telephone number assigned to a paging service [or] cellular telephone service." A text message to a cellular telephone, it is undisputed, qualifies as a "call" within the compass of § 227(b)(1)(A)(iii). 768 F.3d 871, 874 (C.A.9 2014). For damages occasioned by conduct violating the TCPA, § 227(b)(3) authorizes a private right of action. A plaintiff successful in such an action may recover her "actual monetary loss" or $500 for each violation, "whichever is greater." Damages may be trebled if "the defendant willfully or knowingly violated" the Act.
Petitioner Campbell-Ewald Company (Campbell) is a nationwide advertising and marketing communications agency. Beginning in 2000, the United States Navy engaged Campbell to develop and execute a multimedia recruiting campaign. In 2005 and 2006, Campbell proposed to the Navy a campaign involving text messages sent to young adults, the Navy's target audience, encouraging them to learn more about the Navy. The Navy approved Campbell's proposal, conditioned on sending the messages only to individuals who had "opted in" to receipt of marketing solicitations on topics that included service in the Navy. App. 42. In final form, the message read:
"Destined for something big? Do it in the Navy. Get a career. An education. And a chance to serve a greater cause. For a FREE Navy video call [phone number]." 768 F.3d, at 873.
Campbell then contracted with Mindmatics LLC, which generated a list of cellular phone numbers geared to the Navy's target audience-namely, cellular phone users between the ages of 18 and 24 who had consented to receiving solicitations by text message. In May 2006, Mindmatics transmitted the Navy's message to over 100,000 recipients.
Respondent Jose Gomez was a recipient of the Navy's recruiting message. Alleging that he had never consented to receiving the message, that his age was nearly 40, and that Campbell had violated the TCPA by sending the message (and perhaps others like it), Gomez filed a class-action complaint in the District Court for the Central District of California in 2010. On behalf of a nationwide class of individuals who had received, but had not consented to receipt of, the text message, Gomez sought treble statutory damages, costs, and attorney's fees, also an injunction against Campbell's involvement in unsolicited messaging. App. 16-24.
Prior to the agreed-upon deadline for Gomez to file a motion for class certification, Campbell proposed to settle Gomez's individual claim and filed an offer of judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. App. to Pet. for Cert. 52a-61a. Campbell offered to pay Gomez his costs, excluding attorney's fees, and $1,503 per message for the May 2006 text message and any other text message Gomez could show he had received, thereby satisfying his personal treble-damages claim. Id., at 53a. Campbell also proposed a stipulated injunction in which it agreed to be barred from sending text messages in violation of the TCPA. The proposed injunction, however, denied liability and the allegations made in the complaint, and disclaimed the existence of grounds for the imposition of an injunction. Id., at 56a. The settlement offer did not include attorney's fees, Campbell observed, because the TCPA does not provide for an attorney's-fee award. Id., at 53a. Gomez did not accept the settlement offer and allowed Campbell's Rule 68 submission to lapse after the time, 14 days, specified in the Rule.
Campbell thereafter moved to dismiss the case pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. No Article III case or controversy remained, Campbell urged, because its offer mooted Gomez's individual claim by providing him with complete relief. Gomez had not moved for class certification before his claim became moot, Campbell added, so the putative class claims also became moot. The District Court denied Campbell's motion. 805 F.Supp.2d 923 (C.D.Cal.2011). Gomez was not dilatory in filing his certification request, the District Court determined; consequently, the court noted, the class claims would "relat[e] back" to the date Gomez filed the complaint. Id., at 930-931.
After limited discovery, Campbell moved for summary judgment on a discrete ground. The U.S. Navy enjoys the sovereign's immunity from suit under the TCPA, Campbell argued. The District Court granted the motion. Relying on our decision in Yearsley v. W.A. Ross Constr. Co., 309 U.S. 18, 60 S.Ct. 413, 84 L.Ed. 554 (1940), the court held that, as a contractor acting on the Navy's behalf, Campbell acquired the Navy's immunity. No. CV 10-02007DMG (CD Cal., Feb. 22, 2013), App. to Pet. for Cert. 22a-34a, 2013 WL 655237.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed the summary judgment entered for Campbell. 768 F.3d 871. The appeals court disagreed with the District Court's ruling on the immunity issue, but agreed that Gomez's case remained live. Concerning Gomez's individual claim, the Court of Appeals relied on its then-recent decision in Diaz v. First American Home Buyers Protection Corp., 732 F.3d 948 (2013). Diaz held that "an unaccepted Rule 68 offer that would fully satisfy a plaintiff's [individual] claim is insufficient to render th[at] claim moot." Id., at 950. As to the class relief Gomez sought, the Ninth Circuit held that "an unaccepted Rule 68 offer of judgment-for the full amount of the named plaintiff's individual claim and made before the named plaintiff files a motion for class certification-does not moot a class action." 768 F.3d, at 875 (quoting Pitts v. Terrible Herbst, Inc., 653 F.3d 1081, 1091-1092 (C.A.9 2011) ).
Next, the Court of Appeals held that Campbell was not entitled to "derivative sovereign immunity" under this Court's decision in Yearsley or on any other basis. 768 F.3d, at 879-881. Vacating the District Court's judgment, the Ninth Circuit remanded the case for further proceedings.
We granted certiorari to resolve a disagreement among the Courts of Appeals over whether an unaccepted offer can moot a plaintiff's claim, thereby depriving federal courts of Article III jurisdiction. Compare Bais Yaakov v. ACT, Inc., 798 F.3d 46, 52 (C.A.1 2015) ; Hooks v. Landmark Industries, Inc., 797 F.3d 309, 315 (C.A.5 2015) ; Chapman v. First Index, Inc., 796 F.3d 783, 787 (C.A.7 2015) ; Tanasi v. New Alliance Bank, 786 F.3d 195, 200 (C.A.2 2015) ; Stein v. Buccaneers Limited Partnership, 772 F.3d 698, 703 (C.A.11 2014) ; Diaz, 732 F.3d, at 954-955 (holding that an unaccepted offer does not render a plaintiff's claim moot), with Warren v. Sessoms & Rogers, P.A., 676 F.3d 365, 371 (C.A.4 2012) ; O'Brien v. Ed Donnelly Enterprises, Inc., 575 F.3d 567, 574-575 (C.A.6 2009) ; Weiss v. Regal Collections, 385 F.3d 337, 340 (C.A.3 2004) (noting that an unaccepted offer can moot an individual plaintiff's claim). We granted review as well to resolve the federal contractor immunity question Campbell's petition raised. 575 U.S. ----, 135 S.Ct. 2311, 191 L.Ed.2d 977 (2015).
II
Article III of the Constitution limits federal-court jurisdiction to "cases" and "controversies." U.S. Const., Art. III, § 2. We have interpreted this requirement to demand that "an actual controversy... be extant at all stages of review, not merely at the time the complaint is filed." Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67, 117 S.Ct. 1055, 137 L.Ed.2d 170 (1997) (quoting Preiser v. Newkirk, 422 U.S. 395, 401, 95 S.Ct. 2330, 45 L.Ed.2d 272 (1975) ). "If an intervening circumstance deprives the plaintiff of a 'personal stake in the outcome of the lawsuit,' at any point during litigation, the action can no longer proceed and must be dismissed as moot." Genesis Healthcare Corp., 569 U.S., at ----, 133 S.Ct., at 1528 (quoting Lewis v. Continental Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-478, 110 S.Ct. 1249, 108 L.Ed.2d 400 (1990) ). A case becomes moot, however, "only when it is impossible for a court to grant any effectual relief whatever to the prevailing party." Knox v. Service Employees, 567 U.S. ----, ----, 132 S.Ct. 2277, 2287, 183 L.Ed.2d 281 (2012) (internal quotation marks omitted). "As long as the parties have a concrete interest, however small, in the outcome of the litigation, the case is not moot." Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U.S. ----, ----, 133 S.Ct. 1017, 1023, 185 L.Ed.2d 1 (2013) (internal quotation marks omitted).
In Genesis Healthcare, the Court considered a collective action brought by Laura Symczyk, a former employee of Genesis HealthCare Corp. Symczyk sued on behalf of herself and similarly situated employees for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938, 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. In that case, as here, the defendant served the plaintiff with an offer of judgment pursuant to Rule 68 that would have satisfied the plaintiff's individual damages claim. 569 U.S., at ----, 133 S.Ct., at 1527. Also as here, the plaintiff allowed the offer to lapse by failing to respond within the time specified in the Rule. Ibid. But unlike the case Gomez mounted, Symczyk did not dispute in the lower courts that Genesis HealthCare's offer mooted her individual claim. Id., at ----, 133 S.Ct., at 1528-1529. Because of that failure, the Genesis Healthcare majority refused to rule on the issue. Instead, the majority simply assumed, without deciding, that an offer of complete relief pursuant to Rule 68, even if unaccepted, moots a plaintiff's claim. Ibid. Having made that assumption, the Court proceeded to consider whether the action remained justiciable on the basis of the collective-action allegations alone. Absent a plaintiff with a live individual case, the Court concluded, the suit could not be maintained. Id., at ----, 133 S.Ct., at 1527.
Justice KAGAN, writing in dissent, explained that she would have reached the threshold question and would have held that "an unaccepted offer of judgment cannot moot a case." Id., at ----, 133 S.Ct., at 1533. She reasoned:
"When a plaintiff rejects such an offer-however good the terms-her interest in the lawsuit remains just what it was before. And so too does the court's ability to grant her relief. An unaccepted settlement offer-like any unaccepted contract offer-is a legal ity, with no operative effect. As every first-year law student learns, the recipient's rejection of an offer 'leaves the matter as if no offer had ever been made.' Minneapolis & St. Louis R. Co. v. Columbus Rolling Mill, 119 U.S. 149, 151 [7 S.Ct. 168, 30 L.Ed. 376] (1886). Nothing in Rule 68 alters that basic principle; to the contrary, that rule specifies that '[a]n unaccepted offer is considered withdrawn.' Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 68(b). So assuming the case was live before-because the plaintiff had a stake and the court could grant relief-the litigation carries on, unmooted." Ibid.
We now adopt Justice KAGAN's analysis, as has every Court of Appeals ruling on the issue post Genesis Healthcare. Accordingly, we hold that Gomez's complaint was not effaced by Campbell's unaccepted offer to satisfy his individual claim.
As earlier recounted, see supra, at 667 - 668, Gomez commenced an action against Campbell for violation of the TCPA, suing on behalf of himself and others similarly situated. Gomez sought treble statutory damages and an injunction on behalf of a nationwide class, but Campbell's settlement offer proposed relief for Gomez alone, and it did not admit liability. App. to Pet. for Cert. 58a. Gomez rejected Campbell's settlement terms and the offer of judgment.
Under basic principles of contract law, Campbell's settlement bid and Rule 68 offer of judgment, once rejected, had no continuing efficacy. See Genesis Healthcare, 569 U.S., at ----, 133 S.Ct., at 1533 (KAGAN, J., dissenting). Absent Gomez's acceptance, Campbell's settlement offer remained only a proposal, binding neither Campbell nor Gomez. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 59a ("Please advise whether Mr. Gomez will accept [Campbell's] offer...."). Having rejected Campbell's settlement bid, and given Campbell's continuing denial of liability, Gomez gained no entitlement to the relief Campbell previously offered. See Eliason v. Henshaw, 4 Wheat. 225, 228, 4 L.Ed. 556 (1819) ("It is an undeniable principle of the law of contracts, that an offer of a bargain by one person to another, imposes no obligation upon the former, until it is accepted by the latter...."). In short, with no settlement offer still operative, the parties remained adverse; both retained the same stake in the litigation they had at the outset.
The Federal Rule in point, Rule 68, hardly supports the argument that an unaccepted settlement offer can moot a complaint. An offer of judgment, the Rule provides, "is considered withdrawn" if not accepted within 14 days of its service. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 68(a), (b). The sole built-in sanction: "If the [ultimate] judgment... is not more favorable than the unaccepted offer, the offeree must pay the costs incurred after the offer was made." Rule 68(d).
In urging that an offer of judgment can render a controversy moot, Campbell features a trio of 19th-century railroad tax cases: California v. San Pablo & Tulare R. Co., 149 U.S. 308, 13 S.Ct. 876, 37 L.Ed. 747 (1893), Little v. Bowers, 134 U.S. 547, 10 S.Ct. 620, 33 L.Ed. 1016 (1890), and San Mateo County v. Southern Pacific R. Co., 116 U.S. 138, 6 S.Ct. 317, 29 L.Ed. 589 (1885). None of those decisions suggests that an unaccepted settlement offer can put a plaintiff out of court. In San Pablo, California had sued to recover state and county taxes due from a railroad. In response, the railroad had not merely offered to pay the taxes in question. It had actually deposited the full amount demanded in a California bank in the State's name, in accord with a California statute that "extinguished" the railroad's tax obligations upon such payment. 149 U.S., at 313-314, 13 S.Ct. 876. San Pablo thus rested on California's substantive law, which required the State to accept a taxpayer's full payment of the amount in controversy. San Mateo and Little similarly involved actual payment of the taxes for which suit was brought. In all three cases, the railroad's payments had fully satisfied the asserted tax claims, and so extinguished them. San Mateo, 116 U.S., at 141-142, 6 S.Ct. 317 ; Little, 134 U.S., at 556, 10 S.Ct. 620.
In contrast to the cases Campbell highlights, when the settlement offer Campbell extended to Gomez expired, Gomez remained emptyhanded; his TCPA complaint, which Campbell opposed on the merits, stood wholly unsatisfied. Because Gomez's individual claim was not made moot by the expired settlement offer, that claim would retain vitality during the time involved in determining whether the case could proceed on behalf of a class. While a class lacks independent status until certified, see Sosna v. Iowa, 419 U.S. 393, 399, 95 S.Ct. 553, 42 L.Ed.2d 532 (1975), a would-be class representative with a live claim of her own must be accorded a fair opportunity to show that certification is warranted.
THE CHIEF JUSTICE's dissent asserts that our decision transfers authority from the federal courts and "hands it to the plaintiff." Post, at 683. Quite the contrary. The dissent's approach would place the defendant in the driver's seat. We encountered a kindred strategy in U.S. Bancorp Mortgage Co. v. Bonner Mall Partnership, 513 U.S. 18, 115 S.Ct. 386, 130 L.Ed.2d 233 (1994). The parties in Bancorp had reached a voluntary settlement while the case was pending before this Court. Id., at 20, 115 S.Ct. 386. The petitioner then sought vacatur of the Court of Appeals' judgment, contending that it should be relieved from the adverse decision on the ground that the settlement made the dispute moot. The Court rejected this gambit. Id., at 25, 115 S.Ct. 386. Similarly here, Campbell sought to avoid a potential adverse decision, one that could expose it to damages a thousand-fold larger than the bid Gomez declined to accept.
In sum, an unaccepted settlement offer or offer of judgment does not moot a plaintiff's case, so the District Court retained jurisdiction to adjudicate Gomez's complaint. That ruling suffices to decide this case. We need not, and do not, now decide whether the result would be different if a defendant deposits the full amount of the plaintiff's individual claim in an account payable to the plaintiff, and the court then enters judgment for the plaintiff in that amount. That question is appropriately reserved for a case in which it is not hypothetical.
III
The second question before us is whether Campbell's status as a federal contractor renders it immune from suit for violating the TCPA by sending text messages to unconsenting recipients. The United States and its agencies, it is undisputed, are not subject to the TCPA's prohibitions because no statute lifts their immunity. Brief for Petitioner 2; Brief for Respondent 43. Do federal contractors share the Government's unqualified immunity from liability and litigation? We hold they do not.
"[G]overnment contractors obtain certain immunity in connection with work which they do pursuant to their contractual undertakings with the United States." Brady v. Roosevelt S.S. Co., 317 U.S. 575, 583, 63 S.Ct. 425, 87 L.Ed. 471 (1943). That immunity, however, unlike the sovereign's, is not absolute. See id., at 580-581, 63 S.Ct. 425. Campbell asserts "derivative sovereign immunity," Brief for Petitioner 35, but can offer no authority for the notion that private persons performing Government work acquire the Government's embracive immunity. When a contractor violates both federal law and the Government's explicit instructions, as here alleged, no "derivative immunity" shields the contractor from suit by persons adversely affected by the violation.
Campbell urges that two of our decisions support its "derivative immunity" defense: Yearsley, 309 U.S. 18, 60 S.Ct. 413, 84 L.Ed. 554, and Filarsky v. Delia, 566 U.S. ----, 132 S.Ct. 1657, 182 L.Ed.2d 662 (2012). In Yearsley, a landowner asserted a claim for damages against a private company whose work building dikes on the Missouri River pursuant to its contract with the Federal Government had washed away part of the plaintiff's land. We held that the contractor was not answerable to the landowner. "[T]he work which the contractor had done in the river bed," we observed, "was all authorized and directed by the Government of the United States" and "performed pursuant to the Act of Congress." 309 U.S., at 20, 60 S.Ct. 413 (internal quotation marks omitted). Where the Government's "authority to carry out the project was validly conferred, that is, if what was done was within the constitutional power of Congress," we explained, "there is no liability on the part of the contractor" who simply performed as the Government directed. Id., at 20-21, 60 S.Ct. 413. The Court contrasted with Yearsley cases in which a Government agent had "exceeded his authority" or the authority "was not validly conferred"; in those circumstances, the Court said, the agent could be held liable for conduct causing injury to another. Id., at 21, 60 S.Ct. 413.
In Filarsky, we considered whether a private attorney temporarily retained by a municipal government as an investigator could claim qualified immunity in an action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Finding no distinction in the common law "between public servants and private individuals engaged in public service," we held that the investigator could assert "qualified immunity" in the lawsuit. 566 U.S., at ----, ----, 132 S.Ct., at 1663, 1662. Qualified immunity reduces the risk that contractors will shy away from government work. But the doctrine is bounded in a way that Campbell's "derivative immunity" plea is not. "Qualified immunity may be overcome... if the defendant knew or should have known that his conduct violated a right 'clearly established' at the time of the episode in suit." Id., at ----, 132 S.Ct., at 1668 (GINSBURG, J., concurring) (citing Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818, 102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L.Ed.2d 396 (1982) ). Campbell does not here contend that the TCPA's requirements or the Navy's instructions failed to qualify as "clearly established."
At the pretrial stage of litigation, we construe the record in a light favorable to the party seeking to avoid summary disposition, here, Gomez. Matsushita Elec. Industrial Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574, 587, 106 S.Ct. 1348, 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986). In opposition to summary judgment, Gomez presented evidence that the Navy authorized Campbell to send text messages only to individuals who had "opted in" to receive solicitations. App. 42-44; 768 F.3d, at 874. A Navy representative noted the importance of ensuring that the message recipient list be "kosher" (i.e., that all recipients had consented to receiving messages like the recruiting text), and made clear that the Navy relied on Campbell's representation that the list was in compliance. App. 43. See also ibid. (noting that Campbell itself encouraged the Navy to use only an opt-in list in order to meet national and local law requirements). In short, the current record reveals no basis for arguing that Gomez's right to remain message-free was in doubt or that Campbell complied with the Navy's instructions.
We do not overlook that subcontractor Mindmatics, not Campbell, dispatched the Navy's recruiting message to unconsenting recipients. But the Federal Communications Commission has ruled that, under federal common-law principles of agency, there is vicarious liability for TCPA violations. In re Joint Petition Filed by Dish Network, LLC, 28 FCC Rcd. 6574 (2013). The Ninth Circuit deferred to that ruling, 768 F.3d, at 878, and we have no cause to question it. Campbell's vicarious liability for Mindmatics' conduct, however, in no way advances Campbell's contention that it acquired the sovereign's immunity from suit based on its contract with the Navy.
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit is affirmed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice THOMAS, concurring in the judgment.
The Court correctly concludes that an offer of complete relief on a claim does not render that claim moot. But, in my view, the Court does not advance a sound basis for this conclusion. The Court rests its conclusion on modern contract law principles and a recent dissent concerning Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68. See ante, at 669 - 671. I would rest instead on the common-law history of tenders. That history-which led to Rule 68 -demonstrates that a mere offer of the sum owed is insufficient to eliminate a court's jurisdiction to decide the case to which the offer related. I therefore concur only in the judgment.
I
The text of Article III's case-or-controversy requirement, that requirement's drafting history, and our precedents do not appear to provide sufficiently specific principles to resolve this case. When faced with such uncertainty, it seems particularly important for us to look to how courts traditionally have viewed a defendant's offer to pay the plaintiff's alleged damages. That history-which stretches from the common law directly to Rule 68 and modern settlement offers-reveals one unbroken practice that should resolve this case: A defendant's offer to pay the plaintiff-without more-would not have deprived a court of jurisdiction. Campbell-Ewald's offers thus do not bar federal courts from continuing to hear this case.
A
Modern settlement procedure has its origins in the law of tenders, as refined in the 18th and 19th centuries. As with much of the early common law, the law of tenders had many rigid formalities. These formalities make clear that, around the time of the framing, a mere offer of relief was insufficient to deprive a court of jurisdiction.
At common law, a prospective defendant could prevent a case from proceeding, but he needed to provide substantially more than a bare offer. A "mere proposal or proposition" to pay a claim was inadequate to end a case. A. Hunt, A Treatise on the Law of Tender, and Bringing Money Into Court §§ 1-2, 3-4 (1903) (Hunt) (citing cases from the 1800's). Nor would a defendant's "readiness and an ability to pay the money" suffice to end a case. Holmes v. Holmes, 12 Barb. 137, 144 (N.Y.1851). Rather, a prospective defendant needed to provide a "tender"-an offer to pay the entire claim before a suit was filed, accompanied by "actually produc[ing]" the sum "at the time of tender" in an "unconditional" manner. M. Bacon, A New Abridgment of the Law, 314-315, 321 (1856) (citing cases from the early 1800's).
Furthermore, in state and federal courts, a tender of the amount due was deemed "an admission of a liability" on the cause of action to which the tender related, so any would-be defendant who tried to deny liability could not effectuate a tender. Hunt § 400, at 448; see Cottier v. Stimson, 18 F. 689, 691 (Ore.1883) (explaining that a tender constitutes "an admission of the cause of action"); The Rossend Castle Dillenback v. The Rossend Castle, 30 F. 462, 464 (S.D.N.Y.1887) (same). As one treatise explained, "[a] tender must be of a specific sum which the tenderor admits to be due"-"[t]here must be no denial of the debt." Hunt § 242, at 253 (emphasis added). The tender had to offer and actually deliver complete relief. See id., § 2, at 4; Sheredine v. Gaul, 2 Dall. 190, 191, 1 L.Ed. 344 (Pa.1792) (defendant must "brin[g] the money into Court"). And an offer to pay less than what was demanded was not a valid tender. See, e.g., Elderkin v. Fellows, 60 Wis. 339, 340-341, 19 N.W. 101, 102 (1884).
Even when a potential defendant properly effectuated a tender, the case would not necessarily end. At common law, a plaintiff was entitled to "deny that [the tender was] sufficient to satisfy his demand" and accordingly "go on to trial." Raiford v. Governor, 29 Ala. 382, 384 (1856) ; see also Hunt § 511, at 595.
This history demonstrates that, at common law, a defendant or prospective defendant had to furnish far more than a mere offer of settlement to end a case. This history also demonstrates that courts at common law would not have understood a mere offer to strip them of jurisdiction.
B
Although 19th-century state statutes expanded the common-law-tender regime, the law retained its essential features. See Bone, "To Encourage Settlement": Rule 68, Offers of Judgment, and the History of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, 102 Nw. U. L. Rev. 1561, 1585 (2008) (Bone). These changes, for example, allowed defendants to offer a tender "during the pendency of an action," as well as before it commenced. Taylor v. Brooklyn Elevated R. Co., 119 N.Y. 561, 564, 23 N.E. 1106, 1107 (1890) ; cf. Colby v. Reed, 99 U.S. 560, 566, 25 L.Ed. 484 (1879) (at common law, generally no "right of tender after action brought"). Statutes also expanded the right of tender to cover types of actions in which damages were not certain. Compare Dedekam v. Vose, 7 F. Cas. 337, 338 (S.D.N.Y.1853) ("[T]ender could not be maintained, according to the strict principles of the common law" in cases where damages were not easily ascertainable), with Patrick v. Ilwaco Oyster Co., 189 Wash. 152, 155, 63 P.2d 520, 521 (1937) (state statute "extend[ed] the common-law rule" to tort actions).
Nevertheless, state statutes generally retained the core of the common-law tender rules. Most critically for this case, a mere offer remained insufficient to end a lawsuit. See, e.g., Kilts v. Seeber, 10 How. Pr. 270, 271 (N.Y.1854) (under New York law, a mere offer was insufficient to preclude litigation). Like the common-law tender rules, state statutes recognized that plaintiffs could continue to pursue litigation by rejecting an offer. See Bone 1586.
C
The offer-of-judgment procedure in Rule 68 was modeled after a provision in the New York Field Code that was enacted in the mid-19th century. See id., at 1583-1584. That code abrogated many of the common-law formalities governing civil procedure. Among its innovations, the code allowed defendants in any cause of action to make an offer in writing to the plaintiff proposing to accept judgment against the defendant for a specified sum. See The Code of Procedure of the State of New York From 1848 to 1871: Comprising the Act as Originally Enacted and the Various Amendments Made Thereto, to the Close of the Session of 1870 § 385, p. 274 (1870). The plaintiff could accept the offer, which would end the litigation, or reject the offer, in which case the offer was considered withdrawn without any admission of liability by the defendant. Ibid.
In 1938, Rule 68 was adopted as part of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and has subsisted throughout the years without material changes. See Bone 1564. As it did in 1938, Rule 68 now authorizes "a party defending against a claim" to "serve on an opposing party an offer to allow judgment on specified terms." Rule 68(a). Rule 68 also provides a plaintiff the option to accept or reject an offer. If the plaintiff accepts the offer, the "clerk must then enter judgment," but "[a]n unaccepted offer is considered withdrawn." Rules 68(a) -(b). Withdrawn offers (unlike common-law tenders) cannot be used in court as an admission against defendants. Rule 68(b).
D
In light of the history discussed above, a rejected offer does not end the case. And this consistent historical practice demonstrates why Campbell-Ewald's offers do not divest a federal court of jurisdiction to entertain Gomez's suit. Campbell-Ewald made two settlement offers after Gomez sued-one filed with the District Court under Rule 68 and one freestanding settlement offer. But with neither of these offers did the company make payment; it only declared its intent to pay. Because Campbell-Ewald only offered to pay Gomez's claim but took no further steps, the court was not deprived of jurisdiction.
II
Although the Court reaches the right result,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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, IV, and V, and an opinion with respect to Part III, in which The Chief Justice and Justice Thomas join.
In this case, we consider once again the applicability of the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause in the context of capital-sentencing proceedings.
I
On Sunday evening, April 12,1987, petitioner David Allen Sattazahn and his accomplice, Jeffrey Hammer, hid in a wooded area waiting to rob Richard Boyer, manager of the Heidelberg Family Restaurant. Sattazahn carried a .22-caliber Ruger semiautomatic pistol and Hammer a .41-caliber revolver. They accosted Boyer in the restaurant’s parking lot at closing time. With guns drawn, they demanded the bank deposit bag containing the day’s receipts. Boyer threw the bag toward the roof of the restaurant. Petitioner commanded Boyer to retrieve the bag, but instead of complying Boyer tried to run away. Both petitioner and Hammer fired shots, and Boyer fell dead. The two men then grabbed the deposit bag and fled.
The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania prosecuted petitioner and sought the death penalty. On May 10, 1991, a jury returned a conviction of first-, second-, and third-degree murder, and various other charges. In accordance with Pennsylvania law the proceeding then moved into a penalty phase. See Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 18, § 1102(a)(1) (Purdon 1998); Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 42, § 9711(a)(1) (Purdon Supp. 2002). The Commonwealth presented evidence of one statutory aggravating circumstance: commission of the murder while in the perpetration of a felony. See § 9711(d)(6). Petitioner presented as mitigating circumstances his lack of a significant history of prior criminal convictions and his age at the time of the crime. See §§ 9711(e)(1), (4). 563 Pa. 533, 539, 763 A. 2d 359, 362 (2000).
Pennsylvania law provides that, in the penalty phase of capital proceedings:
“(iv) the verdict must be a sentence of death if the jury unanimously finds at least one aggravating circumstance .. . and no mitigating circumstance or if the jury unanimously finds one or more aggravating circumstances which outweigh any mitigating circumstances. The verdict must be a sentence of life imprisonment in all other cases.
“(v) the court may, in its discretion, discharge the jury if it is of the opinion that further deliberation will not result in a unanimous agreement as to the sentence, in which case the court shall sentence the defendant to life imprisonment.” § 9711(c) (Purdon Supp. 2002)'.
After both sides presented their evidence, the jury deliberated for some 3½ hours, App. 23, after which it returned a note signed by the foreman which read: “We, the jury are hopelessly deadlocked at 9-3 for life imprisonment. Each one is deeply entrenched in their [sic] position. We do not expect anyone to change his or her position.” Id., at 25. Petitioner then moved “under 9711(e), subparagraph 1, sub-paragraph Roman Numeral 5, that the jury be discharged and that [the court] enter a sentence of life imprisonment.” Id., at 22. The trial judge, in accordance with Pennsylvania law, discharged the jury as hung, and indicated that he would enter the required life sentence, id,., at 23-24, which he later did, id., at 30-33.
Petitioner appealed to the Pennsylvania Superior Court. That court concluded that the trial judge had erred in instructing the jury in connection with various offenses with which petitioner was charged, including first-degree murder. It accordingly reversed petitioner’s first-degree murder conviction and remanded for a new trial. Commonwealth v. Sattazahn, 428 Pa. Super. 413, 631 A. 2d 597 (1993).
On remand, Pennsylvania filed a notice of intent to seek the death penalty. In addition to the aggravating circumstance alleged at the first sentencing hearing, the notice also alleged a second aggravating circumstance, petitioner’s significant history of felony convictions involving the use or threat of violence to the person. (This was based on guilty pleas to a murder, multiple burglaries, and a robbery entered after the first trial.) Petitioner moved to prevent Pennsylvania from seeking the death penalty and from adding the second aggravating circumstance on retrial. The trial court denied the motion, the Superior Court affirmed the denial, App. 73, and the Pennsylvania Supreme Court declined to review the ruling, Commonwealth v. Sattazahn, 547 Pa. 742, 690 A. 2d 1162 (1997). At the second trial, the jury again convicted petitioner of first-degree murder, but this time imposed a sentence of death.
On direct appeal, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed both the verdict of guilt and the sentence of death on retrial. 563 Pa., at 551, 763 A. 2d, at 369. Relying on its earlier decision in Commonwealth v. Martorano, 535 Pa. 178, 634 A. 2d 1063 (1993), the court concluded that neither the Double Jeopardy Clause nor the Due Process Clause barred Pennsylvania from seeking the death penalty at petitioner’s retrial. 563 Pa., at 545-551, 763 A. 2d, at 366-369. We granted certiorari. 535 U. S. 926 (2002).
II
A
The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment commands that “[n]o person shall ... be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” Under this Clause, once a defendant is placed in jeopardy for an offense, and jeopardy terminates with respect to that offense, the defendant may neither be tried nor punished a second time for the same offense. North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U. S. 711, 717 (1969). Where, as here, a defendant is convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, but appeals the conviction and succeeds in having it set aside, we have held that jeopardy has not terminated, so that the life sentence imposed in connection with the initial conviction raises no double-jeopardy bar to a death sentence on retrial. Stroud v. United States, 251 U. S. 15 (1919).
In Stroud, the only offense at issue was that of murder, and the sentence was imposed by a judge who did not have to make any further findings in order to impose the death penalty. Id., at 18. In Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U. S. 430 (1981), however, we held that the Double Jeopardy Clause does apply to capital-sentencing proceedings where such proceedings “have the hallmarks of the trial on guilt or innocence.” Id., at 439. We identified several aspects of Missouri’s sentencing proceeding that resembled a trial, including the requirement that the prosecution prove certain statutorily defined facts beyond a reasonable doubt to support a sentence of death. Id., at 438. Such a procedure, we explained, “explicitly requires the jury to determine whether the prosecution has ‘proved its case.’” Id., at 444. Since, we concluded, a sentence of life imprisonment signifies that “ ‘the jury has already acquitted the defendant of whatever was necessary to impose the death sentence,’ ” the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a State from seeking the death penalty on retrial. Id., at 445 (quoting State ex rel. Westfall v. Mason, 594 S. W. 2d 908, 922 (Mo. 1980) (Bardgett, C. J., dissenting)).
We were, however, careful to emphasize that it is not the mere imposition of a life sentence that raises a double-jeopardy bar. We discussed Stroud, a case in which a defendant who had been convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life imprisonment obtained a reversal of his conviction and a new trial when the Solicitor General confessed error. In Stroud, the Court unanimously held that the Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar imposition of the death penalty at the new trial. 251 U. S., at 17-18. What distinguished Bullington from Stroud, we said, was the fact that in Stroud "there was no separate sentencing proceeding at which the prosecution was required to prove — beyond a reasonable doubt or otherwise — additional facts in order to justify the particular sentence.” Bullington, 451 U. S., at 439. We made clear that an “acquittal” at a trial-like sentencing phase, rather than the mere imposition of a life sentence, is required to give rise to double-jeopardy protections. Id., at 446.
Later decisions refined Bullington’s rationale. In Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U. S. 203 (1984), the State had argued in the sentencing phase, based on evidence presented during the guilt phase, that three statutory aggravating circumstances were present. The trial court, however, found that no statutory aggravator existed, and accordingly entered judgment in the accused’s favor on the issue of death. On the State’s cross-appeal, the Supreme Court of Arizona concluded that the trial court had erred in its interpretation of one of the statutory aggravating circumstances, and remanded for a new sentencing proceeding, which produced a sentence of death. Id., at 205-206. In setting that sentence aside, we explained that “[t]he double jeopardy principle relevant to [Rumsey’s] case is the same as that invoked in Bullington: an acquittal on the merits by the sole decisionmaker in the proceeding is final and bars retrial on the same charge.” Id., at 211.
“The trial court entered findings denying the existence of each of the seven statutory aggravating circumstances, and as required by state law, the court then entered judgment in respondent’s favor on the issue of death. That judgment, based on findings sufficient to establish legal entitlement to the life sentence, amounts to an acquittal on the merits and, as such, bars any retrial of the appropriateness of the death penalty.” Ibid. (emphasis added).
Rumsey thus reaffirmed that the relevant inquiry for double-jeopardy purposes was not whether the defendant received a life sentence the first time around, but rather whether a first life sentence was an “acquittal” based on findings sufficient to establish legal entitlement to the life' sentence — i. e., findings that the government failed to prove one or more aggravating circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.
A later case in the line, Poland v. Arizona, 476 U. S. 147 (1986), involved two defendants convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death. On appeal the Arizona Supreme Court set aside the convictions (because of jury consideration of nonrecord evidence) and further found that there was insufficient evidence to support the one aggravating circumstance found by the trial court. It concluded, however, that there was sufficient evidence to support a different aggravating circumstance, which the trial court had thought not proved. The court remanded for retrial; the defendants were again convicted of first-degree murder, and a sentence of death was again imposed. Id., at 149-150. We decided that in those circumstances, the Double Jeopardy Clause was not implicated. We distinguished Bullington and Rumsey on the ground that in Poland, unlike in those cases, neither the judge nor the jury had “acquitted” the defendant in his first capital-sentencing proceeding by entering findings sufficient to establish legal entitlement to the life sentence. 476 U. S., at 155-157.
B
Normally, “a retrial following a ‘hung jury’ does not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause.” Richardson v. United States, 468 U. S. 317, 324 (1984). Petitioner contends, however, that given the unique treatment afforded capital-sentencing proceedings under Bullington, double-jeopardy protections were triggered when the jury deadlocked at his first sentencing proceeding and the court prescribed a sentence of life imprisonment pursuant to Pennsylvania law.
We disagree. Under the Bullington line of cases just discussed, the touchstone for double-jeopardy protection in capital-sentencing proceedings is whether there has been an “acquittal.” Petitioner here cannot establish that the jury or the court “acquitted” him during his first capital-sentencing proceeding. As to the jury: The verdict form returned by the foreman stated that the jury deadlocked 9-to-3 on whether to impose the death penalty; it made no findings with respect to the alleged aggravating circumstance. That result — or more appropriately, that non-result — cannot fairly be called an acquittal “based on findings sufficient to establish legal entitlement to the life sentence.” Rumsey, supra, at 211.
The entry of a life sentence by the judge was not “acquittal,” either. As the Pennsylvania Supreme Court explained:
“‘Under Pennsylvania’s sentencing scheme, the judge has no discretion to fashion sentence once he finds that the jury is deadlocked. The statute directs him to enter a life sentence. 42 Pa. C. S. §9711(c)(1)(v) (. . . if . . . further deliberation will not result in a unanimous agreement as to the sentence, . . . the court shall sentence the defendant to life imprisonment.) (emphasis added). The judge makes no findings and resolves no factual matter. Since judgment is not based on findings which resolve some factual matter, it is not sufficient to establish legal entitlement to a life sentence. A default judgment does not trigger a double jeopardy bar to the death penalty upon retrial.’ ” 563 Pa., at 548, 763 A. 2d, at 367 (quoting Martorano, 535 Pa., at 194, 634 A. 2d, at 1070).
It could be argued, perhaps, that the statutorily required entry of a life sentence creates an “entitlement” even without an “acquittal,” because that is what the Pennsylvania Legislature intended — i. e., it intended that the life sentence should survive vacation of the underlying conviction. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court, however, did not find such intent in the statute — and there was eminently good cause not to do so. A State’s simple interest in closure might make it willing to accept the default penalty of life imprisonment when the conviction is affirmed and the case is, except for that issue, at an end — but unwilling to do so when the case must be retried anyway. And its interest in conservation of resources might make it willing to leave the sentencing issue unresolved (and the default life sentence in place) where the cost of resolving it is the empaneling of a new jury and, in all likelihood, a repetition of much of the guilt phase of the first trial — though it is eager to attend to that unfinished business if there is to be a new jury and a new trial anyway.
III
A
When Bullington, Rumsey, and Poland were decided, capital-sentencing proceedings were understood to be just that: sentencing proceedings. Whatever “hallmarks of [a] trial” they might have borne, Bullington, 451 U. S., at 439, they differed from trials in a respect crucial for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause: They dealt only with the sentence to be imposed for the “offence” of capital murder. Thus, in its search for a rationale to support Bullington and its “progeny,” the Court continually tripped over the text of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Recent developments, however, have illuminated this part of our jurisprudence. Our decision in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U. S. 466 (2000), clarified what constitutes an “element” of an offense for purposes of the Sixth Amendment’s jury-trial guarantee. Put simply, if the existence of any fact (other than a prior conviction) increases the maximum punishment that may be imposed on a defendant, that fact — no matter how the State labels it — constitutes an element, and must be found by a jury beyond a reasonable doubt. Id., at 482-484, 490.
Just last Term we recognized the import of Apprendi in the context of capital-sentencing proceedings. In Ring v. Arizona, 536 U. S. 584 (2002), we held that aggravating circumstances that make a defendant eligible for the death penalty “operate as ‘the functional equivalent of an element of a greater offense.”’ Id., at 609 (emphasis added). That is to say, for purposes of the Sixth Amendment’s jury-trial guarantee, the underlying offense of “murder” is a distinct, lesser included offense of “murder plus one or more aggravating circumstances”: Whereas the former exposes a defendant to a maximum penalty of life imprisonment, the latter increases the maximum permissible sentence to death. Accordingly, we held that the Sixth Amendment requires that a jury, and not a judge, find the existence of any aggravating circumstances, and that they be found, not by a mere preponderance of the evidence, but beyond a reasonable doubt. Id., at 608-609.
We can think of no principled reason to distinguish, in this context, between what constitutes an offense for purposes of the Sixth Amendment’s jury-trial guarantee and what constitutes an “offence” for purposes of the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause. Cf. Monge v. California, 524 U. S. 721, 738 (1998) (Scalia, J., dissenting) (“The fundamental distinction between facts that are elements of a criminal offense and facts that go only to the sentence” not only “delimits the boundaries of . . . important constitutional rights, like the Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury,” but also “provides the foundation for our entire double jeopardy jurisprudence”). In the post-f?my world, the Double Jeopardy Clause can, and must, apply to some capital-sentencing proceedings consistent with the text of the Fifth Amendment. If a jury unanimously concludes that a State has failed to meet its burden of proving the existence of one or more aggravating circumstances, double-jeopardy protections attach to that “acquittal” on the offense of “murder plus aggravating circumstance(s).” Thus, Rumsey was correct to focus on whether a factfinder had made findings that constituted an “acquittal” of the aggravating circumstances; but the reason that issue was central is not that a capital-sentencing proceeding is “comparable to a trial,” 467 U. S., at 209 (citing Bullington, supra, at 438), but rather that “murder plus one or more aggravating circumstances” is a separate offense from “murder” simpliciter.
B
For purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause, then, “first-degree murder” under Pennsylvania law — the offense of which petitioner was convicted during the guilt phase of his proceedings — is properly understood to be a lesser included offense of “first-degree murder plus aggravating circumstance(s).” See Ring, supra, at 609. Thus, if petitioner’s first sentencing jury had unanimously concluded that Pennsylvania failed to prove any aggravating circumstances, that conclusion would operate as an “acquittal” of the greater offense — which would bar Pennsylvania from retrying petitioner on that greater offense (and thus, from seeking the death penalty) on retrial. Cf. Rumsey, supra, at 211.
But that is not what happened. Petitioner was convicted in the guilt phase of his first trial of the lesser offense of first-degree murder. During the sentencing phase, the jury deliberated without reaching a decision on death or life, and without making any findings regarding aggravating or mitigating circumstances. After 3½ hours the judge dismissed the jury as hung and entered a life sentence in accordance with Pennsylvania law. As explained, supra, at 109-110, neither judge nor jury “acquitted” petitioner of the greater offense of “first-degree murder plus aggravating circumstance(s).” Thus, when petitioner appealed and succeeded in invalidating his conviction of the lesser offense, there was no double-jeopardy bar to Pennsylvania’s retrying petitioner on both the lesser and the greater offense; his “jeopardy” never terminated with respect to either. Cf. Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, 189 (1957) (citing United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662 (1896)); Selvester v. United States, 170 U. S. 262, 269 (1898).
IV
The dissent reads the Court’s decision in United States v. Scott, 437 U. S. 82 (1978), as supporting the proposition that where, as here, a defendant’s “case was fully tried and the court, on its own motion, entered a final judgment — a life sentence — terminating the trial proceedings,” post, at 126 (opinion of Ginsburg, J.), the Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial. There are several problems with this reasoning.
First, it is an understatement to say that “Scott . . . did not home in on a case like [petitioner’s],” post, at 123. The statement upon which the dissent relies — that double jeopardy “may” attach when the “trial judge terminates the proceedings favorably to the defendant on a basis not related to factual guilt or innocence,” 437 U. S., at 92, at least where the defendant “had either been found not guilty or . . . had at least insisted on having the issue of guilt submitted to the first trier of fact,” id., at 96 (emphasis added) — was nothing more than dictum, and a tentative one (“may”) at that. It would be a thin reed on which to rest a hitherto unknown constitutional prohibition of the entirely rational course of making a hung jury’s failure to convict provisionally final, subject to change if the case must be retried anyway.
Second, the dictum in Scott does not even embrace the present case. The petitioner here did not “insist” upon a merits determination, but to the contrary asked that the jury be dismissed as hung. As the dissent recognizes, when the jury announced that it was deadlocked, petitioner “move[d] ‘that the jury be discharged’ and that a life sentence be entered under [Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 42,] §9711(c)(1)(v).” Post, at 125, n. 5. It is no response to say that “[t]he judge did not grant [the] motion,” but instead made a legal determination whether petitioner was entitled to the judgment he sought. Ibid. Surely double-jeopardy protections cannot hinge on whether a trial court characterizes its action as self-initiated or in response to motion. Cf. Scott, supra, at 96. What actually happened in this case is the same as what happened in Scott, where we denied double-jeopardy protection: (1) the defendant moved for entry of a judgment in his favor on procedural grounds (there, delay in indictment; here, a hung jury); (2) the judge measured facts (there, the length of delay; here, the likelihood of the jury’s producing a verdict) against a legal standard to determine whether such relief was appropriate; and (3) concluding that it was, granted the relief.
Nor, in these circumstances, does the prospect of a second capital-sentencing proceeding implicate any of the “perils against which the Double Jeopardy Clause seeks to protect.” Post, at 124 (Ginsburg, J., dissenting). The dissent stresses that a defendant in such circumstances is “subject to the ‘ordeal’ of a second full-blown life or death trial,” which “ ‘compels] [him] to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity.’ ” Ibid, (quoting Green v. United States, supra, at 187); see also post, at 127. But as even the dissent must admit, post, at 125, we have not found this concern determinative of double jeopardy in all circumstances. And it should not be so here. This case hardly presents the specter of “an all-powerful state relentlessly pursuing a defendant who had either been found not guilty or who had at least insisted on having the issue of guilt submitted to the first trier of fact.” Scott, supra, at 96. Instead, we see here a State which, for any number of perfectly understandable reasons, supra, at 110, has quite reasonably agreed to accept the default penalty of life imprisonment when the conviction is affirmed and the case is, except for that issue, at an end — but to pursue its not-yet-vindicated interest in “ ‘one complete opportunity to convict those who have violated its laws’ ” where the case must be retried anyway, post, at 124 (quoting Arizona v. Washington, 434 U. S. 497, 509 (1978)).
V
In addition to his double-jeopardy claim, petitioner raises a freestanding claim alleging deprivation of due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. He contends that, regardless of whether the imposition of the death sentence at the second trial violated the Double Jeopardy Clause, it unfairly deprived him of his “life” and “liberty” interests in the life sentence resulting from his first sentencing proceeding. He frames the argument in these terms:
“Pennsylvania created a constitutionally protected life and liberty interest in the finality of the life judgment statutorily mandated as a result of a [deadlocked] jury. That right vested when the court found the jury deadlocked and imposed a mandatory life sentence. Subjecting [petitioner to a capital resentencing once that right has vested violated [D]ue [P]rocess.” Reply Brief for Petitioner 18-19.
We think not. Section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment commands that “[n]o State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without dm process of law . . . .” (Emphasis added.) Nothing indicates that any “life” or “liberty” interest that Pennsylvania law may have given petitioner in the life sentence imposed after his first capital-sentencing proceeding was somehow immutable. And he was “deprived” of any such interest only by operation of the “process” he invoked to invalidate the underlying first-degree murder conviction on which it was based.
At bottom, petitioner’s due-process claim is nothing more than his double-jeopardy claim in different clothing. As we have said:
“The Bill of Rights speaks in explicit terms to many aspects of criminal procedure, and the expansion of those constitutional guarantees under the open-ended rubric of the Due Process Clause invites undue interference with both considered legislative judgments and the careful balance that the Constitution strikes between liberty and order.” Medina v. California, 505 U. S. 437, 443 (1992).
We decline petitioner’s invitation to hold that the Due Process Clause provides greater double-jeopardy protection than does the Double Jeopardy Clause.
* * *
The Pennsylvania Supreme Court correctly concluded that neither the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause nor the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause barred Pennsylvania from seeking the death penalty against petitioner on retrial. The judgment of that court is, therefore,
Affirmed.
Justice Kennedy joins all but Part III of this opinion.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The United States brought this civil action under § 4 of the Sherman Act against E. I. du Pont de Nemours and Company. The complaint, filed December 13, 1947, in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, charged du Pont with monopolizing, attempting to monopolize and conspiracy to monopolize interstate commerce in cellophane and eellulosic caps and bands in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act. Relief by injunction was sought against defendant and its officers, forbidding monopolizing or attempting to monopolize interstate trade in cellophane. The prayer also sought action to dissipate the effect of the monopolization by divestiture or other steps. On defendant’s motion under 28 U. S. C. § 1404 (a), the case was transferred to the District of Delaware. After a lengthy trial, judgment was entered for du Pont on all issues.
The Government’s direct appeal here does not contest the findings that relate to caps and bands, nor does it raise any issue concerning the alleged attempt to monopolize or conspiracy to monopolize interstate commerce in cellophane. The appeal, as specifically stated by the Government, “attacks only the ruling that du Pont has not monopolized trade in cellophane.” At issue for determination is only this alleged violation by du Pont of § 2 of the Sherman Act.
During the period that is relevant to this action, du Pont produced almost 75% of the cellophane sold in the United States, and cellophane constituted less than 20% of all “flexible packaging material” sales. This was the designation accepted at the trial for the materials listed in Finding 280, Appendix A, this opinion, post, p. 405.
The Government contends that, by so dominating cellophane production, du Pont monopolized a “part of the trade or commerce” in violation of § 2. Respondent agrees that cellophane is a product which constitutes “a ‘part’ of commerce within the meaning of Section 2.” Du Pont brief, pp. 16, 79. But it contends that the prohibition of § 2 against monopolization is not violated because it does not have the power to control the price of cellophane or to exclude competitors from the market in which cellophane is sold. The court below found that the “relevant market for determining the extent of du Pont’s market control is the market for flexible packaging materials,” and that competition from those other materials prevented du Pont from possessing monopoly powers in its sales of cellophane. Finding 37.
The Government asserts that cellophane and other wrapping materials are neither substantially fungible nor like priced. For these reasons, it argues that the market for other wrappings is distinct from the market for cellophane and that the competition afforded cellophane by other wrappings is not strong enough to be considered in determining whether du Pont has monopoly powers. Market delimitation is necessary under du Pont’s theory to determine whether an alleged monopolist violates § 2. The ultimate consideration in such a determination is whether the defendants control the price and competition in the market for such part of trade or commerce as they are charged with monopolizing. Every manufacturer is the sole producer of the particular commodity it makes but its control in the above sense of the relevant market depends upon the availability of alternative commodities for buyers: i. e., whether there is a cross-elasticity of demand between cellophane and the other wrappings. This interchangeability is largely gauged by the purchase of competing products for similar uses considering the price, characteristics and adaptability of the competing commodities. The court below found that the flexible wrappings afforded such alternatives. This Court must determine whether the trial court erred in its estimate of the competition afforded cellophane by other materials.
The burden of proof, of course, was upon the Government to establish monopoly. See United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F. 2d 416, 423, 427. This the trial court held the Government failed to do, upon findings of fact and law stated at length by that court. For the United States to succeed in this Court now, it must show that erroneous legal tests were applied to essential findings of fact or that the findings themselves were “clearly erroneous” within our rulings on Rule 52 (a) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. See United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U. S. 364, 393-395. We do not try the facts of cases de novo. Timken Roller Bearing Co. v. United States, 341 U. S. 593, 597.
Two additional questions were raised in the record and decided by the court below. That court found that, even if du Pont did possess monopoly power over sales of cellophane, it was not subject to Sherman Act prosecution, because (1) the acquisition of that power was protected by patents, and (2) that power was acquired solely through du Pont’s business expertness. It was thrust upon du Pont. 118 F. Supp., at 213-218.
Since the Government specifically excludes attempts and conspiracies to monopolize from consideration, a conclusion that du Pont has no monopoly power would obviate examination of these last two issues.
I. Factual Background. — For consideration of the issue as to monopolization, a general summary of the development of cellophane is useful.
In the early 1900’s, Jacques Brandenberger, a Swiss chemist, attempted to make tablecloths impervious to dirt by spraying them with liquid viscose (a cellulose solution available in quantity from wood pulp, Finding 361) and by coagulating this coating. His idea failed, but he noted that the coating peeled off in a transparent film. This first “cellophane” was thick, hard, and not perfectly transparent, but Brandenberger apparently foresaw commercial possibilities in his discovery. By 1908 he developed the first machine for the manufacture of transparent sheets of regenerated cellulose. The 1908 product was not satisfactory, but by 1912 Brandenberger was making a saleable thin flexible film used in gas masks. He obtained patents to cover the machinery and the essential ideas of his process.
It seems to be agreed, however, that the disclosures of these early patents were not sufficient to make possible the manufacture of commercial cellophane. The inadequacy of the patents is partially attributed to the fact that the essential machine (the Hopper) was improved after it was patented. But more significant was the failure of these patents to disclose the actual technique of the process. This technique included the operational data acquired by experimentation.
In 1917 Brandenberger assigned his patents to La Cellophane Societe Anonyme and joined that organization. Thereafter developments in the production of cellophane somewhat paralleled those taking place in artificial textiles. Chemical science furnished the knowledge for perfecting the new products. The success of the artificial products has been enormous. Du Pont was an American leader in the field of synthetics and learned of cellophane’s successes through an associate, Comptoir des Textiles Artificiel.
In 1923 du Pont organized with La Cellophane an American company for the manufacture of plain cellophane. The undisputed findings are that:
“On December 26, 1923, an agreement was executed between duPont Cellophane Company and La Cellophane by which La Cellophane licensed duPont Cellophane Company exclusively under its United States cellophane patents, and granted duPont Cellophane Company the exclusive right to make and sell in North and Central America under La Cellophane’s secret processes for cellophane manufacture. DuPont Cellophane Company granted to La Cellophane exclusive rights for the rest of the world under any cellophane patents or processes duPont Cellophane Company might develop.” Finding 24.
Subsequently du Pont and La Cellophane licensed several foreign companies, allowing them to manufacture and vend cellophane in limited areas. Finding 601. Technical exchange agreements with these companies were entered into at the same time. However, in 1940, du Pont notified these foreign companies that sales might be made in any country, and- by 1948 all the technical exchange agreements were canceled.
Sylvania, an American affiliate of a Belgian producer of cellophane not covered by the license agreements above referred to, began the manufacture of cellophane in the United States in 1930. Litigation between the French and Belgian companies resulted in a settlement whereby La Cellophane came to have a stock interest in Sylvania, contrary to the La Cellophane-du Pont agreement. This resulted in adjustments as compensation for the intrusion into United States of La Cellophane that extended du Pont’s limited territory. The details do not here seem important. Since 1934 Sylvania has produced about 25% of United States cellophane.
An important factor in the growth of cellophane production and sales was the perfection of moistureproof cellophane, a superior 'product of du Pont research and patented by that company through a 1927 application. Plain cellophane has little resistance to the passage of moisture vapor. Moistureproof cellophane has a composition added which keeps moisture in and out of the packed commodity. This patented type of cellophane has had a demand with much more rapid growth than the plain.
In 1931 Sylvania began the manufacture of moisture-proof cellophane under its own patents. After negotiations over patent rights, du Pont in 1933 licensed Sylvania to manufacture and sell moistureproof cellophane produced under the du Pont patents at a royalty of 2% of sales. These licenses, with the plain cellophane licenses from the Belgian company, made Sylvania a full cellophane competitor, limited on moistureproof sales by the terms of the licenses to 20% of the combined sales of the two companies of that type by the payment of a prohibitive royalty on the excess. Finding 552. There was never an excess production. The limiting clause was dropped on January 1, 1945, and Sylvania was acquired in 1946 by the American Viscose Corporation with assets of over two hundred million dollars.
Between 1928 and 1950, du Pont’s sales of plain cellophane increased from $3,131,608 to $9,330,776. Mois-tureproof sales increased from $603,222 to $89,850,416, although prices were continuously reduced. Finding 337. It could not be said that this immense increase in use was solely or even largely attributable to the superior quality of cellophane or to the technique or business acumen of du Pont, though doubtless those factors were important. The growth was a part of the expansion of the commodity-packaging habits of business, a by-product of general efficient competitive merchandising to meet modern demands. The profits, which were large, apparently arose from this trend in marketing, the development of the industrial use of chemical research and production of synthetics, rather than from elimination of other producers from the relevant market. That market is discussed later at p. 394. Tables appearing at the end of this opinion (Appendix A, Findings 279-292, inclusive, post, pp. 405-410) show the uses of cellophane in comparison with other wrappings. See the discussion, infra, p. 399 et seq.
II. The Sherman Act and the Courts. — The Sherman Act has received long and careful application by this Court to achieve for the Nation the freedom of enterprise from monopoly or restraint envisaged by the Congress that passed the Act in 1890. Because the Act is couched in broad terms, it is adaptable to the changing types of commercial production and distribution that have evolved since its passage. Chief Justice Hughes wrote for the Court that “As a charter of freedom, the Act has a generality and adaptability comparable to that found to be desirable in constitutional provisions.” Appalachian Coals, Inc. v. United States, 288 U. S. 344, 359-360. Compare on remedy, Judge Wyzanski in United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 110 F. Supp. 295, 348. It was said in Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U. S. 1, 50, that fear of the power of rapid accumulations of individual and corporate wealth from the trade and industry of a developing national economy caused its passage. Units of traders and producers snowballed by combining into so-called “trusts.” Competition was threatened. Control of prices was feared. Individual initiative was dampened. While the economic picture has changed, large aggregations of private capital, with power attributes, continue. Mergers go forward. Industries such as steel, automobiles, tires, chemicals, have only a few production organizations. A considerable size is often essential for efficient operation in research, manufacture and distribution.
Judicial construction of antitrust legislation has generally been left unchanged by Congress. This is true of the Rule of Reason. While it is fair to say that the Rule is imprecise, its application in Sherman Act litigation, as directed against enhancement of price or throttling of competition, has given a workable content to antitrust legislation. See note 18, injra. It was judicially declared a proper interpretation of the Sherman Act in 1911, with a strong, clear-cut dissent challenging its soundness on the ground that the specific words of the Act covered every contract that tended to restrain or monopolize. This Court has not receded from its position on the Rule. There is not, we think, any inconsistency between it and the development of the judicial theory that agreements as to maintenance of prices or division of territory are in themselves a violation of the Sherman Act. It is logical that some agreements and practices are invalid per se, while others are illegal only as applied to particular situations.
Difficulties of interpretation have arisen in the application of the Sherman Act in view of the technical changes in production of commodities and the new distribution practices. They have called forth reappraisal of the effect of the Act by business and government. That reappraisal has so far left the problems with which we are here concerned to the courts rather than to administrative agencies. Cf. Federal Trade Commission Act, 38 Stat. 721. It is true that Congress has made exceptions to the generality of monopoly prohibitions, exceptions that spring from the necessities or conveniences of certain industries or business organizations, or from the characteristics of the members of certain groups of citizens. But those exceptions express legislative determination of the national economy’s need of reasonable limitations on cutthroat competition or prohibition of monopoly. “[WJhere exceptions are made, Congress should make them.” United States v. Line Material Co., 333 U. S. 287, 310. They modify the reach of the Sherman Act but do not change its prohibition of other monopolies. We therefore turn to § 2 (note 2, supra) to determine whether du Pont has violated that section by its dominance in the manufacture of cellophane in the before-stated circumstances.
III. The Sherman Act, § 2 — Monopolization. — The only statutory language of § 2 pertinent on this review is: “Every person who shall monopolize... shall be deemed guilty....” This Court has pointed out that monopoly at common law was a grant by the sovereign to any person for the sole making or handling of anything so that others were restrained or hindered in their lawful trade. Standard Oil Co. v. United States, 221 U. S. 1, 51. However, as in England, it came to be recognized here that acts bringing the evils of authorized monopoly— unduly diminishing competition and enhancing prices— were undesirable (id., at 56, 57, 58) and were declared illegal by § 2. Id., at 60-62. Our cases determine that a party has monopoly power if it has, over “any part of the trade or commerce among the several States,” a power of controlling prices or unreasonably restricting competition. Id., at 58.
Senator Hoar, in discussing § 2, pointed out that monopoly involved something more than extraordinary commercial success, “that it involved something like the use of means which made it impossible for other persons to engage in fair competition.” This exception to the Sherman Act prohibitions of monopoly power is perhaps the monopoly “thrust upon” one of United States v. Aluminum Co. of America, 148 F. 2d 416, 429, left as an undecided possibility by American Tobacco Co. v. United States, 328 U. S. 781. Compare United States v. United Shoe Machinery Corp., 110 F. Supp. 295, 342.
If cellophane is the “market” that du Pont is found to dominate, it may be assumed it does have monopoly power over that “market.” Monopoly power is the power to control prices or exclude competition. It seems apparent that du Pont’s power to set the price of cellophane has been limited only by the competition afforded by other flexible packaging materials. Moreover, it may be practically impossible for anyone to commence manufacturing cellophane without full access to du Pont’s technique. However, du Pont has no power to prevent competition from other wrapping materials. The trial court consequently had to determine whether competition from the other wrappings prevented du Pont from possessing monopoly power in violation of § 2. Price and competition are so intimately entwined that any discussion of theory must treat them as one. It is inconceivable that price could be controlled without power over competition or vice versa. This approach to the determination of monopoly power is strengthened by this Court’s conclusion in prior cases that, when an alleged monopolist has power over price and competition, an intention to monopolize in a proper case may be assumed.
If a large number of buyers and sellers deal freely in a standardized product, such as salt or wheat, we have complete or pure competition. Patents, on the other hand, furnish the most familiar type of classic monopoly. As the producers of a standardized product bring about significant differentiations of quality, design, or packaging in the product that permit differences of use, competition becomes to a greater or less degree incomplete and the producer’s power over price and competition greater over his article and its use, according to the differentiation he is able to create and maintain. A retail seller may have in one sense a monopoly on certain trade because of location, as an isolated country store or filling station, or because no one else makes a product of just the quality or attractiveness of his product, as for example in cigarettes. Thus one can theorize that we have monopolistic competition in every nonstandardized commodity with each manufacturer having power over the price and production of his own product. However, this power that, let us say, automobile or soft-drink manufacturers have over their trademarked products is not the power that makes an illegal monopoly. Illegal power must be appraised in terms of the competitive market for the product.
Determination of the competitive market for commodities depends on how different from one another are the offered commodities in character or use, how far buyers will go to substitute one commodity for another. For example, one can think of building materials as in commodity competition but one could hardly say that brick competed with steel or wood or cement or stone in the meaning of Sherman Act litigation; the products are too different. This is the interindustry competition emphasized by some economists. See Lilienthal, Big Business, c. 5. On the other hand, there are certain differences in the formulae for soft drinks but one can hardly say that each one is an illegal monopoly. Whatever the market may be, we hold that control of price or competition establishes the existence of monopoly power under § 2. Section 2 requires the application of a reasonable approach in determining the existence of monopoly power just as surely as did § 1. This of course does not mean that there can be a reasonable monopoly. See notes 7 and 9, supra. Our next step is to determine whether du Pont has monopoly power over cellophane: that is, power over its price in relation to or competition with other commodities. The charge was monopolization of cellophane. The defense, that cellophane was merely a part of the relevant market for flexible packaging materials.
IV. The Relevant Market. — When a product is controlled by one interest, without substitutes available in the market, there is monopoly power. Because most products have possible substitutes, we cannot, as we said in Times-Picayune Co. v. United States, 345 U. S. 594, 612, give “that infinite range” to the definition of substitutes. Nor is it a proper interpretation of the Sherman Act to require that products be fungible to be considered in the relevant market.
The Government argues:
“We do not here urge that in no circumstances may competition of substitutes negative possession of monopolistic power over trade in a product. The decisions make it clear at the least that the courts will not consider substitutes other than those which are substantially fungible with the monopolized product and sell at substantially the same price.”
But where there are market alternatives that, buyers may readily use for their purposes, illegal monopoly does not exist merely because the product said to be monopolized differs from others. If it were not so, only physically identical products would be a part of the market. To accept the Government’s argument, we would have to conclude that the manufacturers of plain as well as mois-tureproof cellophane were monopolists, and so with films such as Pliofilm, foil, glassine, polyethylene, and Saran, for each of these wrapping materials is distinguishable. These were all exhibits in the case. New wrappings appear, generally similar to cellophane: is each a monopoly? What is called for is an appraisal of the “cross-elasticity” of demand in the trade. See Note, 54 Col. L. Rev. 580. The varying circumstances of each case determine the result. In considering what is the relevant market for determining the control of price and competition, no more definite rule can be declared than that commodities reasonably interchangeable by consumers for the same purposes make up that “part of the trade or commerce,” monopolization of which may be illegal. As respects flexible packaging materials, the market geographically is nationwide.
Industrial activities cannot be confined to trim categories. Illegal monopolies under § 2 may well exist over limited products in narrow fields where competition is eliminated. That does not settle the issue here. In determining the market under the Sherman Act, it is the use or uses to which the commodity is put that control. The selling price between commodities with similar uses and different characteristics may vary, so that the cheaper product can drive out the more expensive. Or, the superior quality of higher priced articles may make dominant the more desirable. Cellophane costs more than many competing products and less than a few. But whatever the price, there are various flexible wrapping materials that are bought by manufacturers for packaging their goods in their own plants or are sold to converters who shape and print them for use in the packaging of the commodities to be wrapped.
Cellophane differs from other flexible packaging materials. From some it differs more than from others. The basic materials from which the wrappings are made and the advantages and disadvantages of the products to the packaging industry are summarized in Findings 62 and 63. They are aluminum, cellulose acetate, chlorides, wood pulp, rubber hydrochloride, and ethylene gas. It will adequately illustrate the similarity in characteristics of the various products by noting here Finding 62 as to glassine. Its use is almost as extensive as cellophane, Appendix C, post, p. 412, and many of its characteristics equally or more satisfactory to users.
It may be admitted that cellophane combines the desirable elements of transparency, strength and cheapness more definitely than any of the others. Comparative characteristics have been noted thus:
“Moistureproof cellophane is highly transparent, tears readily but has high bursting strength, is highly impervious to moisture and gases, and is resistant to grease and oils. Heat sealable, printable, and adapted to use on wrapping machines, it makes an excellent packaging material for both display and protection of commodities.
“Other flexible wrapping materials fall into four major categories: (1) opaque nonmoistureproof wrapping paper designed primarily for convenience and protection in handling packages; (2) moisture-proof films of varying degrees of transparency designed primarily either to protect, or to display and protect, the products they encompass; (3) non-moistureproof transparent films designed primarily to display and to some extent protect, but which obviously do a poor protecting job where exclusion or retention of moisture is important; and (4) mois-tureproof materials other than films of varying degrees of transparency (foils and paper products) designed to protect and display.”
An examination of Finding 59, Appendix B, post, p. 411, will make this clear.
But, despite cellophane’s advantages, it has to meet competition from other materials in every one of its uses. Cellophane’s principal uses are analyzed in Appendix A, Findings 281 and 282. Food products are the chief outlet, with cigarettes next. The Government makes no challenge to Finding 283 that cellophane furnishes less than 7% of wrappings for bakery products, 25% for candy, 32% for snacks, 35% for meats and poultry, 27% for crackers and biscuits, 47% for fresh produce, and 34% for frozen foods. Seventy-five to eighty percent of cigarettes are wrapped in cellophane. Finding 292. Thus, cellophane shares the packaging market with others. The over-all result is that cellophane accounts for 17.9% of flexible wrapping materials, measured by the wrapping surface. Finding 280, Appendix A, post, p. 405.
Moreover a very considerable degree of functional interchangeability exists between these products, as is shown by the tables of Appendix A and Findings 150-278. It will be noted, Appendix B, that except as to permeability to gases, cellophane has no qualities that are not possessed by a number of other materials. Meat will do as an example of interchangeability. Findings 205-220. Although du Pont’s sales to the meat industry have reached 19,000,000 pounds annually, nearly 35%, this volume is attributed “to the rise of self-service retailing of fresh meat.” Findings 212 and 283. In fact, since the popularity of self-service meats, du Pont has lost “a considerable proportion” of this packaging business to Pliofilm. Finding 215. Pliofilm is more expensive than cellophane, but its superior physical characteristics apparently offset cellophane’s price advantage. While retailers shift continually between the two, the trial court found that Pliofilm is increasing its share of the business. Finding 216. One further example is worth noting. Before World War II, du Pont cellophane wrapped between 5 and 10% of baked and smoked meats. The peak year was 1933. Finding 209. Thereafter du Pont was unable to meet the competition of Sylvania and of greaseproof paper. Its sales declined and the 1933 volume was not reached again until 1947. Findings 209-210. It will be noted that greaseproof paper, glassine, waxed paper, foil and Pliofilm are used as well as cellophane, Finding 218. Findings 209-210 show the competition and 215-216 the advantages that have caused the more expensive Pliofilm to increase its proportion of the business.
An element for consideration as to cross-elasticity of demand between products is the responsiveness of the sales of one product to price changes of the other. If a slight decrease in the price of cellophane causes a considerable number of customers of other flexible wrappings to switch to cellophane, it would be an indication that a high cross-elasticity of demand exists between them; that the products compete in the same market. The court below held that the “[gjreat sensitivity of customers in the flexible packaging markets to price or quality changes” prevented du Pont from possessing monopoly control over price. 118 F. Supp., at 207. The record sustains these findings. See references made by the trial court in Findings 123-149.
We conclude that cellophane’s interchangeability with the other materials mentioned suffices to make it a part of this flexible packaging material market.
The Government stresses the fact that the variation in price between cellophane and other materials demonstrates they are noncompetitive. As these products are all flexible wrapping materials, it seems reasonable to consider, as was done at the trial, their comparative cost to the consumer in terms of square area. This can be seen in Finding 130, Appendix C. Findings as to price competition are set out in the margin. Cellophane costs two or three times as much, surface measure, as its chief competitors for the flexible wrapping market, glassine and greaseproof papers. Other forms of cellulose wrappings and those from other chemical or mineral substances, with the exception of aluminum foil, are more expensive. The uses of these materials, as can be observed by Finding 283 in Appendix A, are largely to wrap small packages for retail distribution. The wrapping is a relatively small proportion of the entire cost of the article. Different producers need different qualities in wrappings and their need may vary from time to time as their products undergo change. But the necessity for flexible wrappings is the central and unchanging demand. We cannot say that these differences in cost gave du Pont monopoly power over prices in view of the findings of fact on that subject.
It is the variable characteristics of the different flexible wrappings and the energy and ability with which the manufacturers push their wares that determine choice. A glance at “Modern Packaging,” a trade journal, will give, by its various advertisements, examples of the competition among manufacturers for the flexible packaging market. The trial judge visited the 1952 Annual Packaging Show at Atlantic City, with the consent of counsel. He observed exhibits offered by “machinery manufacturers, converters and manufacturers of flexible packaging materials.” He states that these personal observations confirmed his estimate of the competition between cellophane and other packaging materials. Finding 820. From this wide variety of evidence, the Court reached the conclusion expressed in Finding 838:
“The record establishes plain cellophane and mois-tureproof cellophane are each flexible packaging materials which are functionally interchangeable with other flexible packaging materials and sold at same time to same customers for same purpose at competitive prices; there is no cellophane market distinct and separate from the market for flexible packaging materials; the market for flexible packaging materials is the relevant market for determining nature and extent of duPont’s market control; and duPont has at all times competed with other cellophane producers and manufacturers of other flexible packaging materials in all aspects of its cellophane business.”
The facts above considered dispose also of any contention that competitors have been excluded by du Pont from the packaging material market. That market has many producers and there is no proof du Pont ever has possessed power to exclude any of them from the rapidly expanding flexible packaging market. The Government apparently concedes as much, for it states that “lack of power to inhibit entry into this so-called market [i. e., flexible packaging materials], comprising widely disparate products, is no indicium of absence of power to exclude competition in the manufacture and sale of cellophane.” The record shows the multiplicity of competitors and the financial strength of some with individual assets running to the hundreds of millions. Findings 66-72. Indeed, the trial court found that du Pont could not exclude competitors even from the manufacture of cellophane, Finding 727, an immaterial matter if the market is flexible packaging material. Nor can we say that du Pont’s profits, while liberal (according to the Government 15.9% net after taxes on the 1937-1947 average), demonstrate the existence of a monopoly without proof of lack of comparable profits during those years in other prosperous industries. Cellophane was a leader, over 17%, in the flexible packaging materials market. There is no showing that du Pont’s rate of return was greater or less than that of other producers of flexible packaging materials. Finding 719.
The “market” which one must study to determine when a producer has monopoly power will vary with the part of commerce under consideration. The tests are constant. That market is composed of products that have reasonable interchangeability for the purposes for which they are produced — price, use and qualities considered. While the application of the tests remains uncertain, it seems to us that du Pont should not be found to monopolize cellophane when that product has the competition and interchangeability with other wrappings that this record shows.
On the findings of the District Court, its judgment is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
[For concurring opinion of Mr. Justice Frankfurter, see post, p. 413.]
[For dissenting opinion of The Chief Justice, joined by Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas, see post, p. 414.]
APPENDIX A.
VIII. Results op du Pont’s Competition With Other Materials.
(Findings 279-292.)
279. During the period du Pont entered the flexible packaging business, and since its introduction of moisture-proof cellophane, sales of cellophane have increased. Total volume of flexible packaging materials used in the United States has also increased. Du Pont’s relative percentage of the packaging business has grown as a result of its research, price, sales and capacity policies, but du Pont cellophane even in uses where it has competed has not attained the bulk of the business, due to competition of other flexible packaging materials.
280. Of the production and imports of flexible packaging materials in 1949 measured in wrapping surface, du Pont cellophane accounted for less than 20% of flexible packaging materials consumed in the United States in that year. The figures on this are:
Thousands of Square Yards
Glassine, Greaseproof and Vegetable Parchment
Papers.................................. 3,125,826
Waxing Papers (18 Pounds and over).......... 4,614,685
Sulphite Bag and Wrapping Papers............ 1,788,615
Aluminum Foil.............................. 1,317,807
Cellophane................................. 3,366,068
Cellulose Acetate............................ 133,982
Pliofilm, Polyethylene, Saran and Cry-O-Rap... 373,871
Total............................... 14,720,854
Total du Pont Cellophane Production.......... 2,629,747
Du Pont Cellophane Per Cent of Total United States Production and Imports of These Flexible Packaging Materials................ 17.9%
281. Eighty percent of cellophane made by du Pont is sold for packaging in the food industry. Of this quantity, 80% is sold for packaging baked goods, meat, candy, crackers and biscuits, frozen foods, fresh vegetables and produce, potato chips, and “snacks,” such as peanut butter sandwiches, popcorn, etc. A small amount is sold for wrapping of textiles and paper products, etc. Largest non-food use of cellophane is the overwrapping of cigarette packages.
The breakdown of du Pont cellophane sales for the year 1949 was:
Use Sales Tobacco (M pounds) Percent of Total Sales
Cigarettes..................... 20,584 11.6
Cigars...................■..... 3,195 1.8
Other Tobacco................. 1,657 0.9
Total 25,436 14.3
Food Products
Candy & Gum................. 17,054 9.6
Bread & Cake.................. 40,081 22.5
Crackers & Biscuits............. 12,614 7
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Chief Justice Burger
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question presented is whether the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment was violated when a justice of the Alabama Supreme Court declined to recuse himself from participation in that court’s consideration of this case.
I — I
This appeal arises out of litigation concerning an insurance policy issued by appellant covering appellees Margaret and Roger Lavoie. In January 1977, Mrs. Lavoie was examined by her physician, Dr. Douglas, because of various ailments. Shortly thereafter, on Dr. Douglas’ recommendation, she was admitted to the Mobile Infirmary Hospital, where she remained for 23 days for a battery of tests.
After her discharge, the hospital forwarded the appropriate forms and medical records along with a bill for $3,028.25 to appellant’s local office in Mobile, Alabama. The local office refused to pay the entire amount, tendering payment for only $1,650.22. The local office also sent a letter to the national office, concluding that the 23-day hospitalization was unnecessary and that “[hjospital records do not indicate anything to the contrary,” even though all the hospital records had not yet been received. At one point, the national office told the local office to continue denying the request for full payment, but added that “if they act like they are going to file suit,” the file should be reviewed.
Appellees filed suit against appellant, seeking both payment of the remainder of their original claim and punitive damages for the tort of bad-faith refusal to pay a valid claim. The trial court dismissed for failure to state a cause of action with respect to the bad-faith counts. Appellees appealed to the Alabama Supreme Court, which remanded on the ground that it had “not foreclosed the possibility of recovery in tort for the bad faith refusal of an insurer to pay legitimate benefits due under an insurance policy.” Lavoie v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 374 So. 2d 310, 312 (1979). On remand, the trial court entered judgment for appellees on the unpaid portion of their claim and granted summary judgment for appellant on the bad-faith claim. The Alabama Supreme Court again reversed, explaining that on that same day it had “recognized the intentional tort of bad faith in first party insurance actions.” Lavoie v. Aetna Life & Casualty Co., 405 So. 2d 17, 18 (1981) (citing Chavers v. National Security Fire & Casualty Co., 405 So. 2d 1 (1981)). On remand, appellees’ bad-faith claim was submitted to a jury. The jury awarded $3.5 million in punitive damages. The trial judge denied appellant’s motion for judgment n.o.v. or, alternatively, for remittitur.
The Alabama Supreme Court affirmed the award in a 5-to-4 decision. 470 So. 2d 1060 (1984). An unsigned per curiam opinion expressed the view of five justices that the evidence demonstrated that appellant had acted in bad faith. The court interpreted its prior opinions as not requiring dismissal of a bad-faith-refusal-to-pay claim even where a directed verdict against the insurer on the underlying claim was impossible. The opinion also clarified the issue of whether a bad-faith suit could be maintained where the insurer had made a partial payment of the underlying claim. Although earlier opinions of the court had refused to allow bad-faith suits in such circumstances, partial payment was not dispositive of the bad-faith issue. The court also rejected.appellant’s argument that the punitive damages award was so excessive that it must be set aside.
Chief Justice Torbert, joined by Justice Beatty, dissented; Justice Maddox, joined by Justice Shores, also dissented, concluding that the case was controlled by the court’s earlier decision in National Savings Life Ins. Co. v. Dutton, 419 So. 2d 1357 (1982), because there was an arguable reason for appellant’s refusal to pay the claim.
The court’s opinion was released on December 7, 1984; on December 21,1984, appellant filed a timely application for rehearing. On February 14, 1985, before its application had been acted on, appellant learned that while the instant action was pending before the Alabama Supreme Court, Justice Embry, one of the five justices joining the per curiam opinion, had filed two actions in the Circuit Court for Jefferson County, Alabama, against insurance companies. Both of these actions alleged bad-faith failure to pay a claim. One suit arose out of Maryland Casualty Company’s alleged failure to pay for the loss of a valuable mink coat; the other suit, which Justice Embry brought on behalf of himself and as a representative of a class of all other Alabama state employees insured under a group plan by Blue Cross-Blue Shield of Alabama (including, apparently, all justices of the Alabama Supreme Court), alleged a willful and intentional plan to withhold payment on valid claims. Both suits sought punitive damages.
On February 21, 1985, appellant filed two motions in the Alabama Supreme Court, challenging Justice Embry’s participation in the court’s December 7, 1984, decision and his continued participation in considering appellant’s application for rehearing. The motion also alleged that all justices on the court should recuse themselves because of their interests as potential class members in Justice Embry’s suit against Blue Cross. On March 8, 1985, the court unanimously denied the recusal motions. The brief order stated that each justice had voted individually on the matter of whether he should recuse himself and that each justice had voted not to do so. At the same time, by a 5-to~4 division, the court denied appellant’s motion for rehearing.
Chief Justice Torbert wrote separately, explaining that although his views had not been influenced by his possible membership in the putative class alleged in Justice Embry’s suit against Blue Cross, he was nonetheless notifying the Clerk of the court where that suit was pending not to permit him to be included in the alleged class. Justice Maddox also wrote separately, taking similar action.
On March 20, 1985, appellant obtained a copy of the transcript of Justice Embry’s deposition, taken on January 10, 1985, in connection with his Blue Cross suit. The deposition revealed that Justice Embry had authored the per curiam opinion in this case over an 8- or 9-month period during which his civil action against Blue Cross was being prosecuted. Justice Embry also stated that, during that period, he had received “leads” from people with regard to his bad-faith action against Blue Cross and that he put them in touch with his attorney. Finally, Justice Embry revealed frustration with insurance companies. For example, when asked if he had ever had any difficulty with processing claims, Justice Embry retorted: “[T]hat is a silly question. For years and years.”
Appellant moved for leave to file a second application for rehearing based on the deposition, but that motion was denied. Appellant filed an appeal with this Court, and Justice Powell, as Circuit Justice, granted appellant’s application for a stay of the judgment below pending this Court’s disposition of the appeal. Shortly thereafter, Justice Embry’s suit against Blue Cross was settled by stipulation of the parties. In the stipulation, Blue Cross recognized that “some problems have occurred in the past and is determined to minimize them in the future.” Justice Embry received $30,000 under the settlement agreement on a basic compensatory claim of unspecified amount; a check for that sum was deposited by his attorney directly into Justice Embry’s personal account.
We postponed consideration of the question of jurisdiction pending argument on the merits. 471 U. S. 1134 (1985). We now vacate and remand.
r — i ⅜ — I
We are satisfied as to the Court’s jurisdiction over the question of whether Justice Embry’s participation violated appellant’s Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. Ap-pellees argue that the Alabama Supreme Court did not reach this issue because it was raised only after the court’s decision on the merits. We reject that contention as at odds with the record. On March 8, 1985, the court entered the following order:
“Upon consideration, the Court is of the opinion that under the allegation of said motion in this case each justice should vote individually on the matter of whether or not he or she is disqualified and should recuse. Each justice having voted not to recuse,
“IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the ‘Motion for Disqualification and Motion for Withdrawal of Opinion of December 7, 1984, and for Hearing De Novo’ be . . . denied.” App. to Juris. Statement 64a.
This order clearly demonstrates that the Alabama court reached the merits of appellant’s constitutional challenge, albeit on a justice-by-justice basis. Moreover, appellant raised this issue as soon as it discovered the facts relating to Justice Embry’s personal lawsuits. On this record, we conclude jurisdiction is proper. See Ulster County Court v. Allen, 442 U. S. 140, 147-154 (1979); Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U. S. 57, 61 (1972).
HH hH
, <¡
Appellant contends Justice Embry s general hostility towards insurance companies that were dilatory in paying claims, as expressed in his deposition, requires a conclusion that the Due Procéss Clause was violated by his participation in the disposition of this case. The Court has recognized that not “[a]ll questions of judicial qualification . . . involve constitutional validity. Thus matters of kinship, personal bias, state policy, remoteness of interest, would seem generally to be matters merely of legislative discretion.” Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S. 510, 523 (1927); see also FTC v. Cement Institute, 333 U. S. 683, 702 (1948) (“[M]ost matters relating to judicial disqualification [do] not rise to a constitutional level”). Moreover, the traditional common-law rule was that disqualification for bias or prejudice was not permitted. See, e. g., Clyma v. Kennedy, 64 Conn. 310, 29 A. 539 (1894). See generally Frank, Disqualification of Judges, 56 Yale L. J. 605 (1947). As Blackstone put it, “the law will not suppose a possibility of bias or favour in a judge, who is already sworn to administer impartial justice, and whose authority greatly depends upon that presumption and idea.” 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *361. The more recent trend has been towards the adoption of statutes that permit disqualification for bias or prejudice. See Berger v. United States, 255 U. S. 22, 31 (1921) (enforcing statute disqualifying federal judges in certain circumstances for personal bias or prejudice). See also ABA Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 3C(l)(a) (1980) (“A judge should disqualify himself. . . where he has a personal bias or prejudice concerning a party”). But that alone would not be sufficient basis for imposing a constitutional requirement under the Due Process Clause. We held in Patterson v. New York, 432 U. S. 197, 201-202 (1977) (citations omitted), that
“it is normally within the power of the State to regulate procedures under which its laws are carried out. . . and its decision in this regard is not subject to proscription under the Due Process Clause unless it offends some principle of justice so rooted in the traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental.”
We need not decide whether allegations of bias or prejudice by a judge of the type we have here would ever be sufficient under the Due Process Clause to force recusal. Certainly only in the most extreme of cases would disqualification on this basis be constitutionally required, and appellant’s arguments here fall well below that level. Appellant suggests that Justice Embry’s general frustration with insurance companies reveals a disqualifying bias, but it is likely that many claimants have developed hostile feelings from the frustration in awaiting settlement of insurance claims. Insurers, on their side, have no easy task, especially when trying to evaluate whether certain medical diagnostic tests or prolonged hospitalization were indicated. In turn, the physicians and surgeons, whether impelled by valid medical judgment or by apprehension as to future malpractice claims — or some combination of the two — similarly face difficult problems. Appellant’s allegations of bias and prejudice on this general basis, however, are insufficient to establish any constitutional violation.
B
The record in this case presents more than mere allegations of bias and prejudice, however. Appellant also presses a claim that Justice Embry had a more direct stake in the outcome of this case. In Tumey, while recognizing that the Constitution does not reach every issue of judicial qualification, the Court concluded that “it certainly violates the Fourteenth Amendment ... to subject [a person’s] liberty or property to the judgment of a court the judge of which has a direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest in reaching a conclusion against him in his case.” 273 U. S., at 523.
More than .30 years ago Justice Black, speaking for the Court, reached a similar conclusion and recognized that under the Due Process Clause no judge “can be a judge in his own case [or be] permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome.” In re Murchison, 349 U. S. 133, 136 (1955). He went on to acknowledge that what degree or kind of interest is sufficient to disqualify a judge from sitting “cannot be defined with precision.” Ibid. Nonetheless, a reasonable formulation of the issue is whether the
“situation is one ‘which would offer a possible temptation to the average . . . judge to . . . lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true.’” Ward v. Village of Monroeville, supra, at 60.
Under these prior holdings, we examine just what factors might constitute such an interest in the outcome of this case that would bear on recusal. At the time Justice Embry cast the deciding vote and authored the court’s opinion, he had pending at least one very similar bad-faith-refusal-to-pay lawsuit against Blue Cross in another Alabama court. The decisions of the court on which Justice Embry sat, the Alabama Supreme Court, are binding on all Alabama courts. We need not blind ourselves to the fact that the law in the area of bad-faith-refusal-to-pay claims in Alabama, as in many other jurisdictions, was unsettled at that time, as the court’s close division in deciding this case indicates. When Justice Embry cast the deciding vote, he did not merely apply well-established law and in fact quite possibly made new law; the court’s opinion does not suggest that its conclusion was compelled by earlier decisions. Instead, to decide the case the court stated that “it is first necessary to review the policy considerations, elements, and instructive guide posts set out by this court in earlier case law.” 470 So. 2d, at 1070. And in another case the court acknowledged that “the tort of bad faith refusal to pay a valid insurance claim is in the embryonic stage, and the Court has not had occasion to address every issue that might arise in these cases.” National Savings Life Ins. Co. v. Dutton, 419 So. 2d, at 1362.
The decision under review firmly established that punitive damages could be obtained in Alabama in a situation where the insured’s claim is not fully approved and only partial payment of the underlying claim had been made. Prior to the decision under review, the Alabama Supreme Court had not clearly recognized any claim for tortious injury in such circumstances; moreover, it had affirmatively recognized that partial payment was evidence of good faith on the part of the insurer. Sexton v. Liberty National Life Ins. Co., 405 So. 2d 18, 22 (1981). The Alabama court also held that a bad-faith-refusal-to-pay cause of action will lie in Alabama even where the insured is not entitled to a directed verdict on the underlying claim, a conclusion that at the least clarified the thrust of an earlier holding. Cf. National Savings Life Ins. Co. v. Dutton, supra, at 1362. Finally, the court refused to set aside as excessive a punitive damages award of $3.5 million. The largest punitive award previously affirmed by that court was $100,000, a figure remitted from $1.1 million as “obviously the result of passion and prejudice on the part of the jury.” -Gulf Atlantic Life Ins. Co. v. Barnes, 405 So. 2d 916, 926 (1981).
All of these issues were present in Justice Embry’s lawsuit against Blue Cross. His complaint sought recovery for partial payment of claims. Also the very nature of Justice Embry’s suit placed in issue whether he would have to establish that he was entitled to a directed verdict on the underlying claims that he alleged Blue Cross refused to pay before gaining punitive damages. Finally, the affirmance of the largest punitive damages award ever (by a substantial margin) on precisely the type of claim raised in the Blue Cross suit undoubtedly “raised the stakes” for Blue Cross in that suit, to the benefit of Justice Embry. Thus, Justice Embry’s opinion for the Alabama Supreme Court had the clear and immediate effect of enhancing both the legal status and the settlement value of his own case.
We need not decide whether to characterize the decision under review as a change in Alabama law or a clarification of the contours of that law, a judgment we are obviously not called on to make. We hold simply that when Justice Embry made that judgment, he acted as “a judge in his own case.” Murchison, supra, at 136.
We also hold that his interest was “ ‘direct, personal, substantial, [and] pecuniary.’” Ward, supra, at 60 (quoting Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U. S., at 523). Justice Embry’s complaint against Blue Cross sought “compensatory damage for breach of contract, inconvenience, emotional and mental distress, disappointment, pain and suffering” in addition to punitive damages for himself and for the class. Soon after the opinion of the Alabama Supreme Court in this case was announced, Blue Cross paid Justice Embry what he characterized in an interview as “a tidy sum,” Reply Brief for Appellant 10, n. 8, to settle the suit. Records lodged with this Court show that Justice Embry received $30,000, which was deposited by his attorney directly into Justice Embry’s personal account. To be sure, a portion of this money may have gone to Justice Embry’s attorney in connection with the case, even though some materials before us suggest that his attorney agreed to waive his fee. Deposition of A. Grey Till in Clay v. Nationwide Insurance Co., CV-78-1148 (Cir. Ct. of Mobile Cty., Ala.), pp. 27-29. We are also aware that Justice Embry obtained a statement in the settlement agreement to the effect that “[t]he primary object of the institution of this suit . . . was to emphasize to defendant Blue Cross . . . that, claims under the Plan be processed and determined by Blue Cross in a timely and efficient manner,” even though that type of relief was not sought specifically in the complaint while monetary relief was. We nonetheless hold that the “tidy sum” that Justice Embry received directly is sufficient to establish the substantiality of his interest here.
We conclude that Justice, Embry’s participation in this case violated appellant’s due process rights as explicated in Tumey, Murchison, and Ward. We make clear that we are not required to decide whether in fact Justice Embry was influenced, but only whether sitting on the case then before the Supreme Court of Alabama “ ‘would offer a possible temptation to the average . . . judge to . . . lead him not to hold the balance nice, clear and true.’” Ward, 409 U. S., at 60 (quoting Tumey v. Ohio, supra, at 532). The Due Process Clause “may sometimes bar trial by judges who have no actual bias and who would do their very best to weigh the scales of justice equally between contending parties. But to perform its high fimction in the best way, ‘justice must satisfy the appearance of justice.’” Murchison, 349 U. S., at 136 (citation omitted).
C
Appellant has challenged not only the participation of Justice Embry in this case but also the participation of all the other justices of the Alabama Supreme Court, or at least the six justices who did not withdraw from Justice Embry’s class action against Blue Cross, claiming that they also have an interest in this case. Such allegations do not constitute a sufficient basis for requiring recusal under the Constitution. In the first place, accepting appellant’s expansive contentions might require the disqualification of every judge in the State. If so, it is possible that under a “rule of necessity” none of the judges or justices would be disqualified. See United States v. Will, 449 U. S. 200, 214 (1980).
More important, while these justices might conceivably have had a slight pecuniary interest, we find it impossible to characterize that interest as “ ‘direct, personal, substantial, [and] pecuniary.’” Ward, supra, at 60 (quoting Tumey, supra, at 523). Appellant concedes that nothing in the record even suggests that these justices had any knowledge of the class action before the court issued a decision on the merits. Thus, at most only the decision to deny rehearing was even plausibly affected. Any interest that they might have had when they passed on the rehearing motion was clearly highly speculative and contingent. At the time, the trial court had not even certified a class, let alone awarded any class relief of a pecuniary nature. With the proliferation of class actions involving broadly defined classes, the application of the constitutional requirement of disqualification must be carefully limited. Otherwise constitutional disqualification arguments could quickly become a standard feature of class-action litigation. Cf. In re City of Houston, 745 F. 2d 925 (CA5 1984). At some point, “[t]he biasing influence . . . [will be] too remote and insubstantial to violate the constitutional constraints.” Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U. S. 238, 243 (1980). Charges of disqualification should not be made lightly. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U. S. 413 (1923). We hold that there is no basis for concluding these justices were disqualified under the Due Process Clause.
D
Having concluded that only Justice Embry was disqualified from participation in this case, we turn to the issue of the proper remedy for this constitutional violation. Our prior decisions have not considered the question whether a decision of a multimember tribunal must be vacated because of the participation of one member who had an interest in the outcome of the case. Rather, our prior cases have involved interpretations of statutes with provisions concerning this question, e. g., Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co., 393 U. S. 145 (1968), disqualifications of the sole member of a tribunal, e. g., Ward v. Village of Monroeville, supra, and disqualifications of an entire panel, e. g., Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U. S. 564 (1973). Some courts have concluded that a decision need not be vacated where a disqualified judge’s vote is mere surplusage. See, e. g., State ex rel. Langer v. Kositzky, 38 N. D. 616, 166 N. W. 534 (1918); but see, e. g., Oakley v. Aspinwall, 3 N. Y. 547 (1850). But we are aware of no case, and none has been called to our attention, permitting a court’s decision to stand when a disqualified judge casts the deciding vote. Here Justice Embry’s vote was decisive in the 5-to-4 decision and he was the author of the court’s opinion. Because of Justice Embry’s leading role in the decision under review, we conclude that the “appearance of justice” will best be served by vacating the decision and remanding for further proceedings. Appellees have not contended that, upon a finding of disqualification, this disposition is. improper.
I — I I — I > — i
We underscore that our decision today undertakes to answer only the question of under what circumstances the Constitution requires disqualification. The Due Process Clause demarks only the outer boundaries of judicial disqualifications. Congress and the states, of course, remain free to impose more rigorous standards for judicial disqualification than those we find mandated here today.
Appellant also argues that the retrospective imposition of punitive damages under a new cause of action violates its rights under the Contracts Clause of Article I, § 10; that a $3.5 million punitive damages award is impermissible under the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment; and that lack of sufficient standards governing punitive damages awards in Alabama violates the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. In addition, appellant contends that Ala. Code § 12-22-72 (1975), under which any person who unsuccessfully appeals a money judgment is assessed a 10% penalty, is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. These arguments raise important issues which, in an appropriate setting, must be resolved; however, our disposition of the recusal-for-bias issue makes it unnecessary to reach them.
The judgment of the Supreme Court of Alabama is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Vacated and remanded.
Justice Stevens took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Justice Embry’s suit against Maryland Casualty Company had been settled sometime earlier by the payment of Justice Embry’s claim.
Justice Embry has since retired from the court for health reasons.
The Court in Commonwealth Coatings Corp. v. Continental Casualty Co., 393 U. S. 145 (1968), stated in dicta that “in Tumey[, 273 U. S., at 524,] the Court held that a decision should be set aside where there is ‘the slightest pecuniary interest’ on the part of the judge . . . .” Id., at 148. We think this was a misreading of Tumey. The reference to “the slightest pecuniary interest” in that opinion came in a portion of the opinion describing “cases at common law in England prior to the separation of colonies from the mother country . . . 273 U. S., at 524. At a later point in the opinion, Chief Justice Taft quoted approvingly from the work of Justice Cooley, that disqualification is not worked in cases where the “‘interest is so remote, trifling and insignificant that it may fairly be supposed to be incapable of affecting the judgment of or of influencing the conduct of an individual.’” Id., at 531 (quoting T. Cooley, Constitutional Limitations 594 (7th ed. 1903)). Chief Justice Taft also reiterated that the case was not one “in which the penalties and the costs are negligible. . . . The court is a state agency, imposing substantial punishment.... It is not to be treated as a mere village tribunal for village peccadilloes.” 273 U. S., at 532. We therefore follow Ward v. Village of Monroeville, 409 U. S. 57, 60 (1972), and decline to read Tumey as constitutionalizing any rule that a decision rendered by a judge with “the slightest pecuniary interest” constitutes a violation of the Due Process Clause.
We have confined the opinion to the issues presented by the parties and express no view on the question discussed by the justices who write separately. The issues here are far more complex than acknowledged by the concurrences, which, reasoning from hypothetical situations on matters not presented by the facts of this case, postulate a broad general rule. Traditionally the Court does not undertake to “ ‘formulate a rule of constitutional law broader than is required by the precise facts to which it is to be applied.’” Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 347 (1936) (Brandéis, J., concurring) (quoting Liverpool, N. Y. & P. S. S. Co. v. Emigration Comm’rs, 113 U. S. 33, 39 (1885)). Because the issue of disqualification of a single member of a multimember panel arises in a variety of factual contexts, see generally 48A C. J. S., Judges § 159, p. 868 (1981) (collecting eases), sound judicial practice wisely counsels judges to avoid unnecessary declarations on issues not presented, briefed, or argued.
If Justice Embry had disqualified himself, the decision of the trial court would not have been affirmed by a vote of an equally divided court. Rather, Ala. Code § 12-2-14 (1975), which authorizes the appointment of special justices in the event disqualifications result in an even-numbered court which is evenly divided on a matter, would presumably have come into play.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
D
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Kansas is reversed. Redrup v. New York, 386 U. S. 767.
The Chief Justice would grant the petition and set the case for oral argument in light of A Quantity of Books v. Kansas, 378 U. S. 205.
Mr. Justice Clark would grant the petition and affirm the judgment.
Mr. Justice Harlan adheres to the views expressed in his separate opinions in Roth v. United States, 354 U. S. 476, 496, and Memoirs v. Massachusetts, 383 U. S. 413, 455, and on the basis of the reasoning set forth therein would affirm.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Marshall
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered the opinion of the Court with respect to Parts I and II and an opinion with respect to Parts III, IV, and V, in which Justice Brennan, Justice Blackmun, and Justice Stevens join.
For centuries no jurisdiction has countenanced the execution of the insane, yet this Court has never decided whether the Constitution forbids the practice. Today we keep faith with our common-law heritage in holding that it does.
H
Alvin Bernard Ford was convicted of murder in 1974 and sentenced to death. There is no suggestion that he was incompetent at the time of his offense, at trial, or at sentencing. In early 1982, however, Ford began to manifest gradual changes in behavior. They began as an occasional peculiar idea or confused perception, but became more serious over time. After reading in the newspaper that the Ku Klux Klan had held a rally in nearby Jacksonville, Florida, Ford developed an obsession focused upon the Klan. His letters to various people reveal endless brooding about his “Klan work,” and an increasingly pervasive delusion that he had become the target of a complex conspiracy, involving the Klan and assorted others, designed to force him to commit suicide. He believed that the prison guards, part of the conspiracy, had been killing people and putting the bodies in the concrete enclosures used for beds. Later, he began to believe that his women relatives were being tortured and sexually abused somewhere in the prison. This notion developed into a delusion that the people who were tormenting him at the prison had taken members of Ford’s family hostage. The hostage delusion took firm hold and expanded, until Ford was reporting that 135 of his friends and family were being held hostage in the prison, and that only he could help them. By “day 287” of the “hostage crisis,” the list of hostages had expanded to include “senators, Senator Kennedy, and many other leaders.” App. 53. In a letter to the Attorney General of Florida, written in 1983, Ford appeared to assume authority for ending the “crisis,” claiming to have fired a number of prison officials. He began to refer to himself as “Pope John Paul, III,” and reported having appointed nine new justices to the Florida Supreme Court. Id., at 59.
Counsel for Ford asked a psychiatrist who had examined Ford earlier, Dr. Jamal Amin, to continue seeing him and to recommend appropriate treatment. On the basis of roughly 14 months of evaluation, taped conversations between Ford and his attorneys, letters written by Ford, interviews with Ford’s acquaintances, and various medical records, Dr. Amin concluded in 1983 that Ford suffered from “a severe, uncontrollable, mental disease which closely resembles ‘Paranoid Schizophrenia With Suicide Potential’” — a “major mental disorder... severe enough to substantially affect Mr. Ford’s present ability to assist in the defense of his life.” Id., at 91.
Ford subsequently refused to see Dr. Amin again, believing him to have joined the conspiracy against him, and Ford’s counsel sought assistance from Dr. Harold Kaufman, who interviewed Ford in November 1983. Ford told Dr. Kaufman that “I know there is some sort of death penalty, but I’m free to go whenever I want because it would be illegal and the executioner would be executed.” Id., at 65. When asked if he would be executed, Ford replied: “I can’t be executed because of the landmark case. I won. Ford v. State will prevent executions all over.” Id., at 66. These statements appeared amidst long streams of seemingly unrelated thoughts in rapid succession. Dr. Kaufman concluded that Ford had no understanding of why he was being executed, made no connection between the homicide of which he had been convicted and the death penalty, and indeed sincerely believed that he would not be executed because he owned the prisons and could control the Governor through mind waves. Id., at 67. Dr. Kaufman found that there was “no reasonable possibility that Mr. Ford was dissembling, malingering or otherwise putting on a performance....” Id., at 65. The following month, in an interview with his attorneys, Ford regressed further into nearly complete incomprehensibility, speaking only in a code characterized by intermittent use of the word “one,” making statements such as “Hands one, face one. Mafia one. God one, father one, Pope one. Pope one. Leader one.” Id., at 72.
Counsel for Ford invoked the procedures of Florida law governing the determination of competency of a condemned inmate, Fla. Stat. § 922.07 (1985). Following the procedures set forth in the statute, the Governor of Florida appointed a panel of three psychiatrists to evaluate whether, under §922.07(2), Ford had “the mental capacity to understand the nature of the death penalty and the reasons why it was imposed upon him.” At a single meeting, the three psychiatrists together interviewed Ford for approximately 30 minutes. Each doctor then filed a separate two- or three-page report with the Governor, to whom the statute delegates the final decision. One doctor concluded that Ford suffered from “psychosis with paranoia” but had “enough cognitive functioning to understand the nature and the effects of the death penalty, and why it is to be imposed on him.” App. 103. Another found that, although Ford was “psychotic,” he did “know fully what can happen to him.” Id., at 105-106. The third concluded that Ford had a “severe adaptational disorder,” but did “comprehend his total situation including being sentenced to death, and all of the implications of that penalty.” Id., at 99-100. He believed that Ford’s disorder, “although severe, seem[ed] contrived and recently learned.” Id., at 100. Thus, the interview produced three different diagnoses, but accord on the question of sanity as defined by state law.
The Governor’s decision was announced on April 30, 1984, when, without explanation or statement, he signed a death warrant for Ford’s execution. Ford’s attorneys unsuccessfully sought a hearing in state court to determine anew Ford’s competency to suffer execution. Ford v. Wainwright, 451 So. 2d 471, 475 (Fla. 1984). Counsel then filed a petition for habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, seeking an evidentiary hearing on the question of Ford’s sanity, proffering the conflicting findings of the Governor-appointed commission and subsequent challenges to their methods by other psychiatrists. The District Court denied the petition without a hearing. The Court of Appeals granted a certificate of probable cause and stayed Ford’s execution, Ford v. Strickland, 734 F. 2d 538 (CA11 1984), and we rejected the State’s effort to vacate the stay of execution. Wainwright v. Ford, 467 U. S. 1220 (1984). The Court of Appeals then addressed the merits of Ford’s claim and a divided panel affirmed the District Court’s denial of the writ. 752 F. 2d 526 (CA11 1985). This Court granted Ford’s petition for certiorari in order to resolve the important issue whether the Eighth Amendment prohibits the execution of the insane and, if so, whether the District Court should have held a hearing on petitioner’s claim. 474 U. S. 1019 (1985).
I — I
Since this Court last had occasion to consider the infliction of the death penalty upon the insane, our interpretations of the Due Process Clause and the Eighth Amendment have evolved substantially. In Solesbee v. Balkcom, 339 U. S. 9 (1950), a condemned prisoner claimed a due process right to a judicial determination of his sanity, yet the Court did not consider the possible existence of a right under the Eighth Amendment, which had not yet been applied to the States. The sole question the Court addressed was whether Georgia’s procedure for ascertaining sanity adequately effectuated that State’s own policy of sparing the insane from execution. See also Caritativo v. California, 357 U. S. 549 (1958); United States ex rel. Smith v. Baldi, 344 U. S. 561 (1953); Phyle v. Duffy, 334 U. S. 431 (1948); Nobles v. Georgia, 168 U. S. 398 (1897). Now that the Eighth Amendment has been recognized to affect significantly both the procedural and the substantive aspects of the death penalty, the question of executing the insane takes on a wholly different complexion. The adequacy of the procedures chosen by a State to determine sanity, therefore, will depend upon an issue that this Court has never addressed: whether the Constitution places a substantive restriction on the State’s power to take the fife of an insane prisoner.
There is now little room for doubt that the Eighth Amendment’s ban on cruel and unusual punishment embraces, at a minimum, those modes or acts of punishment that had been considered cruel and unusual at the time that the Bill of Rights was adopted. See Solem v. Helm, 463 U. S. 277, 285-286 (1983); id., at 312-313 (Burger, C. J., joined by White, Rehnquist, and O’Connor, JJ., dissenting); Fur-man v. Georgia, 408 U. S. 238, 264 (1972) (Brennan, J., concurring); McGautha v. California, 402 U. S. 183, 226 (1971) (Black, J., concurring). “Although the Framers may have intended the Eighth Amendment to go beyond the scope of its English counterpart, their use of the language of the English Bill of Rights is convincing proof that they intended to provide at least the same protection....” Solern v. Helm, supra, at 286.
Moreover, the Eighth Amendment’s proscriptions are not limited to those practices condemned by the common law in 1789. See Gregg v. Georgia, 428 U. S. 153, 171 (1976) (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.). Not bound by the sparing humanitarian concessions of our forebears, the Amendment also recognizes the “evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society.” Trap v. Dulles, 356 U. S. 86, 101 (1958) (plurality opinion). In addition to considering the barbarous methods generally outlawed in the 18th century, therefore, this Court takes into account objective evidence of contemporary values before determining whether a particular punishment comports with the fundamental human dignity that the Amendment protects. See Coker v. Georgia, 433 U. S. 584, 597 (1977) (plurality opinion).
A
We begin, then, with the common law. The bar against executing a prisoner who has lost his sanity bears impressive historical credentials; the practice consistently has been branded “savage and inhuman.” 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *24-*25 (hereinafter Blackstone). Blackstone explained:
“[IJdiots and lunatics are not chargeable for their own acts, if committed when under these incapacities: no, not even for treason itself. Also, if a man in his sound memory commits a capital offence, and before arraignment for it, he becomes mad, he ought not to be arraigned for it: because he is not able to plead to it with that advice and caution that he ought. And if, after he has pleaded, the prisoner becomes mad, he shall not be tried: for how can he make his defence? If, after he be tried and found guilty, he loses his senses before judgment, judgment shall not be pronounced; and if, after judgment, he becomes of nonsane memory, execution shall be stayed: for peradventure, says the humanity of the English law, had the prisoner been of sound memory, he might have alleged something in stay of judgment or execution.” Ibid, (footnotes omitted).
Sir Edward Coke had earlier expressed the same view of the common law of England: “[B]y intendment of Law the execution of the offender is for example,... but so it is not when a mad man is executed, but should be a miserable spectacle, both against Law, and of extream inhumanity and cruelty, and can be no example to others.” 3 E. Coke, Institutes 6 (6th ed. 1680) (hereinafter Coke). Other recorders of the common law concurred. See 1 M. Hale, Pleas of the Crown 36 (1736) (hereinafter Hale); 1 W. Hawkins, Pleas of the Crown 2 (7th ed. 1795) (hereinafter Hawkins); Hawles, Remarks on the Trial of Mr. Charles Bateman, 11 How. St. Tr. 474, 477 (1685) (hereinafter Hawles).
As is often true of common-law principles, see 0. Holmes, The Common Law 5 (1881), the reasons for the rule are less sure and less uniform than the rule itself. One explanation is that the execution of an insane person simply offends humanity, Coke 6; another, that it provides no example to others and thus contributes nothing to whatever deterrence value is intended to be served by capital punishment. Ibid. Other commentators postulate religious underpinnings: that it is uncharitable to dispatch an offender “into another world, when he is not of a capacity to fit himself for it,” Hawles 477. It is also said that execution serves no purpose in these cases because madness is its own punishment: furiosus solo furore punitur. Blackstone *395. More recent commentators opine that the community’s quest for “retribution” — the need to offset a criminal act by a punishment of equivalent “moral quality” — is not served by execution of an insane person, which has a “lesser value” than that of the crime for which he is to be punished. Hazard & Louisell, Death, the State, and the Insane: Stay of Execution, 9 UCLA L. Rev. 381, 387 (1962). Unanimity of rationale, therefore, we do not find. “But whatever the reason of the law is, it is plain the law is so.” Hawles 477. We know of virtually no authority condoning the execution of the insane at English common law.
Further indications suggest that this solid proscription was carried to America, where it was early observed that “the judge is bound” to stay the execution upon insanity of the prisoner. 1 J. Chitty, A Practical Treatise on the Criminal Law *761; see 1 F. Wharton, A Treatise on Criminal Law §59 (8th ed. 1880).
B
This ancestral legacy has not outlived its time. Today, no State in the Union permits the execution of the insane. It is clear that the ancient and humane limitation upon the State’s ability to execute its sentences has as firm a hold upon the jurisprudence of today as it had centuries ago in England. The various reasons put forth in support of the common-law restriction have no less logical, moral, and practical force than they did when first voiced. For today, no less than before, we may seriously question the retributive value of executing a person who has no comprehension of why he has been singled out and stripped of his fundamental right to life. See Note, The Eighth Amendment and the Execution of the Presently Incompetent, 32 Stan. L. Rev. 765, 777, n. 58 (1980). Similarly, the natural abhorrence civilized societies feel at killing one who has no capacity to come to grips with his own conscience or deity is still vivid today. And the intuition that such an execution simply offends humanity is evidently shared across this Nation. Faced with such widespread evidence of a restriction upon sovereign power, this Court is compelled to conclude that the Eighth Amendment prohibits a State from carrying out a sentence of death upon a prisoner who is insane. Whether its aim be to protect the condemned from fear and pain without comfort of understanding, or to protect the dignity of society itself from the barbarity of exacting mindless vengeance, the restriction finds enforcement in the Eighth Amendment.
I — I 1 — I HH
The Eighth Amendment prohibits the State from inflicting the penalty of death upon a prisoner who is insane. Petitioner’s allegation of insanity in his habeas corpus petition, if proved, therefore, would bar his execution. The question before us is whether the District Court was under an obligation to hold an evidentiary hearing on the question of Ford’s sanity. In answering that question, we bear in mind that, while the underlying social values encompassed by the Eighth Amendment are rooted in historical traditions, the manner in which our judicial system protects those values is purely a matter of contemporary law. Once a substantive right or restriction is recognized in the Constitution, therefore, its enforcement is in no way confined to the rudimentary process deemed adequate in ages past.
A
In a habeas corpus proceeding, “a federal evidentiary hearing is required unless the state-court trier of fact has after a full hearing reliably found the relevant facts.” Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293, 312-313 (1963). The habeas corpus statute, following this Court’s decision in Townsend, provides that, in general, “a determination after a hearing on the merits of a factual issue, made by a State court of competent jurisdiction..., shall be presumed to be correct,” and an evidentiary hearing not required. 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d). In this case, it is clear that no state court has issued any determination to which that presumption of correctness could be said to attach; indeed, no court played any role in the rejection of petitioner’s claim of insanity. Thus, quite simply, Townsend and §2254 require the District Court to grant a hearing de novo on that question.
But our examination does not stop there. For even when a state court has rendered judgment, a federal court is obliged to hold an evidentiary hearing on habeas corpus if, among other factors, “the factfinding procedure employed by the State court was not adequate to afford a full and fair hearing,” § 2254(d)(2); or “the material facts were not adequately developed at the State court hearing,” § 2254(d)(3); or “the applicant did not receive a full, fair, and adequate hearing in the State court proceeding.” § 2254(d)(6). If federal factfinding is to be avoided, then, in addition to providing a court judgment on the constitutional question, the State must also ensure that its procedures are adequate for the purpose of finding the facts.
B
The adequacy of a state-court procedure under Townsend is largely a function of the circumstances and the interests at stake. In capital proceedings generally, this Court has demanded that factfinding procedures aspire to a heightened standard of reliability. See, e. g., Spaziano v. Florida, 468 U. S. 447, 456 (1984). This especial concern is a natural consequence of the knowledge that execution is the most irremediable and unfathomable of penalties; that death is different. See Woodson v. North Carolina, 428 U. S. 280, 305 (1976) (opinion of Stewart, Powell, and Stevens, JJ.).
Although the condemned prisoner does not enjoy the same presumptions accorded a defendant who has yet to be convicted or sentenced, he has not lost the protection of the Constitution altogether; if the Constitution renders the fact or timing of his execution contingent upon establishment of a further fact, then that fact must be determined with the high regard for truth that befits a decision affecting the life or death of a human being. Thus, the ascertainment of a prisoner’s sanity as a predicate to lawful execution calls for no less stringent standards than those demanded in any other aspect of a capital proceeding. Indeed, a particularly acute need for guarding against error inheres in a determination that “in the present state of the mental sciences is at best a hazardous guess however conscientious.” Solesbee v. Balkcom, 339 U. S., at 23 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). That need is greater still because the ultimate decision will turn on the finding of a single fact, not on a range of equitable considerations. Cf. Woodson v. North Carolina, supra, at 304. In light of these concerns, the procedures employed in petitioner’s case do not fare well.
C
Florida law directs the Governor, when informed that a person under sentence of death may be insane, to stay the execution and appoint a commission of three psychiatrists to examine the prisoner. Fla. Stat. §922.07 (1985 and Supp. 1986). “The examination of the convicted person shall take place with all three psychiatrists present at the same time.” Ibid. After receiving the report of the commission, the Governor must determine whether “the convicted person has the mental capacity to understand the nature of the death penalty and the reasons why it was imposed on him.” Ibid. If the Governor finds that the prisoner has that capacity, then a death warrant is issued; if not, then the prisoner is committed to a mental health facility. The procedure is conducted wholly within the executive branch, ex parte, and provides the exclusive means for determining sanity. Ford v. Wainwright, 451 So. 2d, at 475.
Petitioner received the statutory process. The Governor selected three psychiatrists, who together interviewed Ford for a total of 30 minutes, in the presence of eight other people, including Ford’s counsel, the State’s attorneys, and correctional officials. The Governor’s order specifically directed that the attorneys should not participate in the examination in any adversarial manner. This order was consistent with the present Governor’s “publicly announced policy of excluding all advocacy on the part of the condemned from the process of determining whether a person under a sentence of death is insane.” Goode v. Wainwright, 448 So. 2d 999, 1001 (Fla. 1984).
After submission of the reports of the three examining psychiatrists, reaching conflicting diagnoses but agreeing on the ultimate issue of competency, Ford’s counsel attempted to submit to the Governor some other written materials, including the reports of the two other psychiatrists who had examined Ford at greater length, one of whom had concluded that the prisoner was not competent to suffer execution. The Governor’s office refused to inform counsel whether the submission would be considered. The Governor subsequently issued his decision in the form of a death warrant. That this most cursory form of procedural review fails to achieve even the minimal degree of reliability required for the protection of any constitutional interest, and thus falls short of adequacy under Townsend, is self-evident.
IV
A
The first deficiency in Florida’s procedure lies in its failure to include the prisoner in the truth-seeking process. Notwithstanding this Court’s longstanding pronouncement that “[t]he fundamental requisite of due process of law is the opportunity to be heard,” Grannis v. Órdean, 234 U. S. 385, 394 (1914), state practice does not permit any material relevant to the ultimate decision to be submitted on behalf of the prisoner facing execution. In all other proceedings leading to the execution of an accused, we have said that the factfinder must “have before it all possible relevant information about the individual defendant whose fate it must determine.” Jurek v. Texas, 428 U. S. 262, 276 (1976) (plurality opinion). And we have forbidden States to limit the capital defendant’s submission of relevant evidence in mitigation of the sentence. Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U. S. 1, 8 (1986); Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586, 604 (1978) (joint opinion). It would be odd were we now to abandon our insistence upon unfettered presentation of relevant information, before the final fact antecedent to execution has been found.
Rather, consistent with the heightened concern for fairness and accuracy that has characterized our review of the process requisite to the taking of a human life, we believe that any procedure that precludes the prisoner or his counsel from presenting material relevant to his sanity or bars consideration of that material by the factfinder is necessarily inadequate. “[T]he minimum assurance that the life-and-death guess will be a truly informed guess requires respect for the basic ingredient of due process, namely, an opportunity to be allowed to substantiate a claim before it is rejected.” Solesbee v. Balkcom, supra, at 23 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting).
We recently had occasion to underscore the value to be derived from a factfinder’s consideration of differing psychiatric opinions when resolving contested issues of mental state. In Ake v. Oklahoma, 470 U. S. 68 (1985), we recognized that, because “psychiatrists disagree widely and frequently on what constitutes mental illness [and] on the appropriate diagnosis to be attached to given behavior and symptoms,” the factfinder must resolve differences in opinion within the psychiatric profession “on the basis of the evidence offered by each party” when a defendant’s sanity is at issue in a criminal trial. Id., at 81. The same holds true after conviction; without any adversarial assistance from the prisoner’s representative — especially when the psychiatric opinion he proffers is based on much more extensive evaluation than that of the state-appointed commission — the factfinder loses the substantial benefit of potentially probative information. The result is a much greater likelihood of an erroneous decision.
B
A related flaw in the Florida procedure is the denial of any opportunity to challenge or impeach the state-appointed psychiatrists’ opinions. “[C]ross-examination... is beyond any doubt the greatest legal engine ever invented for the discovery of truth.” 5 J. Wigmore, Evidence § 1367 (J. Chadbourn rev. 1974). Cross-examination of the psychiatrists, or perhaps a less formal equivalent, would contribute markedly to the process of seeking truth in sanity disputes by bringing to light the bases for each expert’s beliefs, the precise factors underlying those beliefs, any history of error or caprice of the examiner, any personal bias with respect to the issue of capital punishment, the expert’s degree of certainty about his or her own conclusions, and the precise meaning of ambiguous words used in the report. Without some questioning of the experts concerning their technical conclusions, a factfinder simply cannot be expected to evaluate the various opinions, particularly when they are themselves inconsistent. See Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U. S. 880, 899 (1983). The failure of the Florida procedure to afford the prisoner’s representative any opportunity to clarify or challenge the state experts’ opinions or methods creates a significant possibility that the ultimate decision made in reliance on those experts will be distorted.
c
Perhaps the most striking defect in the procedures of Fla. Stat. §922.07 (1985 and Supp. 1986), as noted earlier, is the State’s placement of the decision wholly within the executive branch. Under this procedure, the person who appoints the experts and ultimately decides whether the State will be able to carry out the sentence that it has long sought is the Governor, whose subordinates have been responsible for initiating every stage of the prosecution of the condemned from arrest through sentencing. The commander of the State’s corps of prosecutors cannot be said to have the neutrality that is necessary for reliability in the factfinding proceeding.
Historically, delay of execution on account of insanity was not a matter of executive clemency (ex mandato regis) or judicial discretion (ex arbitrio judiéis); rather, it was required by law (ex necessitate legis). 1 N. Walker, Crime and Insanity in England 196 (1968). Thus, history affords no better basis than does logic for placing the final determination of a fact, critical to the trigger of a constitutional limitation upon the State’s power, in the hands of the State’s own chief executive. In no other circumstance of which we are aware is the vindication of a constitutional right entrusted to the unreviewable discretion of an administrative tribunal.
V
A
Having identified various failings of the Florida scheme, we must conclude that the State’s procedures for determining sanity are inadequate to preclude federal redetermination of the constitutional issue. We do not here suggest that only a full trial on the issue of sanity will suffice to protect the federal interests; we leave to the State the task of developing appropriate ways to enforce the constitutional restriction upon its execution of sentences. It may be that some high threshold showing on behalf of the prisoner will be found a necessary means to control the number of nonmeritorious or repetitive claims of insanity. Cf. Pate v. Robinson, 383 U. S. 375, 387 (1966) (hearing on competency to stand trial required if “sufficient doubt” of competency exists). Other legitimate pragmatic considerations may also supply the boundaries of the procedural safeguards that feasibly can be provided.
Yet the lodestar of any effort to devise a procedure must be the overriding dual imperative of providing redress for those with substantial claims and of encouraging accuracy in the factfinding determination. The stakes are high, and the “evidence” will always be imprecise. It is all the more important that the adversary presentation of relevant information be as unrestricted as possible. Also essential is that the manner of selecting and using the experts responsible for producing that “evidence” be conducive to the formation of neutral, sound, and professional judgments as to the prisoner’s ability to comprehend the nature of the penalty. Fidelity to these principles is the solemn obligation of a civilized society.
B
Today we have explicitly recognized in our law a principle that has long resided there. It is no less abhorrent today than it has been for centuries to exact in penance the life of one whose mental illness prevents him from comprehending the reasons for the penalty or its implications. In fight of the clear need for trustworthiness in any factual finding that will prevent or permit the carrying out of an execution, we hold that Fla. Stat. §922.07 (1985 and Supp. 1986) provides inadequate assurances of accuracy to satisfy the requirements of Townsend v. Sain, 372 U. S. 293 (1963). Having been denied a factfinding procedure “adequate to afford a full and fair hearing” on the critical issue, 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(2), petitioner is entitled to an evidentiary hearing in the District Court, de novo, on the question of his competence to be executed. Townsend v. Sain, swpra, at 312.
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.
At one point, Henry VIII enacted a law requiring that if a man convicted of treason fell mad, he should nevertheless be executed. 33 Hen. VIII, eh. 20. This law was uniformly condemned. See Blackstone *25; 1 Hale 35; 1 Hawkins 2. The “cruel and inhumane Law lived not long, but was repealed, for in that point also it was against the Common Law....” Coke 6.
Of the 50 States, 41 have a death penalty or statutes governing execution procedures. Of those, 26 have statutes explicitly requiring the suspension of the execution of a prisoner who meets the legal test for incompetence. See Ala. Code § 15-16-23 (1982); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 13-4023 (1978); Ark. Stat. Ann. §43-2622 (1977); Cal. Penal Code Ann. §3703 (West 1982); Colo. Rev. Stat. § 16-8-112(2) (Supp. 1985); Conn. Gen. Stat. §54-101 (1985); Fla. Stat. §922.07 (1985 and Supp. 1986); Ga. Code Ann. § 17-10-62 (1982); Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, ¶ 1005-2-3 (1982); Kan. Stat. Ann. §22-4006(3) (1981); Ky. Rev. Stat §431.240(2) (1985); Md. Ann. Code, Art. 27, § 75(c) (Supp. 1985); Miss. Code Ann. §99-19-57(2) (Supp. 1985); Mo. Rev. Stat §552.060 (1978); Mont. Code Ann. §46-14-221 (1984); Neb. Rev. Stat. §29-2537 (1979); Nev. Rev. Stat. §176.445 (1985); N. J. Stat. Ann. §30:4-82 (West 1981); N. M. Stat. Ann. §31-14-6 (1984); N. Y. Corree. Law § 656 (McKinney Supp. 1986); N. C. Gen. Stat. § 15A-1001 (1983); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §2949.29 (1982); Okla. Stat., Tit. 22, §1008 (1986); S. D. Codified Laws §23A-27A-24 (1979); Utah Code Ann. §77-19-13 (1982); Wyo. Stat. §7-13-901 (Supp. 1986). Others have adopted the common-law rule by judicial decision. See State v. Allen, 204 La. 513, 515, 15 So. 2d 870, 871 (1943); Commonwealth v. Moon, 383 Pa. 18, 22-23,117 A. 2d 96, 99 (1955); Jordan v. State, 124 Tenn. 81, 89-90 135 S. W. 327, 329 (1911); State v. Davis, 6 Wash. 2d 696, 717, 108 P. 2d 641, 651 (1940). Still others have more discretionary statutory procedures providing for the suspension of sentence and transfer to mental facilities for convicted prisoners who have developed mental illness. See Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, §406 (1979); Ind. Code § 11-10-4-2 (1982); Mass. Gen. Laws, ch. 279, §62 (1984); R. I. Gen. Laws §40.1-5.3-7 (1984); S. C. Code §44-23-220 (1985); Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Ann., Art. 46.01 (1979); Va. Code § 19.2-177 (1983). The remaining four States having a death penalty have no specific procedure governing insanity, but have not repudiated the common-law rule.
The adequacy of the factfinding procedures is further called into question by the cursory nature of the underlying psychiatric examination itself. While this Court does not purport to set substantive guidelines for the development of expert psychiatric opinion, ef. Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U. S. 880, 903 (1983), we can say that the goal of reliability is unlikely to be served by a single group interview, with no provision for the exercise of the psychiatrists’ professional judgment regarding the possible need for different or more comprehensive evaluative techniques. The inconsistency and vagueness of the conclusions reached by the three examining psychiatrists in this case attest to the dubious value of such an examination.
Instructive analogies may be found in the State’s own procedures for determining'whether a defendant is competent to stand trial, Fla. Stat. §§916.11-916.12 (1986 and Supp. 1986), or in the comprehensive safeguards
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33(a) allows a district court to “vacate any judgment and grant a new trial if the interest of justice so requires.” But “[a]ny motion for a new trial grounded on any reason other than newly discovered evidence must be filed within 7 days after the verdict or finding of guilty, or within such further time as the court sets during the 7-day period.” Rule 33(b)(2). This deadline is rigid. The Rules provide that courts “may not extend the time to take any action under [Rule 33], except as stated” in Rule 33 itself. Rule 45(b)(2). The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has construed Rule 33’s time limitations as “jurisdictional,” permitting the Government to raise noncompliance with those limitations for the first time on appeal. 388 F. 3d 1043, 1049 (2004). However, there is “a critical difference between a rule governing subject-matter jurisdiction and an inflexible claim-processing rule.” Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U. S. 443, 456 (2004). Rule 33 is an example of the latter. We grant the petition for certiorari and the motion for leave to proceed informa pauperis, and reverse the judgment of the Seventh Circuit.
HH
Petitioner Ivan Eberhart was convicted of one count of conspiring to distribute cocaine. On the last day available for post-trial motions, he moved for judgment of acquittal or, in the alternative, for a new trial. That motion raised a single ground for relief — an alleged flaw in a transcript that had been published to the jury. Nearly six months later, petitioner filed a “supplemental memorandum” supporting his motion. Two additional grounds appeared in that filing — admission of potential hearsay testimony into evidence, and the District Court’s failure to give a so-called “buyer-seller instruction” to the jury. 388 F. 3d, at 1047-1048. Rather than arguing, however, that the untimeliness of the supplemental memorandum barred the District Court from considering the issues it raised, the Government opposed it on the merits.
The District Court granted the motion for a new trial, citing all three grounds raised by petitioner. The judge concluded that “‘none of these concerns standing alone or in pairing would cause me to grant a new trial,’ ” but that taken together, they “ ‘persuade me that the interests of justice require a new trial.’” Id., at 1048. The judge also predicted that “‘a new trial will quite likely lead to another conviction.’” Ibid.
On appeal, the Government pointed to the untimeliness of petitioner’s supplemental memorandum, and argued that the District Court had abused its discretion in granting a new trial based on the arguments that the memorandum had raised. The Court of Appeals reversed the grant of a new trial, finding that the District Court had lacked jurisdiction to grant one. The Seventh Circuit observed: “The Supreme Court has held that Rule 45(b)’s prohibition on extensions of time is ‘mandatory and jurisdictional.’” Id., at 1049 (quoting United States v. Robinson, 361 U. S. 220, 229 (1960), and citing United States v. Smith, 331 U. S. 469, 474, n. 2 (1947)). Based on Robinson and Smith, the Seventh Circuit explained, “ ‘[w]e have previously emphasized that [Rule 33’s] 7-day period is jurisdictional, and that the court is without jurisdiction to consider even an amendment to a timely new trial motion if it is filed outside the seven day period, absent a timely extension by the court or new evidence.’” 388 F. 3d, at 1049 (quoting United States v. Washington, 184 F. 3d 653, 659 (CA7 1999)).
The Court of Appeals did, however, express some misgiving. After describing the holding of Kontrick, it commented that “[t]he reasoning of Kontrick may suggest that Rule 33’s time limits are merely inflexible claim-processing rules that could be forfeited if not timely asserted.” 388 F. 3d, at 1049. It concluded, however, that even if Kontrick had undermined Robinson and Smith, “we are bound to follow them until expressly overruled by the Supreme Court.” 388 F. 3d, at 1049 (citing Agostini v. Felton, 521 U. S. 203, 237 (1997)).
II
In Kontrick, we determined that defenses made available by the time limitations of Federal Rules of Bankruptcy Procedure 4004 and 9006 may be forfeited. 540 U. S., at 458-460. They are not “jurisdiction[al],” but are instead “claim-processing rules,” that may be “unalterable on a party’s application” but “can nonetheless be forfeited if the party asserting the rule waits too long to raise the point.” Id., at 456. In Kontrick, the debtor responded on the merits to a creditor’s untimely objection to his discharge. He did not raise the untimeliness issue, and the court resolved the merits in favor of the creditor. On motion for reconsideration and on appeal, the debtor raised the argument that Rules 4004 and 9006 “have the same import as provisions governing subject-matter jurisdiction.” Id., at 455. We rejected this assertion and found that the debtor had forfeited the timeliness argument.
The Rules we construed in Kontrick closely parallel those at issue here. Like a defendant wishing to move for a new trial under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 33, a creditor wishing to object to a debtor’s discharge in Chapter 7 liquidation proceedings has a set period of time to file with the court (measured, in the latter context, from “the first date set for the meeting of creditors”). Fed. Rule Bkrtcy. Proc. 4004(a). If a creditor so moves, “the court may for cause extend the time to file a complaint' objecting to discharge.” Rule 4004(b). And using language almost identical to Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 45(b)(2)’s admonition that “[t]he court may not extend the time to take any action under Rules 29, 33, 34, and 35, except as stated in those rules,” Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b)(3) states that “[t]he court may enlarge the time for taking action under Rules 1006(b)(2), 1017(e), 3002(c), 4003(b), 4004(a), 4007(c), 8002, and 9033, only to the extent and under the conditions stated in those rules.”
It is implausible that the Rules considered in Kontrick can be nonjurisdictional claim-processing rules, while virtually identical provisions of the Rules of Criminal Procedure can deprive federal courts of subject-matter jurisdiction. Nothing in Rules 33 or 45 or our cases requires such a dissonance. Moreover, our most recent decisions have attempted to brush away confusion introduced by our earlier opinions. “Clarity would be facilitated,” we have said, “if courts and litigants used the label 'jurisdictional’ not for claim-processing rules, but only for prescriptions delineating the classes of cases (subject-matter jurisdiction) and the persons (personal jurisdiction) falling within a court’s adjudicatory authority.” Kontrick, 540 U. S., at 455. We break no new ground in firmly classifying Rules 33 and 45 as claim-processing rules, despite the confusion generated by the “less than meticulous” uses of the term “jurisdictional” in our earlier eases. Id., at 454.
The Seventh Circuit correctly identified our decisions in Smith and Robinson as the source of the confusion. 388 F. 3d, at 1049. Since we have not “expressly ovérruled” them, it held, petitioner’s appeal had to be dismissed. Ibid. Those cases, however, do not hold the limits of the Rules to be jurisdictional in the proper sense that Kontrick describes. See 540 U. S., at 455. We need not overrule Robinson or Smith to characterize Rules 33 and 45 as claim-processing rules.
In Smith, the District Judge rejected a Rule 33 motion for a new trial, and the conviction was affirmed on appeal. 331 U. S., at 470. After the defendant was taken into custody, the District Judge changed his mind. Purporting to act under the authority of Rule 33, he issued an order vacating his earlier judgment and granting a new trial. Id., at 471. Although we observed in a footnote that “[t]he policy of the Rules was not to extend power indefinitely but to confine it within constant time periods,” id., at .473-474, n. 2, that observation hardly transforms the Rules into the keys to the kingdom of subject-matter jurisdiction. Rather, as we emphasized in the text, the District Judge could not use Rule 33 to sidestep a pre-existing basic principle of judicial process — that once a final judgment is issued and the court of appeals considers a case, a district court has no power to act on it further. This was a consequence, however, not of the Rule, but of the Rule’s failure to alter prior law. Smith does not address the effect of untimely arguments in support of a motion for new trial when, as here, the district'court is still considering post-trial motions and the case has not yet been appealed.
Nor does Robinson address that circumstance. Defendants were 11 days late in filing their notices of appeal under (what was then) Rule 37. The Government responded not by contesting the merits of the appeal, but by moving to dismiss on the basis of untimeliness. 361 U. S., at 221. The Court of Appeals determined that if the District Court found that the untimely notices of appeal sprang from “excusable neglect,” it could allow the appeals. On remand, the District Court so found. Id., at 222. We held that the Court of Appeals was wrong in having failed to dismiss under Rule 45(b). Id., at 229-230. Robinson is correct not because the District Court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, but because district courts must observe the clear limits of the Rules of Criminal Procedure when they are properly invoked. This does not mean that limits like those in Rule 33 are not forfeitable when they are not properly invoked. Despite its narrow and unremarkable holding, Robinson has created some confusion because of its observation that “courts have uniformly held that the taking of an appeal within the prescribed time is mandatory and jurisdictional.” Id., at 229 (emphasis added). Indeed, we used the phrase “mandatory and jurisdictional” four times in the opinion. And subsequent opinions have repeated this phrase, attributing it directly or indirectly to Robinson. See, e. g., Hohn v. United States, 524 U. S. 236, 247 (1998); Budinich v. Becton Dickinson & Co., 486 U. S. 196, 203 (1988); Griggs v. Provident Consumer Discount Co., 459 U. S. 56, 61 (1982) (per curiam); Browder v. Director, Dept. of Corrections of Ill., 434 U. S. 257, 264, 271-272 (1978). But see Houston v. Lack, 487 U. S. 266, 269 (1988) (reversing an order dismissing an appeal as jurisdictionally out of time when “[n]either the District Court nor respondent suggested that the notice of appeal might be untimely”); Thompson v. INS, 375 U. S. 384, 386 (1964) (per curiam) (permitting appeal, when petitioner conceded that post-trial motions were served late, in part because petitioner “relied on the Government’s failure to raise a claim of untimeliness When the motions were filed”).
As we recognized in Kontrick, courts “have more than occasionally used the term 'jurisdictional’ to describe emphatic time prescriptions in rules of court.” 540 U. S., at 454. See also ibid, (citing Robinson as an example of when we have been “less than meticulous” in our use of the word “jurisdictional”). The resulting imprecision has obscured the central point of the Robinson case — that when the Government objected to a filing untimely under Rule 37, the court’s duty to dismiss the appeal was mandatory. The net effect of Robinson, viewed through the clarifying lens of Kontrick, is to admonish the Government that failure to object to untimely submissions entails forfeiture of the objection, and to admonish defendants that timeliness is of the essence, since the Government is unlikely to miss timeliness defects very often.
Our more recent cases have done much to clarify this point. For instance, in Carlisle v. United States, 517 U. S. 416 (1996), we held that a court may not grant a postverdict motion for a judgment of acquittal that is untimely under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 29(c) when the prosecutor objects. As we pointedly noted in Kontrick, our holding in Carlisle did not “characterize [Rule 29] as ‘jurisdie-tional.’ ” 540 U. S., at 454-455. See also Scarborough v. Principi, 541 U. S. 401, 413-414 (2004) (relying on Kontrick to hold that time limitations on applications for attorney’s fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2412(d)(1), did not implicate subject-matter jurisdiction).
After Kontrick, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Rule 33 motions are similarly nonjurisdictional. By its terms, Rule 45(b)(2) has precisely the same effect on extensions of time under Rule 29 as it does under Rule 33, and as we noted in Kontrick, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 45(b) and Bankruptcy Rule 9006(b) are both “modeled on Federal .Rule of Civil Procedure 6(b).” 540 U. S., at 456, n. 10. Rule 33, like Rule 29 and Bankruptcy Rule 4004, is a claim-processing rule — one that is admittedly inflexible because of Rule 45(b)’s insistent demand for a definite end to proceedings. These claim-processing rules thus assure relief to a party properly raising them, but do not compel the same result if the party forfeits them. Here, where the Government failed to raise a defense of untimeliness until after the District Court had reached the merits, it forfeited that defense. The Court of Appeals should therefore have proceeded to the merits.
We finally add a word about the approach taken by the Court of Appeals. Although we find its disposition to have been in error, we fully appreciate that it is an error shared among the circuits, and that it was caused in large part by imprecision in our prior cases. Our repetition of the phrase “mandatory and jurisdictional” has understandably led the lower courts to err on the side of caution by giving the limitations in Rules 33 and 45 the force of subject-matter jurisdiction. Convinced, therefore, that Robinson and Smith governed this case, the Seventh Circuit felt bound to apply them, even though it expressed grave doubts in light of Kontrick. This was a prudent course. It neither forced the issue by upsetting what the Court of Appeals took to be our settled precedents, nor buried the issue by proceeding in a summary fashion. By adhering to its understanding of precedent, yet plainly expressing its doubts, it facilitated our review.
* * *
The judgment of the Seventh Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
MR. Justice Harlan
announced the judgment of the Court and an opinion joined by Mr. Justice Brennan and Mr. Justice Stewart.
In Ex parte Bakelite Corp., 279 U. S. 438, and Williams v. United States, 289 U. S. 553, this Court held that the United States Court of Customs and Patent Appeals and the United States Court of Claims were neither confined in jurisdiction nor protected in independence by Article III of the Constitution, but that both had been created by virtue of other, substantive, powers possessed by Congress under Article I. The Congress has since pronounced its disagreement by providing as to each that “such court is hereby declared to be a court established under article III of the Constitution of the United States.” The petitioners in these cases invite us to reaffirm the authority of our earlier decisions, and thus hold for naught these congressional pronouncements, at least as sought to be applied to judges appointed prior to their enactment.
No. 242 is a suit brought by individual employees in a New York state court to recover damages for breach of a collective bargaining agreement, and removed to the Federal District Court for the Southern District of New York by the defendant employer on the ground of diversity of citizenship. The employees’ right to recover was sustained by a divided panel of the Court of Appeals, in an opinion by Judge J. Warren Madden, then an active judge of the Court of Claims sitting by designation of the Chief Justice of the United States under 28 U. S. C. § 293 (a). No. 481 is a criminal prosecution instituted in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and resulting in a conviction for armed robbery. The trial was presided over by Judge Joseph R. Jackson, a retired judge of the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals sitting by similar designation. The petitioner’s application for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals in forma pauperis, respecting the validity of this designation and alleged trial errors, was upheld by this Court last Term, 366 U. S. 712; we are now asked to review the Court of Appeals’ affirmance of his conviction. Because of the significance of the “designation” issue for the federal judicial system, we granted certiorari in the two cases, 368 U. S. 814, 815, limited to the question whether the judgment in either was vitiated by the respective participation of the judges named.
The claim advanced by the petitioners, that they were denied the protection of judges with tenure and compensation guaranteed by Article III, has nothing to do with the manner in which either of these judges conducted himself in these proceedings. No contention is made that either Judge Madden or Judge Jackson displayed a lack of appropriate judicial independence, or that either sought by his rulings to curry favor with Congress or the Executive. Both indeed enjoy statutory assurance of tenure and compensation, and were it not for the explicit provisions of Article III we should be quite unable to say that either judge’s participation even colorably denied the petitioners independent judicial hearings.
Article III, § 1, however, is explicit and gives the petitioners a basis for complaint without requiring them to point to particular instances of mistreatment in the record. It provides:
“The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services, a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.”
Apart from this provision, it is settled that neither the tenure nor salary of federal officers is constitutionally protected from impairment by Congress. Crenshaw v. United States, 134 U. S. 99, 107-108; cf. Butler v. Pennsylvania, 10 How. 402, 416-418. The statutory declaration, therefore, that the judges of these two courts should serve during good behavior and with undiminished salary, see note 5, supra, was ineffective to bind any subsequent Congress unless those judges were invested at appointment with the protections of Article III. United States v. Fisher, 109 U. S. 143, 145; see McAllister v. United States, 141 U. S. 174, 186. And the petitioners naturally point to the Bakelite and Williams cases, supra, as establishing that no such constitutional protection was in fact conferred.
The distinction referred to in those cases between “constitutional” and “legislative” courts has been productive of much confusion and controversy. Because of the highly theoretical nature of the problem in its present context, we would be well advised to decide these cases on narrower grounds if any are fairly available. But for reasons that follow, we find ourselves unable to do so.
I.
No challenge to the authority of the judges was filed in the course of the proceedings before them in either case. The Solicitor General, who submitted briefs and arguments for the United States, has seized upon this circumstance to suggest that the petitioners should be precluded by the so-called de facto doctrine from questioning the validity of these designations for the first time on appeal.
Whatever may be the rule when a judge’s authority is challenged at the earliest practicable moment, as it was in United States v. American-Foreign S. S. Corp., 363 U. S. 685, in other circumstances involving judicial authority this Court has described it as well settled “that where there is an office to be filled and one acting under color of authority fills the office and discharges its duties, his actions are those of an officer de facto and binding upon the public.” McDowell v. United States, 159 U. S. 596, 602. The rule is founded upon an obviously sound policy of preventing litigants from abiding the outcome of a lawsuit and then overturning it if adverse upon a technicality of which they were previously aware. Although a United States Attorney may be permitted on behalf of the public to upset an order issued upon defective authority, Frad v. Kelly, 302 U. S. 312, a private litigant ordinarily may not. Ball v. United States, 140 U. S. 118, 128-129.
The rule does not obtain, of course, when the alleged defect of authority operates also as a limitation on this Court’s appellate jurisdiction. Ayrshire Collieries Corp. v. United States, 331 U. S. 132 (three-judge court); United States v. Emholt, 105 U. S. 414 (certificate of divided opinion). In other circumstances as well, when the statute claimed to restrict authority is not merely technical but embodies a strong policy concerning the proper administration of judicial business, this Court has treated the alleged defect as “jurisdictional” and agreed to consider it on direct review even though not raised at the earliest practicable opportunity. E. g., American Construction Co. v. Jacksonville, T. & K. W. R. Co., 148 U. S. 372, 387-388.
A fortiori is this so when the challenge is based upon nonfrivolous constitutional grounds. In McDowell v. United States itself, supra, at 598-599, the Court, while, holding that any defect in statutory authorization for a particular intracircuit assignment was immunized from examination by the de facto doctrine, specifically passed upon and upheld the constitutional authority of Congress to provide for such an assignment. And in Lamar v. United States, 241 U. S. 103, 117-118, the claim that an intercircuit assignment violated the criminal venue restrictions of the Sixth Amendment and usurped the presidential appointing power under Art. II, § 2, was heard here and determined upon its merits, despite the fact that it had not been raised in the District Court or in the Court of Appeals or even in this Court until the filing of a supplemental brief upon a second request for review.
The alleged defect of authority here relates to basic constitutional protections designed in part for the benefit of litigants. See O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U. S. 516, 532-534. It should be examinable at least on direct review, where its consideration encounters none of the objections associated with the principle of res judicata, that there be an end to litigation. At the most is weighed in opposition the disruption to sound appellate process entailed by entertaining objections not raised below, and that is plainly insufficient to overcome the strong interest of the federal judiciary in maintaining the constitutional plan of separation of powers. So this Court has con-eluded on an analogous balance struck to protect against intruding federal jurisdiction into the area constitutionally reserved to the States: Whether diversity of citizenship exists may be questioned on direct review for the first time in this Court. Mansfield, C. & L. M. R. Co. v. Swan, 111 U. S. 379, 382; City of Gainesville v. Brown-Crummer Investment Co., 277 U. S. 54, 59. We hold that it is similarly open to these petitioners to challenge the constitutional authority of the judges below.
II.
The Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia found it unnecessary to reach the question whether Judge Jackson enjoyed constitutional security of tenure and compensation. It held that even if he did not, Congress might authorize his assignment to courts in the District of Columbia, by virtue of its power “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever” over the District. Art. I, § 8, cl. 17. The Solicitor General, in support of that ruling, argues here that because the criminal charge against petitioner Lurk was violation of a local statute, D. C. Code, 1961, § 22^2901, rather than of one national in application, its trial did not require the assignment of an Article III judge.
The question thus raised is itself of constitutional dimension, and one which we need not reach if an Article III judge was in fact assigned. In the companion case, No. 242, the necessity for such a judge is uncontested. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit sat to determine a question of state contract law presented for its decision solely by reason of the diverse citizenship of the litigants. Authority for the Federal Government to decide questions of state law exists only by virtue of the Diversity Clause in Article III. Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64; see Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How. 272 284. For this reason, the question whether Judge Madden enjoyed constitutional independence is inescapably presented. Since decision of that question involves considerations bearing directly upon the constitutional status of Judge Jackson, we deem it appropriate to dispose of both cases on the same grounds, without at present intimating any view as to the correctness of the holding below by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
III.
The next question is whether the character of the judges who sat in these cases may be determined without reference to the character of the courts to which they were originally appointed. If it were plain that these judges were invested upon confirmation with Article III tenure and compensation, it would be unnecessary for present purposes to consider the constitutional status of the Court of Claims and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
No such course, however, appears to be open. The statutes under which Judge Madden and Judge Jackson were appointed speak of service only on those courts. 28 U. S. C. §§ 171, 211. They were not, as were the judges selected for the late Commerce Court, appointed as “additional circuit judges,” Act of June 18, 1910, c. 309, 36 Stat. 539, 540, whose tenure might be constitutionally secured regardless of the fortunes of their courts. See 50 Cong. Rec. 5409-5418 (1913); Donegan v. Dyson, 269 U. S. 49; Frankfurter and Landis, The Business of the Supreme Court (1927), 168-173. It is true that at the time of Judge Jackson’s appointment there was in force a statute authorizing assignment of Court of Customs and Patent Appeals judges to serve on the courts of the District of Columbia. Act of September 14, 1922, c. 306, § 5, 42 Stat. 837, 839. At that time, however, before the O’Donoghue decision, there seems to have been a consensus that the courts of the District were not confined or protected by Article III; as late as 1930, this Court regarded it as “recognized that the courts of the District of Columbia are not created under the judiciary article of the Constitution but are legislative courts....” Federal Radio Comm’n v. General Electric Co., 281 U. S. 464, 468; and see Katz, Federal Legislative Courts, 43 Harv. L. Rev. 894, 899-903 (1930). The 1922 Act cannot therefore be viewed ex proprio vigore as conferring Article III status on judges subsequently appointed to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals.
A more novel suggestion is that the assignment statute itself, 28 U. S. C. §§ 291-296, authorized the Chief Justice to appoint inferior Article III judges in the course of designating them for service on Article III courts. See Shartel, Federal Judges — Appointment, Supervision, and Removal — Some Possibilities under the Constitution, 28 Mich. L. Rev. 485 (1930); cf. Ex parte Siebold, 100 U. S. 371, 397-398; Rice v. Ames, 180 U. S. 371, 378. But we need not consider the constitutional questions involved in this suggestion, for the statute does not readily lend itself to such a construction. If nothing else, the authority given the Chief Justice in 28 U. S. C. § 295 to revoke assignments previously made is wholly inconsistent with a reading of the statute as empowering him to appoint inferior Article III judges. Judges assigned by the Chief Justice who are not previously endowed with constitutional security of tenure and compensation thus can gain nothing by the designation.
It is significant that Congress did not enact the present broad assignment statute until after it had declared the Court of Claims and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals to be constitutional courts. Act of August 25, 1958, 72 Stat. 848. A major purpose of these declarations was to eliminate uncertainty whether regular Article III judges might be assigned to assist in the business of those courts when disability or disqualification made it difficult for them to obtain a quorum. Those doubts, suggested by dicta in Ex parte Bakelite Corp., 279 U. S. 438, 460, would be expanded rather than allayed were we to hold that the judges of the Court of Claims and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals enjoy the protections of Article III while leaving at large the status of those courts. For these various reasons, the constitutional quality of tenure and compensation extended Judges Madden and Jackson at the time of their confirmation must be deemed to have depended upon the constitutional status of the courts to which they were primarily appointed.
IV.
In determining the constitutional character of the Court of Claims and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals, as we are thus led to do, we may not disregard Congress’ declaration that they were created under Article III. Of course, Congress may not by fiat overturn the constitutional decisions of this Court, but the legislative history of the 1953 and 1958 declarations makes plain that it was far from attempting any such thing. Typical is a statement in the 1958 House Report that the purpose of the legislation was to “declare which of the powers Congress was intending to exercise when the court was created.” H. R. Rep. No. 2349, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. 3 (1958); accord, H. R. Rep. No. 695, 83d Cong., 1st Sess. 3, 5, 7 (1953); and see S. Rep. No. 275, 83d Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1953), substituted for S. Rep. No. 261, 83d Cong., 1st Sess. 2 (1953); 99 Cong. Rec. 8943, 8944 (1953) (remarks of Senator Gore).
“Subsequent legislation which declares the intent of an earlier law,” this Court has noted, “is not, of course, conclusive in determining w'hat the previous Congress meant. But the later law is entitled to weight when it comes to the problem of construction.” Federal Housing Administration v. Darlington, Inc., 358 U. S. 84, 90; accord, New York, P. & N. R. Co. v. Peninsula Exchange, 240 U. S. 34, 39. Especially is this so when the Congress has been stimulated by decisions of this Court to investigate the historical materials involved and has drawn from them a contrary conclusion. United States v. Hutcheson, 312 U. S. 219, 235-237. As examination of the House and Senate Reports makes evident, that is what occurred here. E. g., S. Rep. No. 2309, 85th Cong., 2d Sess. 2-3 (1958); H. R. Rep. No. 695, 83d Cong., 1st Sess. 3-5 (1953).
At the time when Bakelite and Williams were decided, the Court did not have the benefit of this congressional understanding. The Williams case, for example, arose under the Legislative Appropriation Act of June 30, 1932, c. 314, § 107 (a)(5), 47 Stat. 382, 402, which reduced the salary of all judges “except judges whose compensation may not, under the Constitution, be diminished during their continuance in office.” Mr. Justice Sutherland, who wrote the Court’s opinions in both Williams and O’Don-oghue, was plainly disadvantaged by the absence of congressional intimation as to which judges of which courts were to be deemed exempted. See O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U. S. 516, 529.
In the Bakelite case, to be sure, Mr. Justice Van De-vanter said of an argument drawn from tenuous evidence of congressional understanding that it “mistakenly assumes that whether a court is of one class or the other depends on the intention of Congress, whereas the true test lies in the power under which the court was created and in the jurisdiction conferred.” 279 U. S., at 459. Yet he would hardly have denied that explicit evidence of legislative intendment concerning the factors he thought controlling may be relevant and indeed highly persuasive. In any event, the Bakelite dictum did not embarrass the Court in deciding O’Donoghue, where it looked searchingly at “congressional practice” to determine what classification that body “recognizes.” 289 U. S., at 548-550. We think the forthright statement of understanding embraced in the 1953 and 1958 declarations may be taken as similarly persuasive evidence for the problem now before us.
To give due weight to these congressional declarations is not of course to compromise the authority or responsibility of this Court as the ultimate expositor of the Constitution. The Bakelite and Williams decisions have long been considered of questionable soundness. See, e. g., Brown, The Rent in Our Judicial Armor, 10 G. W. L. Rev. 127 (1941); Hart and Wechsler, The Federal Courts and the Federal System (1953), 348-351; 1 Moore, Federal Practice (2d ed. 1961), 71 n. 21. They stand uneasily next to O’Donoghue, much of whose reasoning in sustaining the Article III status of the District of Columbia superior courts seems applicable to the Court of Claims and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals. In Pope v. United States, 323 U. S. 1, 13-14, where the Solicitor General argued at length against the continued vitality of Bakelite and Williams, their authority was regarded as an open question.
Furthermore, apart from this Court’s considered practice not to apply stare decisis as rigidly in constitutional as in nonconstitutional cases, e. g., United States v. South Buffalo R. Co., 333 U. S. 771, 774-775; see Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U. S. 393, 405-408 and n. 1-3 (Brandéis, J., dissenting), there is the fact that Congress has acted on its understanding and has provided for assignment of judges who have made decisions that are now said to be impeachable. In these circumstances, the practical consideration underlying the doctrine of stare decisis — protection of generated expectations — actually militates in favor of reexamining the decisions. We are well-advised, therefore, to regard the questions decided in those cases as entirely open to reconsideration.
Y.
The Constitution nowhere makes reference to “legislative courts.” The power given Congress in Art. I, § 8, cl. 9, “To constitute Tribunals inferior to the supreme Court,” plainly relates to the “inferior Courts” provided for in Art. Ill, § 1; it has never been relied on for establishment of any other tribunals.
The concept of a legislative court derives from the opinion of Chief Justice Marshall in American Insurance Co. v. Canter, 1 Pet. 511, dealing with courts established in a territory. A cargo of cotton salvaged from a wreck off the coast of Florida had been purchased by Canter at a judicial sale ordered by a court at Key West invested by the territorial legislature with jurisdiction over cases of salvage. The insurers, to whom the property in the cargo had been abandoned by the owners, brought a libel for restitution, claiming in part that the prior decree was void because not rendered in a court created by Congress, as required for the exercise of admiralty jurisdiction under Article III. Chief Justice Marshall for the Court swept this objection aside by noting that the Superior Courts of Florida, which had been created by Congress, were staffed with judges appointed for only four years, and concluded that Article III did not apply in the territories:
“These Courts, then, are not constitutional Courts, in which the judicial power conferred by the Constitution on the general government, can be deposited. They are incapable of receiving it. They are legislative Courts, created in virtue of the general right of sovereignty which exists in the government, or in virtue of that clause which enables Congress to make all needful rules and regulations, respecting the territory belonging to the United States.” 1 Pet., at 546.
By these arresting observations the Chief Justice certainly did not mean to imply that the case heard by the Key West court was not one of admiralty jurisdiction otherwise properly justiciable in a Federal District Court sitting in one of the States. Elsewhere in the opinion he distinctly referred to the provisions of Article III to show that it was such a case. 1 Pet., at 545. All the Chief Justice meant, and what the case has ever after been taken to establish, is that in the territories cases and controversies falling within the enumeration of Article III may be heard and decided in courts constituted without regard to the limitations of that article; courts, that is, having judges of limited tenure and entertaining business beyond the range of conventional cases and controversies.
The reasons for this are not difficult to appreciate so long as the character of the early territories and some of the practical problems arising from their administration are kept in mind. The entire governmental responsibility in a territory where there was no state government to assume the burden of local regulation devolved upon the National Government. This meant that courts had to be established and staffed with sufficient judges to handle the general jurisdiction that elsewhere would have been exercised in large part by the courts of a State. But when the territories began entering into statehood, as they soon did, the authority of the territorial courts over matters of state concern ceased; and in a time when the size of the federal judiciary was still relatively small, that left the National Government with a significant number of territorial judges on its hands and no place to put them. When Florida was admitted as a State, for example, Congress replaced three territorial courts of general jurisdiction comprising five judges with one Federal District Court and one judge.
At the same time as the absence of a federal structure in the territories produced problems not foreseen by the Framers of Article III, the realities of territorial government typically made it less urgent that judges there enjoy the independence from Congress and the President envisioned by that article. For the territories were not ruled immediately from Washington; in a day of poor roads and slow mails, it was unthinkable that they should be. Rather, Congress left municipal law to be developed largely by the territorial legislatures, within the framework of organic acts and subject to a retained power of veto. The scope of self-government exercised under these delegations was nearly as broad as that enjoyed by the States, and the freedom of the territories to dispense with protections deemed inherent in a separation of governmental powers was as fully recognized.
Against this historical background, it is hardly surprising that Chief Justice Marshall decided as he did. It would have been doctrinaire in the extreme to deny the right of Congress to invest judges of its creation with authority to dispose of the judicial business of the territories. It would have been at least as dogmatic, having recognized the right, to fasten on those judges a guarantee of tenure that Congress could not put to use and that the exigencies of the territories did not require. Marshall chose neither course; conscious as ever of his responsibility to see the Constitution work, he recognized a greater flexibility in Congress to deal with problems arising outside the normal context of a federal system.
The same confluence of practical considerations that dictated the result in Canter has governed the decision in later cases sanctioning the creation of other courts with judges of limited tenure. In United States v. Coe, 155 U. S. 76, 85-86, for example, the Court sustained the authority of the Court of Private Land Claims to adjudicate claims under treaties to land in the territories, but left it expressly open whether such a course might be followed within the States. The Choctaw and Chickasaw Citizenship Court was similarly created to determine questions of tribal membership relevant to property claims within Indian territory under the exclusive control of the National Government. See Stephens v. Cherokee Nation, 174 U. S. 445; Ex parte Joins, 191 U. S. 93; Wallace v. Adams, 204 U. S. 415. Upon like considerations, Article III has been viewed as inapplicable to courts created in unincorporated territories outside the mainland, Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244, 266-267; Balzac v. Porto Rico, 258 U. S. 298, 312-313; cf. Dorr v. United States, 195 U. S. 138, 145, 149, and to the consular courts established by concessions from foreign countries, In re Ross, 140 U. S. 453, 464-465, 480.
The touchstone of decision in all these cases has been the need to exercise the jurisdiction then and there and for a transitory period. Whether constitutional limitations on the exercise of judicial power have been held inapplicable has depended on the particular local setting, the practical necessities, and the possible alternatives. When the peculiar reasons justifying investiture of judges with limited tenure have not been present, the Canter holding has not been deemed controlling. O’Donoghue v. United States, 289 U. S. 516, 536-539.
Since the conditions obtaining in one territory have been assumed to exist in each, this Court has in the past entertained a presumption that even those territorial judges who have been extended statutory assurances of life tenure and undiminished compensation have been so favored as a matter of legislative grace and not of constitutional compulsion. McAllister v. United States, 141 U. S. 174, 186. By a parity of reasoning, however, the presumption should be reversed when Congress creates courts the continuing exercise of whose jurisdiction is unembarrassed by such practical difficulties. See Mookini v. United States, 303 U. S. 201, 205. As the Bakelite and Williams opinions recognize, the Court of Claims and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals were created to carry into effect powers enjoyed by the National Government over subject matter — roughly, payment of debts and collection of customs revenue — and not over localities. What those opinions fail to deal with is whether that distinction deprives American Insurance Co. v. Canter of controlling force.
The Bakelite opinion did not inquire whether there might be such a distinction. After sketching the history of the territorial and consular courts, it continued at once:
“Legislative courts also may be created as special tribunals to examine and determine various matters, arising between the government and others, which from their nature do not require judicial determination and yet are susceptible of it.” 279 U. S., at 451.
Since in the Court’s view the jurisdiction conferred on both the Court of Claims and the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals included “nothing which inherently or necessarily requires judicial determination,” both could have been and were created as legislative courts.
We need not pause to assess the Court’s characterization of the jurisdiction conferred on those courts, beyond indicating certain reservations about its accuracy. Nor need we now explore the extent to which Congress may commit the execution of even “inherently” judicial business to tribunals other than Article III courts. We may and do assume, for present purposes, that none of the jurisdiction vested in our two courts is of that sort, so that all of it might be committed for final determination to non-Article III tribunals, be they denominated legislative courts or administrative agencies.
But because Congress may employ such tribunals assuredly does not mean that it must. This is the crucial non sequitur of the Bakelite and Williams opinions. Each assumed that because Congress might have assigned specified jurisdiction to an administrative agency, it must be deemed to have done so even though it assigned that jurisdiction to a tribunal having every appearance of a court and composed of judges enjoying statutory assurances of life tenure and undiminished compensation. In so doing, each appears to have misunderstood the thrust of the celebrated observation by Mr. Justice Curtis, that
.. there are matters, involving public rights, which may be presented in such form that the judicial power is capable of acting on them, and which are susceptible of judicial determination, but which congress may or may not bring within the cognizance of the courts of the United States, as it may deem proper.” Murray’s Lessee v. Hoboken Land & Improvement Co., 18 How. 272, 284.
This passage, cited in both the Bakelite and Williams opinions, plainly did not mean that the matters referred to could not be entrusted to Article III courts. Quite the contrary, the explicit predicate to Justice Curtis’ argument was that such courts could exercise judicial power over such cases. For the very statute whose authorization of summary distress proceedings was sustained in the Murray case, also authorized the distrainee to bring suit to arrest the levy against the United States in a Federal District Court. And as to this, the author of the opinion stated, just before his more trenchant remark quoted above:
“The United States consents that this fact of indebtedness may be drawn in question by a suit against them. Though they might have withheld their consent, we think that, by granting it, nothing which may not be a subject of judicial cognizance is brought before the court.”
Thus Murray’s Lessee, far from furnishing authority against the proposition that the Court of Claims is a constitutional court, actually supports it.
To deny that Congress may create tribunals under Article III for the sole purpose of adjudicating matters that it might have reserved for legislative or executive decision would be to deprive it of the very choice that Mr. Justice Curtis insisted it enjoys. Of course possession of the choice, assuming it is coextensive with the range of matters confided to the courts, subjects those courts to the continuous possibility that their entire jurisdiction may be withdrawn. See Williams v. United States, 289 U. S. 553, 580-581. But the threat thus facing their independence is not in kind or effect different from that sustained by all inferior federal courts. The great constitutional compromise that resulted in agreement upon Art. Ill, § 1, authorized but did not obligate Congress to create inferior federal courts. I Farrand, The Records of the Federal Convention (1911), 118, 124 — 125; The Federalist, No. 81 (Wright ed. 1961), at 509 (Hamilton). Once created, they passed almost a century without exercising any very significant jurisdiction. Warren, New Light on the History of the Federal Judiciary Act of 1789, 37 Harv. L. Rev. 49, 65-70 (1923); Frankfurter, Distribution of Judicial Power Between United States and State Courts, 13 Cornell L. Q. 499 (1928). Throughout this period and beyond it up to today, they remained constantly subject to jurisdictional curtailment. Turner v. Bank of North America, 4 Dall. 8, 10 note (Chase, J.); Cary v. Curtis, 3 How. 236, 245; Sheldon v. Sill, 8 How. 441, 449; Kline v. Burke Construction Co., 260 U. S. 226, 233-234. Even if it should be conceded that the Court of Claims or the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals is any more likely to be supplanted, we do not think the factor of constitutional significance.
What has been said should suffice to demonstrate that whether a tribunal is to be recognized as one created under Article III depends basically upon whether its establishing legislation complies with the limitations of that article; whether, in other words, its business is the federal business there specified and its judges and judgments are allowed the independence, there expressly or impliedly made requisite. To ascertain whether the courts now under inquiry can meet those tests, we must turn to examine their history, the development of their functions, and their present characteristics.
VI.
A. Court of Claims. — The Court of Claims was created by the Act of February 24, 1855, c. 122, 10 Stat. 612, primarily to relieve the pressure on Congress caused by the volume of private bills. As an innovation the court was at first regarded as an experiment, and some of its creators were reluctant to give it all the attributes of a court by making its judgments final; instead it was authorized to hear claims and report its findings of fact and opinions to Congress, together with drafts of bills designed to carry its recommendations into effect. §7, 10 Stat. 613; see Cong. Globe, 33d Cong., 2d Sess. 70-72 (1854) (remarks of Senators Brodhead and Hunter). From the outset, however, a majority of the court’s proponents insisted that its judges be given life tenure as a means of assuring independence of judgment, and their proposal won acceptance in the Act. § 1,10 Stat. 612; see Cong. Globe, 33d Cong., 2d Sess. 71, 108-109 (Senator Hunter); 72 (Senator Clayton); 106 (Senator Brodhead); 110 (Senator Pratt); 114, 902 (the votes). Indeed there are substantial indications in the debates that Congress thought it was establishing a court under Article III. Cong. Globe, 33d Cong., 2d Sess. 108-109 (Senator Hunter); 110-111 (Senator Pratt); 111 (Senator Clayton); 113 (Senators Stuart and Douglas).
By the end of 1861, however, it was apparent that the limited powers conferred on the court were insufficient to relieve Congress from the laborious necessity of examining the merits of private bills. In his State of the Union message that year, President
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This case calls upon us to determine whether we should fashion a federal common law rule obliging the representative shareholder in a derivative action founded on the Investment Company Act of 1940, 54 Stat. 789, 15 U. S. C. § 80a-l(a) et seq., to make a demand on the board of directors even when such a demand would be excused as futile under state law. Because the scope of the demand requirement embodies the incorporating State’s allocation of governing powers within the corporation, and because a futility exception to demand does not impede the purposes of the Investment Company Act, we decline to displace state law with a uniform rule abolishing the futility exception in federal derivative actions.
1 — 1
The Investment Company Act of 1940 (ICA or Act) establishes a scheme designed to regulate one aspect of the management of investment companies that provide so-called “mutual fund” services. Mutual funds pool the investment assets of individual shareholders. Such funds typically are organized and underwritten by the same firm that serves as the company’s “investment adviser.” The ICA seeks to arrest the potential conflicts of interest inherent in such an arrangement. See generally Daily Income Fund, Inc. v. Fox, 464 U. S. 523, 536-541 (1984); Burks v. Lasker, 441 U. S. 471, 480-481 (1979). The Act requires, inter alia, that at least 40% of the investment company’s directors be financially independent of the investment adviser, 15 U. S. C. §§80a-10(a), 80a — 2(a)(19)(iii); that the contract between the adviser and the company be approved by a majority of the company’s shareholders, §80a-15(a); and that the dealings of the adviser with the company measure up to a fiduciary standard, the breach of which gives rise to a cause of action by either the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) or an individual shareholder on the company’s behalf, § 80a-35(b).
Petitioner brought this suit to enforce § 20(a) of the Act, 15 U. S. C. § 80a-20(a), which prohibits materially misleading proxy statements. The complaint was styled as a shareholder derivative action brought on behalf of respondent Cash Equivalent Fund, Inc. (Fund), a registered investment company, against Kemper Financial Services, Inc. (KFS), the Fund’s investment adviser. Petitioner alleged that KFS obtained shareholder approval of the investment-adviser contract by causing the Fund to issue a proxy statement that materially misrepresented the character of KFS’ fees. See App. to Pet. for Cert. 90a-91a. Petitioner also averred that she made no precomplaint demand on the Fund’s board of directors because doing so would have been futile. In support of this allegation, the complaint stated that all of the directors were under the control of KFS, that the board had voted unanimously to approve the offending proxy statement, and that the board had subsequently evidenced its hostility to petitioner’s claim by moving to dismiss. See id., at 92a-93a. The District Court granted KFS’ motion to dismiss on the ground that petitioner had failed to plead the facts excusing demand with sufficient particularity for purposes of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1. See 659 F. Supp. 1153, 1160-1163 (ND Ill. 1987).
The Court of Appeals affirmed the dismissal of petitioner’s § 20(a) claim. See 908 F. 2d 1338 (CA7 1990). Like the District Court, the Court of Appeals concluded that petitioner’s failure to make a precomplaint demand was fatal to her case. Drawing heavily on the American Law Institute’s Principles of Corporate Governance (Tent. Draft No. 8, Apr. 15, 1988), the Court of Appeals concluded that the futility exception does little more than generate wasteful threshold litigation collateral to the merits of the derivative shareholder’s claim. For that reason, the court adopted as a rule of federal common law the ALI’s so-called “universal demand” rule, under which the futility exception is abolished. See 908 F. 2d, at 1344; see also ALI, Principles of Corporate Governance, swpra, §§ 7.03(a) — (lo), and comment a. The court acknowledged this Court’s precedents holding that courts should incorporate state law when fashioning federal common law rules to fill the interstices of private causes of action brought under federal securities laws. See 908 F. 2d, at 1342. Nonetheless, because petitioner had neglected until her reply brief to advert to the established status of the futility exception under the law of Maryland — the State in which the Fund is incorporated — the court held that petitioner’s challenge to the court’s power to adopt the ALI’s universal-demand rule “c[ame] too late” to be considered. Ibid.
We granted certiorari, 498 U. S. 997 (1990), and now reverse.
II
The derivative form of action permits an individual shareholder to bring “suit to enforce a corporate cause of action against officers, directors, and third parties.” Ross v. Bernhard, 396 U. S. 531, 534 (1970). Devised as a suit in equity, the purpose of the derivative action was to place in the hands of the individual shareholder a means to protect the interests of the corporation from the misfeasance and malfeasance of “faithless directors and managers.” Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541, 548 (1949). To prevent abuse of this remedy, however, equity courts established as a “precondition for the suit” that the shareholder demonstrate that “the corporation itself had refused to proceed after suitable demand, unless excused by extraordinary conditions.” Ross v. Bernhard, supra, at 534. This requirement is accommodated by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1, which states in pertinent part:
“The complaint [in a shareholder derivative action] shall... allege with particularity the efforts, if any, made by the plaintiff to obtain the action the plaintiff desires from the directors or comparable authority and, if necessary, from the shareholders or members, and the reasons for the plaintiff’s failure to obtain the action or for not making the effort.”
But although Rule 23.1 clearly contemplates both the demand requirement and the possibility that demand may be excused, it does not create a demand requirement of any particular dimension. On its face, Rule 23.1 speaks only to the adequacy of the shareholder representative’s pleadings. Indeed, as a rule of procedure issued pursuant to the Rules Enabling Act, Rule 23.1 cannot be understood to “abridge, enlarge or modify any substantive right.” 28 U. S. C. § 2072(b). The purpose of the demand requirement is to “af-for[d] the directors an opportunity to exercise their reasonable business judgment and ‘waive a legal right vested in the corporation in the belief that its best interests will be promoted by not insisting on such right.’” Daily Income Fund, Inc. v. Fox, 464 U. S., at 533, quoting Corbus v. Alaska Treadwell Gold Mining Co., 187 U. S. 455, 463 (1903). Ordinarily, it is only when demand is excused that the shareholder enjoys the right to initiate “suit on behalf of his corporation in disregard of the directors’ wishes.” R. Clark, Corporate Law § 15.2, p. 640 (1986). In our view, the function of the demand doctrine in delimiting the respective powers of the individual shareholder and of the directors to control corporate litigation clearly is a matter of “substance,” not “procedure.” See Daily Income Fund, Inc. v. Fox, supra, at 543-544, and n. 2 (Stevens, J., concurring in judgment); cf. Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., supra, at 555-557 (state security-for-costs statute limits shareholder’s “substantive” right to maintain derivative action); Hanna v. Plumer, 380 U. S. 460, 477 (1965) (Harlan, J., concurring) (rule is “substantive” when it regulates derivative shareholder’s primary conduct in exercise of corporate managerial power). Thus, in order to determine whether the demand requirement may be excused by futility in a derivative action founded on § 20(a) of the ICA, we must identify the source and content of the substantive law that defines the demand requirement in such a suit.
Ill
A
It is clear that the contours of the demand requirement in a derivative action founded on the ICA are governed by federal law. Because the ICA is a federal statute, any common law rule necessary to effectuate a private cause of action under that statute is necessarily federal in character. See Burks v. Lasker, 441 U. S., at 476-477; Sola Electric Co. v. Jefferson Electric Co., 317 U. S. 173, 176 (1942).
It does not follow, however, that the content of such a rule must be wholly the product of a federal court’s own devising. Our cases indicate that a court should endeavor to fill the interstices of federal remedial schemes with uniform federal rules only when the scheme in question evidences a distinct need for nationwide legal standards, see, e. g., Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 U. S. 863, 366-367 (1943), or when express provisions in analogous statutory schemes embody congressional policy choices readily applicable to the matter at hand, see, e. g., Boyle v. United Technologies Corp., 487 U. S. 500, 511-512 (1988); DelCostello v. Teamsters, 462 U. S. 151, 169-172 (1983). Otherwise, we have in-. dicated that federal courts should “incorporate] [state law] as the federal rule of decision,” unless “application of [the particular] state law [in question] would frustrate specific objectives of the federal programs.” United States v. Kimbell Foods, Inc., 440 U. S. 715, 728 (1979). The presumption that state law should be incorporated into federal common law is particularly strong in areas in which private parties have entered legal relationships with the expectation that their rights and obligations would be governed by state-law standards. See id., at 728-729, 739-740 (commercial law); Reconstruction Finance Corp. v. Beaver County, 328 U. S. 204, 210 (1946) (property law); see also De Sylva v. Ballentine, 351 U. S. 570, 580-581 (1956) (borrowing family law because of primary state responsibility).
Corporation law is one such area. See Burks v. Lasker, supra. The issue in Burks was whether the disinterested directors of a registered investment company possess the power to terminate a nonfrivolous derivative action founded on the ICA and the Investment Advisers Act of 1940 (IAA). We held that a federal court should look to state law to answer this question. See id, at 477-485. “'Corporations,’” we emphasized, “‘are creatures of state law,’... and it is state law which is the font of corporate directors’ powers.” Id,., at 478, quoting Cort v. Ash, 422 U. S. 66, 84 (1975). We discerned nothing in the limited regulatory objectives of the ICA or IAA that evidenced a congressional intent that “federal courts... fashion an entire body of federal corporate law out of whole cloth.” 441 U. S., at 480. Consequently, we concluded that gaps in these statutes bearing on the allocation of governing power within the corporation should be filled with state law “unless the state la[w] permit[s] action prohibited by the Acts, or unless ‘[its] application would be inconsistent with the federal policy underlying the cause of action Id., at 479, quoting Johnson v. Railway Express Agency, Inc., 421 U. S. 454, 465 (1975).
Defending the reasoning of the Court of Appeals, KFS argues that petitioner waived her right to the application of anything other than a uniform federal rule of demand because she failed to advert to state law until her reply brief in the proceedings below. We disagree. When an issue or claim is properly before the court, the court is not limited to the particular legal theories advanced by the parties, but rather retains the independent power to identify and apply the proper construction of governing law. See, e. g., Arcadia v. Ohio Power Co., 498 U. S. 78, 77 (1990). It is not disputed that petitioner effectively invoked federal common law as the basis of her right to forgo demand as futile. Having undertaken to decide this claim, the Court of Appeals was not free to promulgate a federal common law demand rule without identifying the proper source of federal common law in this area. Cf. Lamar v. Micou, 114 U. S. 218, 223 (1885) (“The law of any State of the Union, whether depending upon statutes or upon judicial opinions, is a matter of which the courts of the United States are bound to take judicial notice, without plea or proof”); Bowen v. Johnston, 306 U. S. 19, 23 (1939) (same). Indeed, we note that the Court of Appeals viewed itself as free to adopt the American Law Institute’s universal-demand rule even though neither party addressed whether the futility exception should be abolished as a matter of federal common law.
The question, then, is whether the Court of Appeals drew its universal-demand rule from an improper source when it disregarded state law relating to the futility exception. To answer that question, we must first determine whether the demand requirement comes within the purview of Burks’ presumption of state-law incorporation, that is, whether the scope of the demand requirement affects the allocation of governing power within the corporation. If so, we must then determine whether a futility exception to the demand requirement impedes the policies underlying the ICA.
B
Because the contours of the demand requirement — when it is required, and when excused — determine who has the power to control corporate litigation, we have little trouble concluding that this aspect of state law relates to the allocation of governing powers within the corporation. The purpose of requiring a precomplaint demand is to protect the directors’ prerogative to take over the litigation or to oppose it. See, e. g., Spiegel v. Buntrock, 571 A. 2d 767, 773 (Del. 1990). In most jurisdictions, the board’s decision to do the former ends the shareholder’s control of the suit, see R. Clark, Corporate Law § 15.2, p. 640 (1986), while its decision to do the latter is subject only to the deferential “business judgment rule” standard of review, see, e. g., Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, 430 A. 2d 779, 784, and n. 10 (Del. 1981). Thus, the demand requirement implements “the basic principle of corporate governance that the decisions of a corporation—including the decision to initiate litigation-should be made by the board of directors or the majority of shareholders.” Daily Income Fund, Inc. v. Fox, 464 U. S., at 530.
To the extent that a jurisdiction recognizes the futility exception to demand, the jurisdiction places a limit upon the directors’ usual power to control the initiation of corporate litigation. Although “jurisdictions differ widely in defining the circumstances under which demand on directors will be excused,” D. DeMott, Shareholder Derivative Actions § 5:03, p. 35 (1987), demand typically is deemed to be futile when a majority of the directors have participated in or approved the alleged wrongdoing, see, e. g., Barr v. Wackman, 36 N. Y. 2d 371, 381, 329 N. E. 2d 180, 188 (1975), or are otherwise financially interested in the challenged transactions, see, e. g., Aronson v. Lewis, 473 A. 2d 805, 814 (Del. 1984). By permitting the shareholder to circumvent the board’s business judgment on the desirability of corporate litigation, the “futility” exception defines the circumstances in which the shareholder may exercise this particular incident of managerial authority. See, e. g., Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, supra, at 784.
The futility exception to the demand requirement may also determine the scope of the directors’ power to terminate derivative litigation once initiated—the very aspect of state corporation law that we were concerned with in Burks. In many (but not all) States, the board may delegate to a committee of disinterested directors the board’s power to control corporate litigation. See generally R. Clark, supra, § 15.2.3. Some of these jurisdictions treat the decision of a special litigation committee to terminate a derivative suit as automatically entitled to deference under the “business judgment rule.” See, e. g., Auerbach v. Bennett, 47 N. Y. 2d 619, 631-633, 393 N. E. 2d 994, 1001-1002 (1979). Others, including Delaware, defer to the decision of a special litigation committee only in a “demand required” ease; in a “demand excused” case, these States first require the court to confirm the “independence, good faith and... reasonable investigatory]” efforts of the committee and then authorize the court to exercise its “own independent business judgment” in assessing whether to enforce the committee’s recommendation, Zapata Corp. v. Maldonado, supra, at 788-789; see Spiegel v. Buntrock, supra, at 778. Thus, in these jurisdictions, “the entire question of demand futility is inextricably bound to issues of business judgment and the standards of that doctrine’s applicability.” Aronson v. Lewis, supra, at 812.
Superimposing a rule of universal-demand over the corporate doctrine of these States would clearly upset the balance that they have struck between the power of the individual shareholder and the power of the directors to control corporate litigation. Under the law of Delaware and the States that follow its lead, a shareholder who makes demand may not later assert that demand was in fact excused as futile. Spiegel v. Buntrock, 571 A. 2d, at 775. Once a demand has been made, the decision to block or to terminate the litigation rests solely on the business judgment of the directors. See ibid. Thus, by taking away the shareholder’s right to withhold demand under the circumstances where demand is deemed to be futile under state law, a universal-demand rule, in direct contravention of the teachings of Burks, would enlarge the power of directors to control corporate litigation. See 441 U. S., at 478-479.
KFS contends that the scope of a federal common law demand requirement need not be tied to the allocation of power to control corporate litigation. This is so, KFS suggests, because a court adjudicating a derivative action based on federal law could sever the requirement of shareholder demand from the standard used to review the directors’ decision to bar initiation of, or to terminate, the litigation. Drawing on the ALI’s Principles of Corporate Governance, the Court of Appeals came to this same conclusion. See 908 F. 2d, at 1343-1344. Freed from the question of the directors’ power to control the litigation, the universal-demand requirement, KFS maintains, would force would-be derivative suit plaintiffs to exhaust their intracorporate remedies before filing suit and would spare both the courts and the parties the expense associated with the often protracted threshold litigation that attends the collateral issue of demand futility.
We reject this analysis. Whatever its merits as a matter of legal reform, we believe that KFS’ proposal to detach the demand standard from the standard for reviewing board action would require a quantum of federal common lawmaking that exceeds federal courts’ interstitial mandate. Under state law, the determination whether a derivative representative can initiate a suit without making demand typically is made at the outset of the litigation and is based on the application of the State’s futility doctrine to circumstances as they then exist. D. DeMott, swpra, §5:03, at 31. Under KFS’ proposal, federal courts would be obliged to develop a body of principles that would replicate the substantive effect of the State’s demand futility doctrine but that would be applied after demand has been made and refused. The ALI, for example, has developed an elaborate set of standards that calibrates the deference afforded the decision of the directors to the character of the claim being asserted by the derivative plaintiff. See ALI, Principles of Corporate Governance §7.08 (Tent. Draft No. 8, Apr. 15, 1988); id., §7.08, Comment c, p. 120 (noting that Principles “dra[w] a basic distinction between the standard of review applicable to actions that are founded on a breach of the duty of care and the standard of review applicable to actions that are founded on a breach of the duty of loyalty”). Whether a federal court adopts the ALPs standards wholesale or instead attempts to devise postdemand review standards more finely tuned to the distinctive allocation of managerial decisionmaking power embodied in any given jurisdiction’s demand futility doctrine, KFS’ suggestion would impose upon federal courts the very duty “to fashion an entire body of federal corporate law” that Burks sought to avoid. 441 U. S., at 480.
Such a project, moreover, would necessarily infuse corporate decisionmaking with uncertainty. For example, insofar as Delaware law does not permit a shareholder to make a demand and later to assert its futility, receipt of demand makes it crystal, clear to the directors of a Delaware corporation that the decision whether to commit the corporation to litigation lies solely in their discretion. See Spiegel v. Buntrock, supra, at 775. Were we to impose a universal-demand rule, however, the directors of such a corporation could draw no such inference from receipt of demand by a shareholder contemplating a federal derivative action. Because the entitlement of the directors’ decision to deference in such a case would depend on the court’s application of independent review standards somewhere down the road, the directors could do no more than speculate as to whether they should assess the merits of the demand themselves or instead incur the time and expense associated with forming a special litigation committee; indeed, at that stage, even the deference due the decision of such a committee would be unclear. The directors’ dilemma would be especially acute if the shareholder were proposing to join state-law and federal claims, see RCM Securities Fund, Inc. v. Stanton, 928 F. 2d 1318, 1327-1328 (CA2 1991), a common form of action in federal derivative practice, see D. DeMott, Shareholder Derivative Actions §4:08, 71 (1987). It is to avoid precisely this type of disruption to the internal affairs of the corporation that Burks counsels against establishing competing federal- and state-law principles on the allocation of managerial prerogatives within the corporation. See generally Restatement (Second) of Conflict of Laws §302, Comment e, p. 309 (1971) (“Uniform treatment of directors, officers and shareholders is an important objective which can only be attained by having the rights and liabilities of those persons with respect to the corporation governed by a single law”).
Finally, in our view, KFS overstates the likely judicial economies associated with a federal universal-demand rule when coupled with independent standards of review. Requiring demand in all cases, it is true, might marginally enhance the prospect that corporate disputes would be resolved without resort to litigation; however, nothing disables the directors from seeking an accommodation with a representative shareholder even after the shareholder files his complaint in an action in which demand is excused as futile. At the same time, the rule proposed by KFS is unlikely to avoid the high collateral litigation costs associated with the demand futility doctrine. So long as a federal court endeavors to reproduce through independent review standards the allocation of managerial power embodied in the demand futility doctrine, KFS’ universal-demand rule will merely shift the focus of threshold litigation from the question whether demand is excused to the question whether the directors’ decision to terminate the suit is entitled to deference under federal standards. Under these circumstances, we do not view the advantages associated with KFS’ proposal to be sufficiently apparent to justify replacing “the entire corpus of state corporation law” relating to demand futility. See Burks v. Lasker, 441 U. S., at 478.
C
We would nonetheless be constrained to displace state law in this area were we to conclude that the futility exception to the demand requirement is inconsistent with the policies underlying the ICA. See id., at 479-480. KFS contends that the futility exception does impede the regulatory objectives of the statute. As KFS notes, the requirement that at least 40% of the board of directors be financially independent of the investment adviser constitutes “[t]he cornerstone of the ICA’s effort to control conflicts of interest within mutual funds.” Id., at 482. KFS argues that the futility exception undermines the “watchdog” role assigned to the independent directors, see id., at 484-485, because empowering a shareholder to institute corporate litigation without the permission of the board allows the shareholder to “usurp” the independent directors’ managerial oversight responsibility. See Brief for Respondent KFS 40.
We disagree. KFS’ argument misconceives the means by which Congress intended independent directors to exercise their oversight function under the ICA. As we emphasized in Burks, the ICA embodies a congressional expectation that the independent directors would “loo[k] after the interests of the [investment company]” by “exercising the authority granted to them by state law.” 441 U. S., at 485 (emphasis added). Indeed, we specifically noted in Burks that “[t]he ICA does not purport to be the source of authority for managerial power; rather the Act functions primarily to ‘imposte] controls and restrictions on the internal management of investment companies.’” Id., at 478, quoting United States v. National Assn. of Securities Dealers, Inc., 422 U. S. 694, 705 n. 13 (1975) (emphasis added by Burks Court). We thus discern no policy in the Act that would require us to give the independent directors, or the boards of investment companies as a whole, greater power to block shareholder derivative litigation than these actors possess under the law of the State of incorporation.
KFS also-'ignores the role that the ICA clearly envisions for shareholders in protecting investment companies from conflicts of interest. As we have pointed out, § 36(b) of the ICA expressly provides that an individual shareholder may bring an action on behalf of the investment company for breach of the investment adviser’s fiduciary duty. 15 U. S. C. §80a-35(b). Congress added § 36(b) to the ICA in 1970 because it concluded that the shareholders should not have to “rely solely on the fund’s directors to assure reasonable adviser fees, notwithstanding the increased disinterestedness of the board.” Daily Income Fund, Inc. v. Fox, 464 U. S., at 540. This legislative background informed our conclusion in Fox that a shareholder action “on behalf of” the company under § 36(b) is direct rather than derivative and can therefore be maintained without any precomplaint demand on the directors. Under these circumstances, it can hardly be maintained that a shareholder’s exercise of his state-created prerogative to initiate a derivative suit without the consent of the directors frustrates the broader policy objectives of the ICA.
IV
We reaffirm the basic teaching of Burks v. Lasker, supra: where a gap in the federal securities laws must be bridged by a rule that bears on the allocation of governing powers within the corporation, federal courts should incorporate state law into federal common law unless the particular state law in question is inconsistent with the policies underlying the federal statute. The scope of the demand requirement under state law clearly regulates the allocation of corporate governing powers between the directors and individual shareholders. Because a futility exception to demand does not impede the regulatory objectives of the ICA, a court that is entertaining a derivative action under that statute must apply the demand futility exception as it is defined by the law of the State of incorporation. The Court of Appeals thus erred by fashioning a uniform federal common law rule abolishing the futility exception in derivative actions founded on the ICA.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Section 20(a) states:
“It shall be unlawful for any person, by use of the mails or any means or instrumentality of interstate commerce or otherwise, to solicit or to permit the use of his name to solicit any proxy or consent or authorization in respect of any security of which a registered investment company is the issuer in contravention of such rules and regulations as the [SEC] may prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest or for the protection of investors.” 15 U. S. C. §80a-20(a).
SEC regulations require proxy statements issued by a registered investment company to comply with the proxy statement rules promulgated under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. See 17 CFR § 270.20a-l(a) (1990). The latter rules prohibit materially misleading statements. See § 240.14a-9.
The ALI’s proposal would excuse demand “only when the plaintiff makes a specific showing that irreparable injury to the corporation would otherwise result.” Principles of Corporate Governance § 7.03(b). The Court of Appeals did not specifically address this aspect of the ALI’s proposal, although the court did reject the possibility that “exigencies of time” would warrant dispensing with demand. 908 F. 2d, at 1344.
The Court of Appeals also reversed the District Court’s conclusion that petitioner could not sue under § 36(b) of the Act, 15 U. S. C. § 80a-35(b), because she was not an adequate shareholder representative under Rule 23.1. See 908 F. 2d, at 1347-1349. After holding that petitioner was not entitled to a jury trial, the Court of Appeals remanded for further proceedings on petitioner’s §36(b) claim. See id., at 1350-1351. No aspect of the Court of Appeals’ disposition of petitioner’s § 36(b) claim is before this Court.
We have never addressed the question whether § 20(a) creates a shareholder cause of action, either direct or derivative. The SEC, as ami-cus curiae, urges us to hold that a shareholder may bring suit under § 20(a) but only on his own behalf. The parties did not litigate this question in the Court of Appeals, and because that court disposed of petitioner’s claim on different grounds, it declined to address whether § 20(a) creates a derivative action. See 908 F. 2d 1338, 1341 (CA7 1990). The petition for certio-rari likewise did not raise this issue in the questions presented. Because the question whether § 20(a) supports a derivative action is not jurisdictional, see Burks v. Lasker, 441 U. S. 471, 476, n. 5 (1979), and because we do not ordinarily address issues raised only by amici, see, e. g., United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Mitchell, 451 U. S. 56, 60, n. 2 (1981), we leave this question for another day. See Burks v. Lasker, supra, at 475-476 (assuming existence of derivative action under ICA for purposes of determining power of independent directors to terminate suit).
We do not mean to suggest that a court of appeals should not treat an unasserted claim as waived or that the court has no discretion to deny a party the benefit of favorable legal authorities when the party fails to comply with reasonable local rules on the timely presentation of arguments. See generally Singleton v. Wulff, 428 U. S. 106, 121 (1976). Nonetheless, if a court undertakes to sanction a litigant by deciding an effectively raised claim according to a truncated body of law, the court should refrain from issuing an opinion that could reasonably be understood by lower courts and nonparties to establish binding circuit precedent on the issue decided.
KFS argues that Burks is not controlling because this Court established a uniform, federal common law demand requirement in Halves v. Oakland, 104 U. S. 450 (1882). This contention is unpersuasive. In Hawes, this Court articulated a demand requirement (along with a futility exception) to protect the managerial prerogatives of the corporate directors and to prevent the collusive manufacture of diversity jurisdiction. See id., at 460-461. The latter objective, which is clearly a proper aim of federal law, is now governed not by a federal common law doctrine of demand but rather by the express terms of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1, which requires the plaintiff to allege that “the action is not a collusive one to confer jurisdiction on a court of the United States.” See also Smith v. Sperling, 354 U. S. 91, 95-98 (1957) (district court should look to “face of the pleadings and [to] nature of the controversy” to resolve jurisdictional issues in derivative action founded on diversity). Insofar as Halves aspired to regulate the substantive managerial prerogatives of directors in a derivative action founded on diversity of citizenship, the demand rule established in that ease does not survive Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64 (1938). Cf. Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541, 555-557 (1949) (federal court sitting in diversity must apply state seeurity-for-costs statute in derivative action). Of course, the principles recognized in Erie place no limit on a federal court’s power to fashion federal common law rules necessary to effectuate a derivative remedy founded on federal law. See Burks v. Lasker, 441 U. S., at 476. But in this respect, whatever philosophy of federal common lawmaking can be gleaned from Haioes has been eclipsed by the philosophy of Burks. In sum, Hawes is irrelevant to our disposition of this ease.
All States require that a shareholder make a precomplaint demand on the directors. See D. DeMott, Shareholder Derivative Actions § 5:03, p. 23 (1987); id., at 65, n. 1 (Supp. 1990). Only a few States, however, have adopted a universal-demand rule. See Fla. Stat. Ann. § 607.07401(2) (Supp. 1991); Ga. Code Ann. § 14-2-742 (1989); Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 450.1493a(a) (1990).
The American Bar Association’s Model Business Corporation Act likewise abolishes the futility exception to demand. See Model Business Corporation Act § 7.42(1), reprinted
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Clakk
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This appeal concerns the scope of a contract carrier permit granted appellant by the Interstate Commerce Commission under the “grandfather clause” of the Motor Carrier Act of 1935. The Commission interpreted “stock in trade of drug stores,” a commodity description in appellant’s permit, to authorize carriage of only those goods which at time of movement are, or are intended to become, part of the stock in trade of a drugstore. On the basis of that interpretation, an appropriate cease and desist order prohibiting carriage of unauthorized goods was entered. 63 M. C. C. 407. After a three-judge District Court refused to enjoin enforcement of the order, 150 F. Supp. 181, direct appeal was taken to this Court, and we noted probable jurisdiction. 352 U. S. 905 (1956). For reasons hereinafter stated we affirm the judgment of the District Court.
Appellant’s predecessor, Andrew G. Nelson, having operated as a contract carrier before enactment of the Motor Carrier Act, applied for a permit to continue his operation subsequent to passage of the Act, as contemplated by § 209 (a) thereof. The application described Nelson’s complete operation as "transportation ... of store fixtures and miscellaneous merchandise, and household goods of employes, for Walgreen Co., in connection with the opening, closing and remodeling of stores.” In a supporting affidavit Nelson stated that he was “an interstate contract carrier of property for the Walgreen Company and for it alone ... to and from Walgreen Retail Stores . . . the commodities so transported [being] usually store fixtures and equipment and merchandise for the opening stock.” Filed with the affidavit were 17 delivery receipts showing contract carriage for Walgreen in 1934-1935.
On March 13, 1942, the Commission issued the permit in controversy without a hearing, relying on the application and supporting papers filed by Nelson. The permit authorized contract carriage of “[n]ew and used store fixtures, new and used household goods, and stock in trade of drug stores” over irregular routes in 10 States. Upon Nelson’s incorporation in 1951, the Commission issued an identical permit to the corporation, the appellant here. In 1954, an investigation by the Commission to determine if appellant was operating beyond the bounds of its permit authority revealed that appellant was carrying a wide range of commodities for many kinds of shippers, including groceries for grocery stores, beer and wine to liquor distributors, dry glue to manufacturers of gummed products, and automobile batteries to department stores. The Commission held that such carriage, all of which appellant attempted to justify under the description “stock in trade of drug stores,” violated § 209 of the Act, which prohibits contract carriage without a permit authorizing the business in question.
Appellant contends that the critical language of the permit, “stock in trade of drug stores,” is a generic description of commodities by reference to place of sale, entitling it to transport goods like those stocked by present-day drugstores to any consignee within the authorized operating territory. The Commission, however, regards these words as a description of commodities by reference to intended use, authorizing a more limited carriage: goods moving to a drugstore for sale therein, or if moving elsewhere, then with the intention at the time of movement that they ultimately will become part of the goods stocked by a drugstore. Appellant argues that the intended use of the goods is of no consequence here because (1) intended use restrictions are never applied to commodity descriptions by reference to place of sale, and (2) intended use restrictions were developed by the Commission long after issuance of Nelson’s permit and cannot now be applied retroactively. Finally, having offered evidence of a much more extensive grandfather operation than was set out in Nelson’s application and affidavits, appellant contends that the Commission erred in excluding such evidence.
Before considering these contentions, we first note that the plain meaning of words in a commodity description is controlling in the absence of ambiguity or specialized usage in the trade. Neither of the parties believes the description here patently ambiguous, nor do we consider it to be such. Moreover, appellant is unwilling to say that the instant description is a term of art, while the Commission specifically asserts that it is not. Consequently, the ordinary meaning of the words used in the permit is determinative. In ascertaining that meaning, we are not given carte blanche; just as “[t]he precise delineation of an enterprise which seeks the protection of the ‘grandfather’ clause has been reserved for the Commission,” Noble v. United States, 319 U. S. 88, 93 (1943), subsequent construction of the grandfather permit by the Commission is controlling on the courts unless clearly erroneous. Dart Transit Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 110 F. Supp. 876, aff’d, 345 U. S, 980 (1953).
In construing “stock in trade of drug stores,” the Commission found the controverted words to be a commodity description" by reference to intended use; it held them equivalent to “drug stores’ stock” and analogized the latter to such descriptions as “contractors’ equipment” or “packing house supplies.” On that basis it required that the goods transported be intended for use by a drugstore as part of its stock in trade.
The Commission rejected appellant’s contention that the words of this permit are a description by reference to place of sale. In making that contention appellant equates the permit’s language with “goods such as are sold in drug stores.” It is obvious to us that such a reading enlarges the ordinary meaning of the words. As pointed out by the examiner, 63 M. C. C., at 414, the description used in the permit connotes possession, and therefore lends itself more readily to “drug stores’ stock” than it does to “goods such as are sold in drug stores.” Moreover, an examination of the Commission’s decisions indicates use of a definite and distinctive linguistic pattern whenever descriptions are made by reference to place of sale: if the Commission’s purpose has been to authorize transportation of goods like those named in the permit, that purpose consistently has been revealed by use of the phrase “such as,” or a close variation thereof. Yet there is no such phrase in the present permit. These considerations are bulwarked by the record Nelson put before the Commission in 1942, clearly showing that he was hauling Walgreen’s drugstore stock, and not goods such as might be stocked for sale by Walgreen. On balance, therefore, we are compelled to think the Commission right; certainly it is not clearly wrong.
Appellant contends that the permit language cannot embody an intended use restriction because such restrictions were not formulated by the Commission until after issuance of Nelson’s permit and cannot be retroactively applied as a limitation on the same. The Commission challenges the assertion that the intended use restriction was never applied prior to issuance of the permit. It is unnecessary for us to resolve that question, however. Assuming that the intended use test first appeared as a commodity description technique after appellant’s predecessor obtained his permit, we think the Commission still free to interpret the permit as it has done. Its determination accords with the common, ordinary meaning of the words used, and in no way strains or artificializes that meaning. If the controverted words fairly lend themselves now to the construction made here, they always have done so. Consequently, any retroactive application of the intended use test could work no prejudice to appellant; once it is determined that the ordinary meaning of the description is neither more nor less than the Commission’s interpretation, the manner in which the Commission arrived at its conclusion is not controlling.
Finally, appellant contends that the Commission’s interpretation limits the actual- — though previously unas-serted — scope of grandfather operations carried on by appellant’s predecessor, thus subverting the substantial parity which a grandfather permit should establish between pre-Act and post-Act operations. Alton R. Co. v. United States, 315 U. S. 15 (1942). If this be so, the remedy lies elsewhere: in the event the grandfather permit does not correctly reflect the scope of the grandfather operation, the carrier’s recourse is to petition the Commission to reopen the grandfather proceedings for consideration of the evidence not previously brought to the Commission’s attention. Such a contention is no answer to the present charge of permit violation, since the permit cannot be collaterally attacked. Callarían Road Improvement Co. v. United States, 345 U. S. 507 (1953); Interstate Commerce Comm’n v. Consolidated Freight-ways, Inc., 41 F. Supp. 651. To hold otherwise would render meaningless the congressional requirement of a permit to continue grandfather operations subsequent to the Act.
Appellant’s arguments based on noncompliance with the Administrative Procedure Act, 60 Stat. 237, 5 U. S. C. §§ 1001-1011, have no merit.
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Douglas dissents.
This Act became Part II of the Interstate Commerce Act. Section 209 (a), 49 Stat. 552, as amended, 52 Stat. 1238, 64 Stat. 575, 49 U. S. C. §309 (a)(1), makes it unlawful to engage in interstate contract carriage by motor vehicle without a permit from the Interstate Commerce Commission; however, the first proviso thereto provides that the Commission shall issue a permit as a matter of course upon application by a carrier for authority to operate a route over which the carrier or a predecessor in interest was in bona fide operation on July 1, 1935. That proviso is commonly called the “grandfather clause.”
Since neither party attaches any significance to certain underscoring of language in the permit, we do not italicize that language.
Appellant does argue alternatively that if the Commission’s interpretation is adopted, the description necessarily would be ambiguous. This is a considerable twisting of appellant’s earlier position, consistently maintained throughout these proceedings, that the permit’s phraseology exhibits no ambiguity or indefiniteness. In this regard, the Commission held, “We agree with the contention of the parties and the examiner’s conclusion that there is no such patent ambiguity in the permit as to warrant our going back of it and giving consideration to events prior to its issuance.” 63 M. C. C., at 409.
Absent patent ambiguity, it is well established that the Commission will not' refer to the underlying grandfather operation. P. Saldutti & Son, Inc. — Interpretation of Permit, 63 M. C. C. 593. Even if such reference is made here, however, the Nelson application and all the documents filed with it describe an operation solely for the Walgreen Drug Company; appellant admits that all the record evidence before the Commission gives “the impression that Nelson was hauling only for Walgreen.” That background in nowise supports appellant’s position here, since it shows Nelson to have been carrying goods actually destined to become part of the stock of a drugstore, and not merely goods like those stocked by such a store. Although appellant offers evidence now of a grandfather operation more extensive than carriage merely for Walgreen, it seems obvious that the Commission’s intent in issuing the present permit is not to be ascertained from evidence unknown to the Commission at the time of issuance.
It is true, of course, that limitations on Commission power to modify motor carrier permits, established in § 212 (a) of the Act, cannot be by-passed under a guise of interpretative action. Commission interpretation of the meaning of a permit, being simply a definitive declaration of what rights existed from the very beginning under the permit, cannot be equated with modification, however, unless found to be clearly erroneous.
See C. & H. Transportation Co. — Interpretation of Certificate, 62 M. C. C. 586, holding that “contractors’ equipment and supplies” authorized transportation of such goods only when intended for use by a contractor; transportation of similar goods for use by a branch of the armed services was held unauthorized.
See Dart Transit Co. — Modification of Permit, 49 M. C. C. 607, holding that “packing house supplies” means supplies that in fact are intended to be used in a packing house, and not supplies like those used in packing houses.
In contending, then, that the Commission erred in applying the intended use test to a commodity description by reference to place of sale, appellant clearly begs the question at issue.
Appellant argues that McAteer Contract Carrier Application, 42 M. C. C. 35, equates the phrases “goods such as are sold in” and “stock in trade of.” The opinion’s single use of the latter phrase, however, gives no support to such a contention.
See, e. g., Interstate Commerce Comm’n v. Ratner, 6 CCH Fed. Carriers Cases ¶ 80,415 (“such merchandise as is dealt in by wholesale food business houses”); Anton Vidas Contract Carrier Application, 62 M. C. C. 106 (“such commodities as are sold by retail mail-order houses”); National Trucking Co. Extension — Electrical Appliances, 51 M. C. C. 638 (“such commodities as are dealt in by wholesale and retail hardware stores”); Sanders Extension of Operations, 47 M. C. C. 210 (“such general merchandise as is dealt in by wholesale and retail grocery stores”); McAteer Contract Carrier Application, 42 M. C. C. 35 (“such merchandise as is dealt in by wholesale, retail, and chain grocery and food business houses”); Onondaga Freight Corp. Common Carrier Application, 28 M. C. C. 53 (“such merchandise as is dealt in by retail food stores”); Keystone Transportation Co. Contract Carrier Application, 19 M. C. C. 475 (“such merchandise as is dealt in by wholesale, retail, and chain grocery and food business houses”).
Contrast the Commission’s interpretation here with those in Bird Trucking Co. — Modification of Certificate, 61 M. C. C. 311, rev’d, 11 CCH Fed. Carriers Cases ¶ 81,028; Johnson Truck Service v. Salvino, 61 M. C. C. 329, rev’d, 119 F. Supp. 277, on which appellant relies.
The intended use test, as applied by the Commission here, is descriptive rather than determinative: it describes the result obtained by taking the language of the permit at face value, and in no sense is a factor in arriving at that result.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This case requires us to consider whether the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause prohibits the Government from permitting timber harvesting in, or constructing a road through, a portion of a National Forest that has traditionally been used for religious purposes by members of three American Indian tribes in northwestern California. We conclude that it does not.
I
As part of a project to create a paved 75-mile road linking two California towns, Gasquet and Orleans, the United States Forest Service has upgraded 49 miles of previously unpaved roads on federal land. In order to complete this project (the G-0 road), the Forest Service must build a 6-mile paved segment through the Chimney Rock section of the Six Rivers National Forest. That section of the forest is situated between two other portions of the road that are already complete.
In 1977, the Forest Service issued a draft environmental impact statement that discussed proposals for upgrading an existing unpaved road that runs through the Chimney Rock area. In response to comments on the draft statement, the Forest Service commissioned a study of American Indian cultural and religious sites in the area. The Hoopa Valley Indian Reservation adjoins the Six Rivers National Forest, and the Chimney Rock area has historically been used for religious purposes by Yurok, Karok, and Tolowa Indians. The commissioned study, which was completed in 1979, found that the entire area “is significant as an integral and indispensible part of Indian religious conceptualization and practice.” App. 181. Specific sites are used for certain rituals, and “successful use of the [area] is dependent upon and facilitated by certain qualities of the physical environment, the most important of which are privacy, silence, and an undisturbed natural setting.” Ibid, (footnote omitted). The study concluded that constructing a road along any of the available routes “would cause serious and irreparable damage to the sacred areas which are an integral and necessary part of the belief systems and lifeway of Northwest California Indian peoples.” Id., at 182. Accordingly, the report recommended that the G-O road not be completed.
In 1982, the Forest Service decided not to adopt this recommendation, and it prepared a final environmental impact statement for construction of the road. The Regional Forester selected a route that avoided archeological sites and was removed as far as possible from the sites used by contemporary Indians for specific spiritual activities. Alternative routes that would have avoided the Chimney Rock area altogether were rejected because they would have required the acquisition of private land, had serious soil stability problems, and would in any event have traversed areas having ritualistic value to American Indians. See id., at 217-218. At about the same time, the Forest Service adopted a management plan allowing for the harvesting of significant amounts of timber in this area of the forest. The management plan provided for one-half mile protective zones around all the religious sites identified in the report that had been commissioned in connection with the G-0 road.
After exhausting their administrative remedies, respondents — an Indian organization, individual Indians, nature organizations and individual members of those organizations, and the State of California — challenged both the road-building and timber-harvesting decisions in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California. Respondents claimed that the Forest Service’s decisions violated the Free Exercise Clause, the Federal Water Pollution Control Act (FWPCA), 86 Stat. 896, as amended, 33 U. S. C. § 1251 et seq., the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 83 Stat. 852, 42 U. S. C. § 4321 et seq., several other federal statutes, and governmental trust responsibilities to Indians living on the Hoopa Valley Reservation.
After a trial, the District Court issued a permanent injunction prohibiting the Government from constructing the Chimney Rock section of the G-0 road or putting the timber-harvesting management plan into effect. See Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Assn. v. Peterson, 565 F. Supp. 586 (1983). The court found that both actions would violate the Free Exercise Clause because they “would seriously damage the salient visual, aural, and environmental qualities of the high country.” Id., at 594-595. The court also found that both proposed actions would violate the FWPCA, and that the environmental impact statements for construction of the road were deficient under the NEPA. Finally, the court concluded that both projects would breach the Government’s trust responsibilities to protect water and fishing rights reserved to the Hoopa Valley Indians.
While an appeal was pending before the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Congress enacted the California Wilderness Act of 1984, Pub. L. 98-425, 98 Stat. 1619. Under that statute, much of the property covered by the Forest Service’s management plan is now designated a wilderness area, which means that commercial activities such as timber harvesting are forbidden. The statute exempts a narrow strip of land, coinciding with the Forest Service’s proposed route for the remaining segment of the G-O road, from the wilderness designation. The legislative history indicates that this exemption was adopted “to enable the completion of the Gasquet-Orleans Road project if the responsible authorities so decide.” S. Rep. No. 98-582, p. 29 (1984). The existing unpaved section of road, however, lies within the wilderness area and is therefore now closed to general traffic.
A panel of the Ninth Circuit affirmed in part. Northwest Indian Cemetery Protective Assn. v. Peterson, 795 F. 2d 688 (1986). The panel unanimously rejected the District Court’s conclusion that the Government’s proposed actions would breach its trust responsibilities to Indians on the Hoopa Valley Reservation. The panel also vacated the injunction to the extent that it had been rendered moot by the California’ Wilderness Act, which now prevents timber harvesting in certain areas covered by the District Court’s order. The District Court’s decision, to the extent that it rested on statutory grounds, was otherwise unanimously affirmed.
By a divided decision, the District Court’s constitutional ruling was also affirmed. Relying primarily on the Forest Service’s own commissioned study, the majority found that construction of the Chimney Rock section of the G-0 road would have significant, though largely indirect, adverse effects on Indian religious practices. The majority concluded that the Government had failed to demonstrate a compelling interest in the completion of the road, and that it could have abandoned the road without thereby creating “a religious preserve for a single group in violation of the establishment clause.” Id., at 694. The majority apparently applied the same analysis to logging operations that might be carried out in portions of the Chimney Rock area not covered by the California Wilderness Act. See id., at 692-693 (“Because most of the high country has now been designated by Congress as a wilderness area, the issue of logging becomes less significant, although it does not disappear”).
The dissenting judge argued that certain of the adverse effects on the Indian respondents’ religious practices could be eliminated by less drastic measures than a ban on building the road, and that other actual or suggested adverse effects did not pose a serious threat to the Indians’ religious practices. He also concluded that the injunction against timber harvesting needed to be reconsidered in light of the California Wilderness Act: “It is not clear whether the district court would have issued an injunction based upon the development of the remaining small parcels. Accordingly, I would remand to allow the district court to reevaluate its injunction in light of the Act.” Id., at 704.
II
We begin by noting that the courts below did not articulate the bases of their decisions with perfect clarity. A fundamental and longstanding principle of judicial restraint requires that courts avoid reaching constitutional questions in advance of the necessity of deciding them. See Three Affiliated Tribes of Ft. Berthold Reservation v. Wold Engineering, P. C., 467 U. S. 138, 157-158 (1984); see also, e. g., Jean v. Nelson, 472 U. S. 846, 854 (1985); Gulf Oil Co. v. Bernard, 452 U. S. 89, 99 (1981); Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 346-348 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring). This principle required the courts below to determine, before addressing the constitutional issue, whether a decision on that question could have entitled respondents to relief beyond that to which they were entitled on their statutory claims. If no additional relief would have been warranted, a constitutional decision would have been unnecessary and therefore inappropriate.
Neither the District Court nor the Court of Appeals explained or expressly articulated the necessity for their constitutional holdings. Were we persuaded that those holdings were unnecessary, we could simply vacate the relevant portions of the judgment below without discussing the merits of the constitutional issue. The structure and wording of the District Court’s injunctive order, however, suggest that the statutory holdings would not have supported all the relief granted. The order is divided into four sections. Two of those sections deal with a 31,100-acre tract referred to as the Blue Creek Roadless Area. The injunction prohibits the Forest Service from engaging in timber harvesting or road building anywhere on the tract “unless and until” compliance with the NEPA and the FWPCA have been demonstrated. 565 F. Supp., at 606-607. The sections of the injunction dealing with the smaller Chimney Rock area (i. e., the area affected by the First Amendment challenge) are worded differently. The Forest Service is permanently enjoined, without any qualifying language, from constructing the proposed portion of the G-0 road “and/or any alternative route” through that area; similarly, the injunction forbids timber harvesting or the construction of logging roads in the Chimney Rock area pursuant to the Forest Service’s proposed management plan “or any other land management plan.” Id., at 606 (emphasis added). These differences in wording suggest, without absolutely implying, that an injunction covering the Chimney Rock area would in some way have been conditional, or narrower in scope, if the District Court had not decided the First Amendment issue as it did. Similarly, the silence of the Court of Appeals as to the necessity of reaching the First Amendment issue may have reflected its understanding that the District Court’s injunction necessarily rested in part on constitutional grounds.
Because it appears reasonably likely that the First Amendment issue was necessary to the decisions below, we believe that it would be inadvisable to vacate and remand without addressing that issue on the merits. This conclusion is strengthened by considerations of judicial economy. The Government, which petitioned for certiorari on the constitutional issue alone, has informed us that it believes it can cure the statutory defects identified below, intends to do so, and will not challenge the adverse statutory rulings. Tr. of Oral Arg. 9-10. In this circumstance, it is difficult to see what principle would be vindicated by sending this case on what would almost certainly be a brief round trip to the courts below.
Ill
A
The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion].” It is undisputed that the Indian respondents’ beliefs are sincere and that the Government’s proposed actions will have severe adverse effects on the practice of their religion. Those respondents contend that the burden on their religious practices is heavy enough to violate the Free Exercise Clause unless the Government can demonstrate a compelling need to complete the G-0 road or to engage in timber harvesting in the Chimney Rock area. We disagree.
In Bowen v. Roy, 476 U. S. 693 (1986), we considered a challenge to a federal statute that required the States to use Social Security numbers in administering certain welfare programs. Two applicants for benefits under these programs contended that their religious beliefs prevented them from acceding to the use of a Social Security number for their 2-year-old daughter because the use of a numerical identifier would “‘rob the spirit’ of [their] daughter and prevent her from attaining greater spiritual power.” Id., at 696. Similarly, in this case, it is said that disruption of the natural environment caused by the G-O road will diminish the sacredness of the area in question and create distractions that will interfere with “training and ongoing religious experience of individuals using [sites within] the area for personal medicine and growth . . . and as integrated parts of a system of religious belief and practice which correlates ascending degrees of personal power with a geographic hierarchy of power.” App. 181. Cf. id., at 178 (“Scarred hills and mountains, and disturbed rocks destroy the purity of the sacred areas, and [Indian] consultants repeatedly stressed the need of a training doctor to be undistracted by such disturbance”). The Court rejected this kind of challenge in Roy:
“The Free Exercise Clause simply cannot be understood to require the Government to conduct its own internal affairs in ways that comport with the religious beliefs of particular citizens. Just as the Government may not insist that [the Roys] engage in any set form of religious observance, so [they] may not demand that the Government join in their chosen religious practices by refraining from using a number to identify their daughter. . . .
“. . . The Free Exercise Clause affords an individual protection from certain forms of governmental compulsion; it does not afford an individual a right to dictate the conduct of the Government’s internal procedures.” 476 U. S., at 699-700.
The building of a road or the harvesting of timber on publicly owned land cannot meaningfully be distinguished from the use of a Social Security number in Roy. In' both cases, the challenged Government action would interfere significantly with private persons’ ability to pursue spiritual fulfillment according to their own religious beliefs. In neither case, however, would the affected individuals be coerced by the Government’s action into violating their religious beliefs; nor would either governmental action penalize religious activity by denying any person an equal share of the rights, benefits, and privileges enjoyed by other citizens.
We are asked to distinguish this case from Roy on the ground that the infringement on religious liberty here is “significantly greater,” or on the ground that the Government practice in Roy was “purely mechanical” whereas this case involves “a case-by-case substantive determination as to how a particular unit of land will be managed.” Brief for Indian Respondents 33-34. Similarly, we are told that this case can be distinguished from Roy because “the government action is not at some physically removed location where it places no restriction on what a practitioner may do.” Brief for Respondent State of California 18. The State suggests that the Social Security number in Roy “could be characterized as interfering with Roy’s religious tenets from a subjective point of view, where the government’s conduct of ‘its own internal affairs’ was known to him only secondhand and did not interfere with his ability to practice his religion.” Id., at 19 (footnote omitted; internal citation omitted). In this case, however, it is said that the proposed road will “physically destro[y] the environmental conditions and the privacy without which the [religious] practices cannot be conducted.” Ibid.
These efforts to distinguish Roy are unavailing. This Court cannot determine the truth of the underlying beliefs that led to the religious objections here or in Roy, see Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n of Fla., 480 U. S. 136, 144, n. 9 (1987), and accordingly cannot weigh the adverse effects on the appellees in Roy and compare them with the adverse effects on the Indian respondents. Without the ability to make such comparisons, we cannot say that the one form of incidental interference with an individual’s spiritual activities should be subjected to a different constitutional analysis than the other.
Respondents insist, nonetheless, that the courts below properly relied on a factual inquiry into the degree to which the Indians’ spiritual practices would become ineffectual if the G-0 road were built. They rely on several cases in which this Court has sustained free exercise challenges to government programs that interfered with individuals’ ability to practice their religion. See Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205 (1972) (compulsory school-attendance law); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398 (1963) (denial of unemployment benefits to applicant who refused to accept work requiring her to violate the Sabbath); Thomas v. Review Board, Indiana Employment Security Div., 450 U. S. 707 (1981) (denial of unemployment benefits to applicant whose religion forbade him to fabricate weapons); Robbie, supra (denial of unemployment benefits to religious convert who resigned position that required her to work on the Sabbath).
Even apart from the inconsistency between Roy and respondents’ reading of these cases, their interpretation will not withstand analysis. It is true that this Court has repeatedly held that indirect coercion or penalties on the free exercise of religion, not just outright prohibitions, are subject to scrutiny under the First Amendment. Thus, for example, ineligibility for unemployment benefits, based solely on a refusal to violate the Sabbath, has been analogized to a fine imposed on Sabbath worship. Sherbert, supra, at 404. This does not and cannot imply that incidental effects of government programs, which may make it more difficult to practice certain religions but which have no tendency to coerce individuals into acting contrary to their religious beliefs, require government to bring forward a compelling justification for its otherwise lawful actions. The crucial word in the constitutional text is “prohibit”: “For the Free Exercise Clause is written in terms of what the government cannot do to the individual, not in terms of what the individual can exact from the government.” Sherbert, supra, at 412 (Douglas, J., concurring).
Whatever may be the exact line between unconstitutional prohibitions on the free exercise of religion and the legitimate conduct by government of its own affairs, the location of the line cannot depend on measuring the effects of a governmental action on a religious objector’s spiritual development. The Government does not dispute, and we have no reason to doubt, that the logging and road-building projects at issue in this case could have devastating effects on traditional Indian religious practices. Those practices are intimately and inextricably bound up with the unique features of the Chimney Rock area, which is known to the Indians as the “high country. ” Individual practitioners use this area for personal spiritual development; some of their activities are believed to be critically important in advancing the welfare of the Tribe, and indeed, of mankind itself. The Indians use this area, as they have used it for a very long time, to conduct a wide variety of specific rituals that aim to accomplish their religious goals. According to their beliefs, the rituals would not be efficacious if conducted at other sites than the ones traditionally used, and too much disturbance of the area’s natural state would clearly render any meaningful continuation of traditional practices impossible. To be sure, the Indians themselves were far from unanimous in opposing the G-0 road, see App. 180, and it seems less than certain that construction of the road will be so disruptive that it will doom their religion. Nevertheless, we can assume that the threat to the efficacy of at least some religious practices is extremely grave.
Even if we assume that we should accept the Ninth Circuit’s prediction, according to which the G-0 road will “virtually destroy the . .. Indians’ ability to practice their religion,” 795 F. 2d, at 693 (opinion below), the Constitution simply does not provide a principle that could justify upholding respondents’ legal claims. However much we might wish that it were otherwise, government simply could not operate if it were required to satisfy every citizen’s religious needs and desires. A broad range of government activities — from social welfare programs to foreign aid to conservation projects — will always be considered essential to the spiritual well-being of some citizens, often on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs. Others will find the very same activities deeply offensive, and perhaps incompatible with their own search for spiritual fulfillment and with the tenets of their religion. The First Amendment must apply to all citizens alike, and it can give to none of them a veto over public programs that do not prohibit the free exercise of religion. The Constitution does not, and courts cannot, offer to reconcile the various competing demands on government, many of them rooted in sincere religious belief, that inevitably arise, in so diverse a society as ours. That task, to the extent that it is feasible, is for the legislatures and other institutions. Cf. The Federalist No. 10 (suggesting that the effects of religious factionalism are best restrained through competition among a multiplicity of religious sects).
One need not look far beyond the present case to see why the analysis in Roy, but not respondents’ proposed extension of Sherbert and its progeny, offers a sound reading of the Constitution. Respondents attempt to stress the limits of the religious servitude that they are now seeking to impose on the Chimney Rock area of the Six Rivers National Forest. While defending an injunction against logging operations and the construction of a road, they apparently do not at present object to the area’s being used by recreational visitors, other Indians, or forest rangers. Nothing in the principle for which they contend, however, would distinguish this case from another lawsuit in which they (or similarly situated religious objectors) might seek to exclude all human activity but their own from sacred areas of the public lands. The Indian respondents insist that “[pjrivacy during the power quests is required for the practitioners to maintain the purity needed for a successful journey.” Brief for Indian Respondents 8 (emphasis added; citation to record omitted). Similarly: “The practices conducted in the high country entail intense meditation and require the practitioner to achieve a profound awareness of the natural environment. Prayer seats are oriented so there is an unobstructed view, and the practitioner must be surrounded by undisturbed naturalness.” Id., at 8, n. 4 (emphasis added; citations to record omitted). No disrespect for these practices is implied when one notes that such beliefs could easily require defacto beneficial ownership of some rather spacious tracts of public property. Even without anticipating future cases, the diminution of the Government’s property rights, and the concomitant subsidy of the Indian religion, would in this case be far from trivial: the District Court’s order permanently forbade commercial timber harvesting, or the construction of a two-lane road, anywhere within an area covering a full 27 sections (i. e. more than 17,000 acres) of public land.
The Constitution does not permit government to discriminate against religions that treat particular physical sites as sacred, and a law prohibiting the Indian respondents from visiting the Chimney Rock area would raise a different set of constitutional questions. Whatever rights the Indians may have to the use of the area, however, those rights do not divest the Government of its right to use what is, after all, its land. Cf. Bowen v. Roy, 476 U. S., at 724-727 (O’Connor, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (distinguishing between the Government’s use of information in its possession and the Government’s requiring an individual to provide such information).
B
Nothing in our opinion should be read to encourage governmental insensitivity to the religious needs of any citizen. The Government’s rights to the use of its own land, for example, need not and should not discourage it from accommodating religious practices like those engaged in by the Indian respondents. Cf. Sherbert, 374 U. S., at 422-423 (Harlan, J., dissenting). It is worth emphasizing, therefore, that the Government has taken numerous steps in this very case to minimize the impact that construction of the G-0 road will have on the Indians’ religious activities. First, the Forest Service commissioned a comprehensive study of the effects that the project would have on the cultural and religious value of the Chimney Rock area. The resulting 423-page report was so sympathetic to the Indians’ interests that it has constituted the principal piece of evidence relied on by respondents throughout this litigation.
Although the Forest Service did not in the end adopt the report’s recommendation that the project be abandoned, many other ameliorative measures were planned. No sites where specific rituals take place were to be disturbed. In fact, a major factor in choosing among alternative routes for the road was the relation of the various routes to religious sites: the route selected by the Regional Forester is, he noted, “the farthest removed from contemporary spiritual sites; thus, the adverse audible intrusions associated with the road would be less than all other alternatives.” App. 102. Nor were the Forest Service’s concerns limited to “audible intrusions.” As the dissenting judge below observed, 10 specific steps were planned to reduce the visual impact of the road on the surrounding country. See 795 F. 2d, at 703 (Beezer, J., dissenting in part).
Except for abandoning its project entirely, and thereby leaving the two existing segments of road to dead-end in the middle of a National Forest, it is difficult to see how the Government could have been more solicitous. Such solicitude accords with “the policy of the United States to protect and preserve for American Indians their inherent right of freedom to believe, express, and exercise the traditional religions of the American Indian . . . including but not limited to access to sites, use and possession of sacred objects, and the freedom to worship through ceremonials and traditional rites.” American Indian Religious Freedom Act (AIRFA), Pub. L. 95-341, 92 Stat. 469, 42 U. S. C. § 1996.
Respondents, however, suggest that AIRFA goes further and in effect enacts their interpretation of the First Amendment into statutory law. Although this contention was rejected by the District Court, they seek to defend the judgment below by arguing that AIRFA authorizes the injunction against completion of the G-0 road. This argument is without merit. After reciting several legislative findings, AIRFA “resolves” upon the policy quoted above. A second section of the statute, 92 Stat. 470, required an evaluation of federal policies and procedures, in consultation with native religious leaders, of changes necessary to protect and preserve the rights and practices in question. The required report dealing with this evaluation was completed and released in 1979. Reply Brief for Petitioners 2, n. 3. Nowhere in the law is there so much as a hint of any intent to create a cause of action or any judicially enforceable individual rights.
What is obvious from the face of the statute is confirmed by numerous indications in the legislative history. The sponsor of the bill that became AIRFA, Representative Udall, called it “a sense of Congress joint resolution,” aimed at ensuring that “the basic right of the Indian people to exercise their traditional religious practices is not infringed without a clear decision on the part of the Congress or the administrators that such religious practices must yield to some higher consideration.” 124 Cong. Rec. 21444 (1978). Representative Udall emphasized that the bill would not “confer special religious rights on Indians,” would “not change any existing State or Federal law,” and in fact “has no teeth in it.” Id., at 21444-21445.
c
The dissent proposes an approach to the First Amendment that is fundamentally inconsistent with the principles on which our decision rests. Notwithstanding the sympathy that we all must feel for the plight of the Indian respondents, it is plain that the approach taken by the dissent cannot withstand analysis. On the contrary, the path towards which it points us is incompatible with the text of the Constitution, with the precedents of this Court, and with a responsible sense of our own institutional role.
The dissent begins by asserting that the “constitutional guarantee we interpret today ... is directed against any form of government action that frustrates or inhibits religious practice.” Post, at 459 (emphasis added). The Constitution, however, says no such thing. Rather, it states: “Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion].” U. S. Const., Arndt. 1 (emphasis added).
As we explained above, Bowen v. Roy rejected a First Amendment challenge to Government activities that the religious objectors sincerely believed would “‘“rob the spirit” of [their] daughter and prevent her from attaining greater spiritual power.’” See supra, at 448 (quoting Roy, 476 U. S., at 696). The dissent now offers to distinguish that case by saying that the Government was acting there “in a purely internal manner,” whereas land-use decisions “are likely to have substantial external effects.” Post, at 470. Whatever the source or meaning of the dissent’s distinction, it has no basis in Roy. Robbing the spirit of a child, and preventing her from attaining greater spiritual power, is both a “substantial external effect” and one that is remarkably similar to the injury claimed by respondents in the case before us today. The dissent’s reading of Roy would effectively overrule that decision, without providing any compelling justification for doing so.
The dissent also misreads Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205 (1972). The statute at issue in that case prohibited the Amish parents, on pain of criminal prosecution, from providing their children with the kind of education required by the Amish religion. Id., at 207-209, 223. The statute directly compelled the Amish to send their children to public high schools “contrary to the Amish religion and way of life.” Id., at 209. The Court acknowledged that the statute might be constitutional, despite its coercive nature, if the State could show with sufficient “particularity how its admittedly strong interest in compulsory education would be adversely affected by granting an exemption to the Amish.” Id., at 236 (citation omitted). The dissent’s out-of-context quotations notwithstanding, there is nothing whatsoever in the Yoder opinion to support the proposition that the “impact” on the Amish religion would have been constitutionally problematic if the statute at issue had not been coercive in nature. Cf. post, at 466.
Perceiving a “stress point in the longstanding conflict between two disparate cultures,” the dissent attacks us for declining to “balanc[e] these competing and potentially irreconcilable interests, choosing instead to, turn this difficult task over to the Federal Legislature.” Post, at 473. Seeing the Court as the arbiter, the dissent proposes a legal test under which it would decide which public lands are “central” or “indispensable” to which religions, and by implication which are “dispensable” or “peripheral,” and would then decide which government programs are “compelling” enough to justify “infringement of those practices.” Post, at 475. We would accordingly be required to weigh the value of every religious belief and practice that is said to be threatened by any government program. Unless a “showing of ‘centrality,’ ” post, at 474, is nothing but an assertion of centrality, see post, at 475, the dissent thus offers us the prospect of this Court’s holding that some sincerely held religious beliefs and practices are not “central” to certain religions, despite protestations to the contrary from the religious objectors who brought the lawsuit. In other words, the dissent’s approach would require us to rule that some religious adherents misunderstand their own religious beliefs. We think such an approach cannot be squared with the Constitution or with our precedents, and that it would cast the Judiciary in a role that we were never intended to play.
IV
The decision of the court below, according to which the First Amendment precludes the Government from completing the G-0 road or from permitting timber harvesting in the Chimney Rock area, is reversed. In order that the District Court’s injunction may be reconsidered in light of this holding, and in the light of any other relevant events that may have intervened since the injunction issued, 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.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
We are asked to stay the broadcast of a federal trial. We resolve that question without expressing any view on whether such trials should be broadcast. We instead determine that the broadcast in this case should be stayed because it appears the courts below did not follow the appropriate procedures set forth in federal law before changing their rules to allow such broadcasting. Courts enforce the requirement of procedural regularity on others, and must follow those requirements themselves.
* * *
This lawsuit, still in a preliminary stage, involves an action challenging what the parties refer to as Proposition 8, a California ballot proposition adopted by the electorate. Proposition 8 amended the State Constitution by adding a new section providing that “[o]nly marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.” Cal. Const. Art. I, § 7.5. The plaintiffs contend that Proposition 8 violates the United States Constitution. A bench trial in the case began on Monday, January 11, 2010, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California.
The District Court has issued an order permitting the trial to be broadcast live via streaming audio and video to a number of federal courthouses around the country. The order was issued pursuant to a purported amendment to a local Rule of the District Court. That Rule had previously forbidden the broadcasting of trials outside the courthouse in which a trial takes place. The District Court effected its amendment via several postings on the District Court’s Web site in the days immediately before the trial in this case was to begin.
Applicants here are defendant-intervenors in the lawsuit. They object to the District Court’s order, arguing that the District Court violated a federal statute by promulgating the amendment to its local Rule without sufficient opportunity for notice and comment and that the public broadcast would violate their due process rights to a fair and impartial trial. Applicants seek a stay of the order pending the filing of petitions for writs of certiorari and mandamus. We granted a temporary stay to consider the issue further. Post, p. 1107. Concluding that applicants have made a sufficient showing of entitlement to relief, we now grant a stay.
I
Proposition 8 was passed by California voters in November 2008. It was a ballot proposition designed to overturn a ruling by the California Supreme Court that had given same-sex couples a right to marry. Proposition 8 was and is the subject of public debate throughout the State and, indeed, nationwide. Its advocates claim that they have been subject to harassment as a result of public disclosure of their support. See, e. g., Reply Brief for Appellant in Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, No. 08-205, pp. 28-29, now pending before this Court. [Reporter’s Note: see post, p. 310.] For example, donors to groups supporting Proposition 8 “have received death threats and envelopes containing a powdery white substance.” Stone, Prop 8 Donor Web Site Shows Disclosure Is 2-Edged Sword, N. Y. Times, Feb. 8, 2009. Some advocates claim that they have received confrontational phone calls and e-mail messages from opponents of Proposition 8, ibid., and others have been forced to resign their jobs after it became public that they had donated to groups supporting the amendment, see Brief for Center for Competitive Politics as Amicus Curiae in Citizens United, supra, pp. 13-14. Opponents of Proposition 8 also are alleged to have compiled “Internet blacklists” of pro-Proposition 8 businesses and urged others to boycott those businesses in retaliation for supporting the ballot measure. Carlton, Gay Activists Boycott Backers of Prop 8, Wall Street Journal, Dec. 27, 2008, p. A3. And numerous instances of vandalism and physical violence have been reported against those who have been identified as Proposition 8 supporters. See Exhs. B, I, and L to Defendant-intervenors’ Motion for Protective Order in Perry v. Schwarzenegger, No. 3:09-cv-02292 (ND Cal.) (hereinafter Defendant-Intervenors’ Motion).
Respondents filed suit in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, seeking to invalidate Proposition 8. They contend that the amendment to the State’s Constitution violates the Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution. The State of California declined to defend Proposition 8, and the defendant-intervenors (who are the applicants here) entered the suit to defend its constitutionality. A bench trial began on Monday, January 11, 2010, before the Chief Judge of the District Court, the Honorable Vaughn R. Walker.
On September 25, 2009, the District Court informed the parties at a hearing that there was interest in the possibility that the trial would be broadcast. Respondents indicated their support for the idea, while applicants opposed it. The court noted that “[tjhere are, of course, Judicial Conference positions on this,” but also that “[t]his is all in flux.” Exh. 9, p. 72, App. to Pet. for Mandamus in No. 10-70063 (CA9) (hereinafter App. to Pet.).
One month later, Chief Judge Kozinski of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit appointed a three-judge committee to evaluate the possibility of adopting a Ninth Circuit Rule regarding the recording and transmission of district court proceedings. The committee (of which Chief Judge Walker was a member) recommended to the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council that district courts be permitted to experiment with broadcasting court proceedings on a trial basis. Chief Judge Walker later acknowledged that while the committee was considering the pilot program, “this case was very much in mind at that time because it had come to prominence then and was thought to be an ideal candidate for consideration.” Id., Exh. 2, at 43. The committee did not publicly disclose its consideration of the proposal, nor did it solicit or receive public comments on the proposal.
On December 17, the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council issued a news release indicating that it had approved a pilot program for “the limited use of cameras in federal district courts within the circuit.” Id., Exh. 13, at 1. The release explained that the Council’s decision “amend[ed] a 1996 Ninth Circuit policy” that had banned the photographing, as well as radio and television coverage, of court proceedings. Ibid. The release further indicated that cases would be selected for participation in the program “by the chief judge of the district court in consultation with the chief circuit judge.” Ibid. No further guidelines for participation in the pilot program have since been issued.
On December 21, a coalition of media companies requested permission from the District Court to televise the trial challenging Proposition 8. Two days later, the court indicated on its Web site that it had amended Civil Local Rule 77-3, which had previously banned the recording or broadcast of court proceedings. The revised version of Rule 77-3 created an exception to this general prohibition to allow “for participation in a pilot or other project authorized by the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit.” Id., Exh. 14. Applicants objected to the revision, arguing that any change to Ninth Circuit or local rules would require a sufficient notice- and-comment period.
On December 31, the District Court revised its Web site to remove the previous announcement about the change to Rule 77-3. A new announcement was posted indicating a “proposed revision of Civil Local Rule 77-3,” which had been “approved for public comment.” Id., Exh. 17. The proposed revision was the same as the previously announced amendment. Comments on the proposed revision were to be submitted by Friday, January 8, 2010.
On January 4, 2010, the District Court again revised its Web site. The announcement regarding the proposed revision of Rule 77-3 was removed and replaced with a third version of the announcement. This third version stated that the revised Rule was “effective December 22, 2009,” and that “[t]he revised rule was adopted pursuant to the ‘immediate need’ provision of Title 28 Sec. 2071(e).” Id., Exh. 19, at 3.
On January 6, 2010, the District Court held a hearing regarding the recording and broadcasting of the upcoming trial. The court announced that an audio and video feed of trial proceedings would be streamed live to certain courthouses in other cities. It also announced that, pending approval of the Chief Judge of the Ninth Circuit, the trial would be recorded and then broadcast on the Internet. A court technician explained that the proceedings would be recorded by three cameras, and then the resulting broadcast would be uploaded for posting on the Internet, with a delay due to processing requirements.
On January 7, 2010, the District Court filed an order formally requesting that Chief Judge Kozinski approve “inclusion of the trial in the pilot project on the terms and conditions discussed at the January 6, 2010 hearing and subject to resolution of certain technical issues.” Id., Exh. 1, at 2. Applicants filed a petition for a -writ of mandamus in the Court of Appeals, seeking to prohibit or stay the District Court from enforcing its order. The following day, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals denied the petition.
On January 8, 2010, Chief Judge Kozinski issued an order approving the District Court’s decision to allow real-time streaming of the trial to certain federal courthouses listed in a simultaneously issued press release. Five locations had been selected: federal courthouses in San Francisco, Pasadena, Seattle, Portland, and Brooklyn. The press release also indicated that “[ajdditional sites may be announced.” Federal Courthouses To Offer Remote Viewing of Proposition 8 Trial, online at http://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/datastore/ general/2010/01/08/Prop8_Remote_Viewing_Locations.pdf (as visited Jan. 13, 2010, and available in Clerk of Court’s ease file).
Chief Judge Kozinski’s January 8 order noted that the request to broadcast the trial on the Internet was “still pending” before him. In a later letter to Chief Judge Walker, he explained that the request was not yet “ripe for approval” because “the technical staff encountered some unexpected difficulties preparing a satisfactory video suitable for on-line posting.” Letter of Jan. 9, 2010 (available in Clerk of Court’s case file). A final decision whether to permit online publication would be made when technical difficulties were resolved.
On January 9,2010, applicants filed in this Court an application for a stay of the District Court’s order. Their petition seeks a stay pending resolution of forthcoming petitions for the writs of certiorari and mandamus.
II
The question whether courtroom proceedings should be broadcast has prompted considerable national debate. Reasonable minds differ on the proper resolution of that debate and on the restrictions, circumstances, and procedures under which such broadcasts should occur. We do not here express any views on the propriety of broadcasting court proceedings generally.
Instead, our review is confined to a narrow legal issue: whether the District Court’s amendment of its local rules to broadcast this trial complied with federal law. We conclude that it likely did not and that applicants have demonstrated that irreparable harm would likely result from the District Court’s actions. We therefore stay the court’s January 7, 2010, order to the extent that it permits the live streaming of court proceedings to other federal courthouses. We do not address other aspects of that order, such as those related to the broadcast of court proceedings on the Internet, as this may be premature.
A
To obtain a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari, an applicant must show (1) a reasonable probability that four Justices will consider the issue sufficiently meritorious to grant certiorari; (2) a fair prospect that a majority of the Court will vote to reverse the judgment below; and (3) a likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the denial of a stay. In close cases the Circuit Justice or the Court will balance the equities and weigh the relative harms to the applicant and to the respondent. Lucas v. Townsend, 486 U. S. 1301, 1304 (1988) (Kennedy, J., in chambers); Rostker v. Goldberg, 448 U. S. 1306, 1308 (1980) (Brennan, J., in chambers). To obtain a stay pending the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of mandamus, an applicant must show a fair prospect that a majority of the Court will vote to grant mandamus and a likelihood that irreparable harm will result from the denial of a stay. Before a writ of mandamus may issue, a party must establish that (1) “no other adequate means [exist] to attain the relief he desires,” (2) the party’s “right to issuance of the writ is ‘clear and indisputable,’ ” and (3) “the writ is appropriate under the circumstances.” Cheney v. United States Dist. Court for D. C., 542 U. S. 367, 380-381 (2004) (some internal quotation marks omitted). This Court will issue the writ of mandamus directly to a federal district court “only where a question of public importance is involved, or where the question is of such a nature that it is peculiarly appropriate that such action by this court should be taken.” Ex parte United States, 287 U. S. 241, 248-249 (1932). These familiar standards are followed here, where applicants claim that the District Court’s order was based on a local Rule adopted in violation of federal law.
B
Given the importance of the issues at stake, and our conclusion that the District Court likely violated a federal statute in revising its local rules, applicants have shown a fair prospect that a majority of this Court will either grant a petition for a writ of certiorari and reverse the order below or will grant a petition for a writ of mandamus.
A district court has discretion to adopt local rules. Frazier v. Heebe, 482 U. S. 641, 645 (1987) (citing 28 U. S. C. §2071; Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 83). Those rules have “the force of law.” Weil v. Neary, 278 U. S. 160, 169 (1929). Federal law, however, requires a district court to follow certain procedures to adopt or amend a local rule. Local rules typically may not be amended unless the district court “giv[es] appropriate public notice and an opportunity for comment.” 28 U. S. C. § 2071(b); see also Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 83(a). A limited exception permits dispensing with this notice-and-comment requirement only where “there is an immediate need for a rule.” § 2071(e). Even where a rule is amended based on immediate need, however, the issuing court must “promptly thereafter afford . . . notice and opportunity for comment.” Ibid.
Before late December, the court’s Local Rule 77-3 explicitly banned the broadcast of court proceedings:
“Unless allowed by a Judge or a Magistrate Judge with respect to his or her own chambers or assigned courtroom for ceremonial purposes, the taking of photographs, public broadcasting or televising, or recording for those purposes in the courtroom or its environs, in connection with any judicial proceeding, is prohibited. Electronic transmittal of courtroom proceedings and presentation of evidence within the confines of the courthouse is permitted, if authorized by the Judge or Magistrate Judge. The term ‘environs,’ as used in this rule, means all floors on which chambers, courtrooms or on which Offices of the Clerk are located, with the exception of any space specifically designated as a Press Room. Nothing in this rule is intended to restrict the use of electronic means to receive or present evidence during Court proceedings.”
Notably, the Rule excepted from its general ban the transmittal of certain proceedings — but it limited that exception to transmissions “within the confines of the courthouse.” The negative inference of this exception, of course, is that the Rule would have prohibited the streaming of transmissions, or other broadcasting or televising, beyond “the confines of the courthouse.”
Respondents do not dispute that this version of Rule 77-3 would have prohibited streaming video of the trial around the country. But they assert that this is not the operative version of Rule 77-3. In a series of postings on its Web site, the District Court purported to revise or propose revisions to Local Rule 77-3. This amendment would have created an additional exception to Rule 77-3’s general ban on the broadcasting of court proceedings “for participation in a pilot or other project authorized by the Judicial Council of the Ninth Circuit.” Exh. 14, App. to Pet. Respondents rely on this amended version of the Rule.
The amended version of Rule 77-3 appears to be invalid. In amending this rule, it appears that the District Court failed to “giv[e] appropriate public notice and an opportunity for comment,” as required by federal law. 28 U. S. C. § 2071(b). The first time the District Court asked for public comments was on the afternoon of New Year’s Eve. The court stated that it would leave the comment period open until January 8. At most, the District Court therefore allowed a comment period spanning five business days. There is substantial merit to the argument that this was not “appropriate” notice and an opportunity for comment. Administrative agencies, for instance, “usually” provide a comment period of “thirty days or more.” Riverbend Farms, Inc. v. Madigan, 958 F. 2d 1479, 1484 (CA9 1992); see Petry v. Block, 737 F. 2d 1193, 1201 (CADC 1984) (“[T]he shortest period in which parties can meaningfully review a proposed rule and file informed responses is thirty days”).
To be sure, the possibility that some aspects of the trial might be broadcast was first raised to the parties by the District Court at an in-court hearing on September 25, some three months before the Rule was changed. The broadcasting, however, was prohibited under both Circuit and local rules at that time. The first public indication that the District Court intended to adopt a rule of general applicability came in its Web site posting on December 23. And even if Chief Judge Walker’s in-court allusion to the possibility that the Proposition 8 trial might be broadcast could be considered as providing notice to the parties in this case — his statement that “[t]his is all in flux” notwithstanding — the disclosure falls far short of the “appropriate public notice and an opportunity for comment” required by § 2071(b). Indeed, there was no proposed policy on which to comment.
The need for a meaningful comment period was particularly acute in this case. Both courts and legislatures have proceeded with appropriate caution in addressing this question. In 1996, the Judicial Conference of the United States adopted a policy opposing the public broadcast of court proceedings. This policy was adopted after a multiyear study of the issue by the Federal Judicial Center which drew on data from six district and two appellate courts, as well as state-court data. In light of the study’s findings, the Judicial Conference concluded that “the intimidating effect of cameras on some witnesses and jurors [is] cause for concern.” Administrative Office of United States Courts, Report of Proceedings of Judicial Conference of the United States 47 (Sept. 20, 1994).
In more than a decade since its adoption the Judicial Conference has continued to adhere to its position on the broadcast of court proceedings. While the policy conclusions of the Judicial Conference may not be binding on the lower courts, they are “at the very least entitled to respectful consideration.” In re Sony BMG Music Entertainment, 564 P. 3d 1, 6 (CA1 2009). Before abandoning its own policy— one consistent with the Judicial Conference’s longstanding view's — it was incumbent on the District Court to adopt a proposed rule only after notice and an adequate period for public comment.
In dispensing with public notice and comment the District Court invoked the “immediate need” exception. 28 U. S. C. § 2071(e). It did so through a Web site posting on January 4 — prior to the expiration of the comment period — indicating that Rule 77-3 had been revised to permit participation in the Ninth Circuit’s pilot program. These postings gave no explanation for invoking the exception. At trial the District Court explained that the immediate need here was to allow this case to be broadcast pursuant to the Ninth Circuit’s new pilot program. See Exh. 1, p. 11, Supp. App. to Response for Perry et al.
This does not qualify as an immediate need that justifies dispensing with the notice-and-comment procedures required by federal law. While respondents (the plaintiffs in the District Court) had indicated their approval of the plan, no party alleged that it would be imminently harmed if the trial were not broadcast. Had an administrative agency acted as the District Court did here, the immediate need exception would likely not have been available. See 5 U. S. C. § 553(b)(B) (administrative agencies cannot invoke an exception to affording notice and comment before rulemaking unless the notice- and-comment procedures would be “impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest”). In issuing its order the District Court relied on the Ninth Circuit Judicial Council’s pilot program. Yet nothing in that program— which was not adopted after notice-and-comment procedures, cf. 28 U. S. C. § 332(d)(1) — required any “immediate” revision in local rules. The Ninth Circuit Judicial Council did not purport to modify or abrogate the District Court’s local Rule. Nor could it, as the Judicial Council only has the power to modify or abrogate local rules that conflict with federal law. See § 332(d)(4) (permitting a circuit court council to modify a local rule that is “found inconsistent” with rules promulgated by the Supreme Court). No federal law requires that the District Court broadcast some of its cases. The District Court’s local Rule, in addition, was not a conforming amendment to Ninth Circuit policy, because that policy does not require district courts to broadcast proceedings.
Applicants also have shown that irreparable harm will likely result from the denial of the stay. Without a stay, the District Court will broadcast the trial. It would be difficult — if not impossible — to reverse the harm from those broadcasts. The trial will involve various witnesses, including members of same-sex couples; academics, who apparently will discuss gender issues and gender equality, as well as family structures; and those who participated in the campaign leading to the adoption of Proposition 8. This Court has recognized that witness testimony may be chilled if broadcast. See Estes v. Texas, 381 U. S. 532, 547 (1965); id., at 591 (Harlan, J., concurring). Some of applicants’ witnesses have already said that they will not testify if the trial is broadcast, and they have substantiated their concerns by citing incidents of past harassment. See, e.g., Exh. K to Defendant-Intervenors’ Motion (71 news articles detailing incidents of harassment related to people who supported Proposition 8). These concerns are not diminished by the fact that some of applicants’ witnesses are compensated expert witnesses. There are qualitative differences between making public appearances regarding an issue and having one’s testimony broadcast throughout the country. Applicants may not be able to obtain adequate relief through an appeal. The trial will have already been broadcast. It is difficult to demonstrate or analyze whether a witness would have testified differently if his or her testimony had not been broadcast. And witnesses subject to harassment as a result of broadcast of their testimony might be less likely to cooperate in any future proceedings.
The balance of equities favors applicants. While applicants have demonstrated the threat of harm they face if the trial is broadcast, respondents have not alleged any harm if the trial is not broadcast. The issue, moreover, must be resolved at this stage, for the injury likely cannot be undone once the broadcast takes place.
This Court also has a significant interest in supervising the administration of the judicial system. See this Court’s Rule 10(a) (the Court will consider whether the courts below have “so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings ... as to call for an exercise of this Court’s supervisory power”). The Court may use its supervisory authority to invalidate local rules that were promulgated in violation of an Act of Congress. See Frazier, 482 U. S., at 645-646; id., at 652, 654 (Rehnquist, C. J., dissenting). The Court’s interest in ensuring compliance with proper rules of judicial administration is particularly acute when those rules relate to the integrity of judicial processes. The District Court here attempted to revise its rules in haste, contrary to federal statutes and the policy of the Judicial Conference of the United States. It did so to allow broadcasting of this high-profile trial without any considered standards or guidelines in place. The arguments in favor of developing procedures and rules to allow broadcast of certain cases have considerable merit, and reasonable minds can surely differ over the general and specific terms of rules and standards adopted for that purpose. Here, however, the order in question complied neither with existing rules or policies nor the required procedures for amending them.
By insisting that courts comply with the law, parties vindicate not only the rights they assert but also the law’s own insistence on neutrality and fidelity to principle. Those systematic interests are all the more evident here, where the lack of a regular rule with proper standards to determine the guidelines for broadcasting could compromise the orderly, decorous, rational traditions that courts rely upon to ensure the integrity of their own judgments. These considerations, too, are part of the reasons leading to the decision to grant extraordinary relief.
In addressing a discrete instance authorizing a closed-circuit broadcast of a trial, Congress has illustrated the need for careful guidelines and standards. The trial of the two defendants in the Oklahoma City bombing case had been transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, so it was set to take place in Denver. That meant the families of deceased and surviving victims in and around Oklahoma City would not have the opportunity to observe the trial. Congress passed a statute that allowed victims’ families to watch the trial on closed-circuit television. 42 U. S. C. § 10608. The statute was drawn with care to provide precise and detailed guidance with respect to the wide range of issues implicated by the broadcast. See § 10608(a) (the statute only applies “in cases where the venue of the trial is changed” to a city that is “out of the State” and “more than 350 miles from the location in which those proceedings originally would have taken place”); §§ 10608(a)-(b) (standards for who can view such trials); § 10608(c) (restrictions on transmission). And the statute gave the Judicial Conference of the United States rulemaking authority “to effectuate the policy addressed by this section.” § 10608(g). In the present case, by contrast, over a span of three weeks the District Court and Ninth Circuit Judicial Council issued, retracted, and reissued a series of Web site postings and news releases. These purport to amend rules and policies at the heart of an ongoing consideration of broadcasting federal trials. And they have done so to make sure that one particular trial may be broadcast. Congress’ requirement of a notice-and-comment procedure prevents just such arbitrary changes of court rules. Instead, courts must use the procedures prescribed by statute to amend their rules, 28 U. S. C. §2071.
If Local Rule 77-3 had been validly revised, questions would still remain about the District Court’s decision to allow broadcasting of this particular trial, in which several of the witnesses have stated concerns for their own security. Even districts that allow trials to be broadcast, see Civ. Rule 1.8 (SDNY 2009); Civ. Rule 1.8 (EDNY 2009), recognize that a district judge’s discretion to broadcast a trial is limited, see, e.g., Hamilton v. Accu-Tek, 942 F. Supp. 136, 138 (EDNY 1996) (broadcast forbidden unless “there is no interference with the due process, the dignity of litigants, jurors and witnesses, or with other appropriate aspects of the administration of justice”). Consequently, courts in those districts have allowed the broadcast of their proceedings on the basis that those cases were not high profile, E*Trade Financial Corp. v. Deutsche Bank AG, 582 F. Supp. 2d 528, 535 (SDNY 2008), or did not involve witnesses, Marisol A v. Giuliani, 929 F. Supp. 660, 661 (SDNY 1996); Katzman v. Victoria’s Secret Catalogue, 923 F. Supp. 580, 586-587 (SDNY 1996). Indeed, one District Court did not allow the broadcasting of its proceedings because the case “involv[ed] very sensitive issues.” Schoeps v. Museum of Modern Art, 599 F. Supp. 2d 532, 534 (SDNY 2009). This case, too, involves issues subject to intense debate in our society. The District Court intends not only to broadcast the attorneys’ arguments but also witness testimony. See Sony BMG, 564 F. 3d, at 11 (Lipez, J., concurring) (distinguishing broadcast of attorneys’ arguments from other parts of the trial). This case is therefore not a good one for a pilot program. Even the studies that have been conducted thus far have not analyzed the effect of broadcasting in high-profile, divisive cases. See Application for Stay 17 (warning by Judge Edward R. Becker that in “ ‘truly high-profile cases,’ ” one can “ ‘[j]ust imagine what the findings would be’ ” (quoting Exh. 21, at 2, App. to Pet.)).
III
The District Court attempted to change its rules at the eleventh hour to treat this case differently from other trials in the district. Not only did it ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony about a contentious issue. If courts are to require that others follow regular procedures, courts must do so as well. The Court grants the application for a stay of the District Court’s order of January 7, 2010, pending the timely filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of certiorari or the filing and disposition of a petition for a writ of mandamus.
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.
Me. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Section 16 (b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 48 Stat. 896, 15 U. S. C. § 78p (b), provides that officers, directors, and holders of more than 10% of the listed stock of any company shall be liable to the company for any profits realized from any purchase and sale or sale and purchase of such stock occurring within a period of six months. Unquestionably, one or more statutory purchases occur when one company, seeking to gain control of another, acquires more than 10% of the stock of the latter through a tender offer made to its shareholders. But is it a § 16 (b) “sale” when the target of the tender offer defends itself by merging into a third company and the tender offeror then exchanges his stock for the stock of the surviving company and also grants an option to purchase the latter stock that is not exercisable within the statutory six-month period? This is the question before us in this case.
I
On May 8, 1967, after unsuccessfully seeking to merge with Kern County Land Co. (Old Kern), Occidental Petroleum Corp. (Occidental) announced an offer, to expire on June- 8, 1967, to purchase on a first-come, first-served basis 500,000 shares of Old Kern common stock at a price of $83.50 per share plus a brokerage commission of $1.50 per share. By May 10, 1967, 500.000 shares, more than 10% of the outstanding shares of Old Kern, had been tendered. On May 11, Occidental extended its offer to encompass an additional 500.000 shares. At the close of the tender offer, on June 8, 1967, Occidental owned 887,549 shares of Old Kern.
Immediately upon the announcement of Occidental’s tender offer, the Old Kern management undertook to frustrate Occidental’s takeover attempt. A management letter to all stockholders cautioned against tender and indicated that Occidental’s offer might not be the best available, since the management was engaged in merger discussions with several companies. When Occidental extended its tender offer, the president of Old Kern sent a telegram to all stockholders again advising against tender. In addition, Old Kern undertook merger discussions with Tenneco, Inc. (Tenneco), and, on May 19, 1967, the Board of Directors of Old Kern announced that it had approved a merger proposal advanced by Tenneco. Under the terms of the merger, Tenneco would acquire the assets, property, and goodwill of Old Kern, subject to its liabilities, through “Kern County Land Co.” (New Kern), a new corporation to be formed by Tenneco to receive the assets and carry on the business of Old Kern. The shareholders of Old Kern would receive a share of Tenneco cumulative convertible preference stock in exchange for each share of Old Kern common stock which they owned. On the same day, May 19, Occidental, in a quarterly report to stockholders, appraised the value of the new Tenneco stock at $105 per share.
Occidental, seeing its tender offer and takeover attempt being blocked by the Old Kern-Tenneco “defensive” merger, countered on May 25 and 31 with two mandamus actions in the California courts seeking to obtain extensive inspection of Old Kern books and records. Realizing that, if the Old Kern-Tenneco merger were approved and successfully closed, Occidental would have to exchange its Old Kern shares for Tenneco stock and would be locked into a minority position in Tenneco, Occidental took other steps to protect itself. Between May 30 and June 2, it negotiated an arrangement with Tenneco whereby Occidental granted Tenneco Corp., a subsidiary of Tenneco, an option to purchase at $105 per share all of the Tenneco preference stock to which Occidental would be entitled in exchange for its Old Kern stock when and if the Old Kern-Tenneco merger was closed. The premium to secure the option, at $10 per share, totaled $8,866,230 and was to be paid immediately upon the signing of the option agreement. If the option were exercised, the premium was to be applied to the purchase price. By the terms of the option agreement, the option could not be exercised prior to December 9,1967, a date six months and one day after expiration of Occidental’s tender offer. On June 2, 1967, within six months of the acquisition by Occidental of more than 10% ownership of Old Kern, Occidental and Tenneco Corp. executed the option. Soon thereafter, Occidental announced that it would not oppose the Old KernTenneco merger and dismissed its state court suits against Old Kern.
The Old Kern-Tenneco merger plan was presented to and approved by Old Kern shareholders at their meeting on July 17, 1967. Occidental refrained from voting its Old Kern shares, but in a letter read at the meeting Occidental stated that it had determined prior to June 2 not to oppose the merger and that it did not consider the plan unfair or inequitable. Indeed, Occidental indicated that, had it been voting, it would have voted in favor of the merger.
Meanwhile, the Securities and Exchange Commission had refused Occidental’s request to exempt from possible § 16 (b) liability Occidental’s exchange of its Old Kern stock for the Tenneco preference shares that would take place when and if the merger transaction were closed. Various Old Kern stockholders, with Occidental’s interests in mind, thereupon sought to delay consummation of the merger by instituting various lawsuits in the state and federal courts. These attempts were unsuccessful, however, and preparations for the merger neared completion with an Internal Revenue Service ruling that consummation of the plan would result in a tax-free exchange with no taxable gain or loss to Old Kern shareholders, and with the issuance of the necessary approval of the merger closing by the California Commissioner of Corporations.
The Old Kern-Tenneco merger transaction was closed on August 30. Old Kern shareholders thereupon became irrevocably entitled to receive Tenneco preference stock, share for share in exchange for their Old Kern stock. Old Kern was dissolved and all of its assets, including “all claims, demands, rights and choses in action accrued or to accrue under and by virtue of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934...,” were transferred to New Kern.
The option granted by Occidental on June 2, 1967, was exercised on December 11, 1967. Occidental, not having previously availed itself of its right, exchanged certificates representing 887,549 shares of Old Kern stock for a certificate representing a like number of shares of Tenneco preference stock. The certificate was then endorsed over to the optionee-purchaser, and in return $84,229,185 was credited to Occidental’s accounts at various banks. Adding to this amount the $8,886,230 premium paid in June, Occidental received $93,905,415 for its Old Kern stock (including the 1,900 shares acquired prior to issuance of its tender offer). In addition, Occidental received dividends totaling $1,793,439.22. Occidental’s total profit was $19,506,419.22 on the shares obtained through its tender offer.
On October 17, 1967, New Kern instituted a suit under § 16 (b) against Occidental to recover the profits which Occidental had realized as a result of its dealings in Old Kern stock. The complaint alleged that the execution of the Occidental-Tenneco option on June 2, 1967, and the exchange of Old Kern shares for shares of Tenneco to which Occidental became entitled pursuant to the merger closed on August 30, 1967, were both “sales” within the coverage of § 16 (b). Since both acts took place within six months of the date on which Occidental became the owner of more than 10% of the stock of Old Kern, New Kern asserted that § 16 (b) required surrender of the profits realized by Occidental. New Kern eventually moved for summary judgment, and, on December 27, 1970, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of New Kern. Abrams v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 323 F. Supp. 570 (SDNY 1970). The District Court held that the execution of the option on June 2, 1967, and the exchange of Old Kern shares for shares of Tenneco on August 30, 1967, were “sales” under § 16 (b). The Court ordered Occidental to disgorge its profits plus interest. In a supplemental opinion, Occidental was also ordered to refund the dividends which it had received plus interest.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and ordered summary judgment entered in favor of Occidental. Abrams v. Occidental Petroleum Corp., 450 F. 2d 157 (CA2 1971). The Court held that neither the option nor the exchange constituted a “sale” within the purview of § 16 (b). We granted certiorari. 405 U. S. 1064 (1972). We affirm.
II
Section 16 (b) provides, inter alia, that a statutory insider must surrender to the issuing corporation “any profit realized by him from any purchase and sale, or any sale and purchase, of any equity security of such issuer... within any period of less than six months.” As specified in its introductory clause, § 16 (b) was enacted “[f]or the purpose of preventing the unfair use of information which may have been obtained by [a statutory insider]... by reason of his relationship to the issuer.” Congress recognized that short-swing speculation by stockholders with advance, inside information would threaten the goal of the Securities Exchange Act to “insure the maintenance of fair and honest markets.” 15 U. S. C. § 78b. Insiders could exploit information not generally available to others to secure quick profits. As we have noted, “the only method Congress deemed effective to curb the evils of insider trading was a flat rule taking the profits out of a class of transactions in which the possibility of abuse was believed to be intolerably great.” Reliance Electric Co. v. Emerson Electric Co., 404 U. S. 418, 422 (1972). As stated in the report of the Senate Committee, the bill aimed at protecting the public “by preventing directors, officers, and principal stockholders of a corporation... from speculating in the stock on the basis of information not available to others.” S. Rep. No. 792, 73d Cong., 2d Sess., 9 (1934).
Although traditional cash-for-stock transactions that result in a purchase and sale or a sale and purchase within the six-month, statutory period are clearly within the purview of § 16 (b), the courts have wrestled with the question of inclusion or exclusion of certain “unorthodox” transactions. The statutory definitions of “purchase” and “sale” are broad and, at least arguably, reach many transactions not ordinarily deemed a sale or purchase. In deciding whether borderline transactions are within the reach of the statute, the courts have come to inquire whether the transaction may serve as a vehicle for the evil which Congress sought to prevent — the realization of short-swing profits based upon access to inside information — thereby endeavoring to implement congressional objectives without extending the reach of the statute beyond its intended limits. The statute requires the inside, short-swing trader to disgorge all profits realized on all “purchases” and “sales” within the specified time period, without proof of actual abuse of insider information, and without proof of intent to profit on the basis of such information. Under these strict terms, the prevailing view is to apply the statute only when its application would serve its goals. “[WJhere alternative constructions of the terms of § 16 (b) are possible, those terms are to be given the construction that best serves the congressional purpose of curbing short-swing speculation by corporate insiders.” Reliance Electric Co. v. Emerson Electric Co., 404 U. S., at 424. See Blau v. Lamb, 363 F. 2d 507 (CA2 1966), cert, denied, 385 U. S. 1002 (1967). Thus, “ [i] n interpreting the terms ‘purchase’ and ‘sale,’ courts have properly asked whether the particular type of transaction involved is one that gives rise to speculative abuse.” Reliance Electric Co. v. Emerson Electric Co., supra, at 424 n. 4.
In the present case, it is undisputed that Occidental became a “beneficial owner” within the terms of § 16 (b) when, pursuant to its tender offer, it “purchased” more than 10% of the outstanding shares of Old Kern. We must decide, however, whether a “sale” within the ambit of the statute took place either when Occidental became irrevocably bound to exchange its shares of Old Kern for shares of Tenneco pursuant to the terms of the merger agreement between Old Kern and Tenneco or when Occidental gave an option to Tenneco to purchase from Occidental the Tenneco shares so acquired.
III
On August 30, 1967, the Old Kern-Tenneco merger agreement was signed, and Occidental became irrevocably-entitled to exchange its shares of Old Kern stock for shares of Tenneco preference stock. Concededly, the transaction must be viewed as though Occidental had made the exchange on that day. But, even so, did the exchange involve a “sale” of Old Kern shares within the meaning of § 16 (b)? We agree with the Court of Appeals that it did not, for we think it totally unrealistic to assume or infer from the facts before us that Occidental either had or was likely to have access to inside information, by reason of its ownership of more than 10% of the outstanding shares of Old Kern, so as to afford it an opportunity to reap.speculative, short-swing profits from its disposition within six months of its tender-offer purchases.
It cannot be contended that Occidental was an insider when, on May 8, 1967, it made an irrevocable offer to purchase 500,000 shares of Old Kern stock at a price substantially above market. At that time, it owned only 1,900 shares of Old Kern stock, far fewer than the 432,000 shares needed to constitute the 10% ownership required by the statute. There is no basis for finding that, at the time the tender offer was commenced, Occidental enjoyed an insider’s opportunity to acquire information about Old Kern’s affairs.
It is also wide of the mark to assert that Occidental, as a sophisticated corporation knowledgeable in matters of corporate affairs and finance, knew that its tender offer would either succeed or would be met with a “defensive merger.” If its takeover efforts failed, it is argued, Occidental knew it could sell its stock to the target company’s merger partner at a substantial profit. Calculations of this sort, however, whether speculative or not and whether fair or unfair to other stockholders or to Old Kern, do not represent the kind of speculative abuse at which the statute is aimed, for they could not have been based on inside information obtained from substantial stockholdings that did not yet exist. Accepting both that Occidental made this very prediction and that it would recurringly be an accurate forecast in tender-offer situations, we nevertheless fail to perceive how the fruition of such anticipated events would require, or in any way depend upon, the receipt and use of inside information. If there are evils to be redressed by way of deterring those who would make tender offers, § 16 (b) does not appear to us to have been designed for this task.
By May 10, 1967, Occidental had acquired more than 10% of the outstanding shares of Old Kern. It was thus a statutory insider when, on May 11, it extended its tender offer to include another 500,000 shares. We are quite unconvinced, however, that the situation had changed materially with respect to the possibilities of speculative abuse of inside information by Occidental. Perhaps Occidental anticipated that extending its offer would increase the likelihood of the ultimate success of its takeover attempt or the occurrence of a defensive merger. But, again, the expectation of such benefits was unrelated to the use of information unavailable to other stockholders or members of the public with sufficient funds and the intention to make the purchases Occidental had offered to make before June 8, 1967.
The possibility that Occidental had, or had the opportunity to have, any confidential information about Old Kern before or after May 11, 1967, seems extremely remote. Occidental was, after all, a tender offeror, threatening to seize control of Old Kern, displace its management, and use the company for its own ends. The Old Kern management vigorously and immediately opposed Occidental’s efforts. Twice it communicated with its stockholders, advising against acceptance of Occidental’s offer and indicating prior to May 11 and prior to Occidental’s extension of its offer, that there was a possibility of an imminent merger and a more profitable exchange. Old Kern’s management refused to discuss with Occidental officials the subject of an Old Kern-Occidental merger. Instead, it undertook negotiations with Tenneco and forthwith concluded an agreement, announcing the merger terms on May 19. Requests by Occidental for inspection of Old Kern records were sufficiently frustrated by Old Kern's management to force Occidental to litigate to secure the information it desired.
There is, therefore, nothing in connection with Occidental's acquisition of Old Kern stock pursuant to its tender offer to indicate either the possibility of inside information being available to Occidental by virtue of its stock ownership or the potential for speculative abuse of such inside information by Occidental. Much the same can be said of the events leading to the exchange of Occidental’s Old Kern stock for Tenneco preferred, which is one of the transactions that is sought to be classified a “sale” under § 16 (b). The critical fact is that the exchange took place and was required pursuant to a merger between Old Kern and Tenneco. That merger was not engineered by Occidental but was sought by Old Kern to frustrate the attempts of Occidental to gain control of Old Kern. Occidental obviously did not participate in or control the negotiations or the agreement between Old Kern and Tenneco. Cf. Newmark v. RKO General, 425 F. 2d 348 (CA2), cert, denied, 400 U. S. 854 (1970) ; Park & Tilford v. Schulte, 160 F. 2d 984 (CA2), cert, denied, 332 U. S. 761 (1947). Once agreement between those two companies crystallized, the course of subsequent events was out of Occidental’s hands. Old Kern needed the consent of its stockholders, but as it turned out, Old Kern's management had the necessary votes without the affirmative vote of Occidental. The merger agreement was approved by a majority of the stockholders of Old Kern, excluding the votes to which Occidental was entitled by virtue of its ownership of Old Kern shares. See generally Ferraiolo v. Newman, 259 F. 2d 342 (CA6 1958), cert, denied, 359 U. S. 927 (1959); Roberts v. Eaton, 212 F. 2d 82 (CA2 1954). Occidental, although registering its opinion that the merger would be beneficial to Old Kern shareholders, did not in fact vote at the stockholders’ meeting at which merger approval was obtained. Under California law, its abstention was tantamount to a vote against approval of the merger. Moreover, at the time of stockholder ratification of the merger, Occidental’s previous dealing in Old Kern stock was, as it had always been, fully disclosed.
Once the merger and exchange were approved, Occidental was left with no real choice with respect to the future of its shares of Old Kern. Occidental was in no position to prevent the issuance of a ruling by the Internal Revenue Service that the exchange of Old Kern stock for Tenneco preferred would be tax free; and, although various lawsuits were begun in state and federal courts seeking to postpone the merger closing beyond the statutory six-month period, those efforts were futile. The California Corporation Commissioner issued the necessary permits for the closing that took place on August 30, 1967. The merger left no right in dissenters to secure appraisal of their stock. Occidental could, of course, have disposed of its shares of Old Kern for cash before the merger was closed. Such an act would have been a § 16 (b) sale and would have left Occidental with a prima facie § 16 (b) liability. It was not, therefore, a realistic alternative for Occidental as long as it felt that it could successfully defend a suit like the present one. See generally Petteys v. Butler, 367 F. 2d 528 (CA8 1966), cert, denied, 385 U. S. 1006 (1967); Ferraiolo v. Newman, supra; Lynam v. Livingston, 276 F. Supp. 104 (Del. 1967); Blau v. Hodgkinson, 100 F. Supp. 361 (SDNY 1951). We do not suggest that an exchange of stock pursuant to a merger may never result in § 16 (b) liability. But the involuntary nature of Occidental’s exchange, when coupled with the absence of the possibility of speculative abuse of inside information, convinces us that § 16 (b) should not apply to transactions such as this one.
IY
Petitioner also claims that the Occidental-Tenneco option agreement should itself be considered a sale, either because it was the kind of transaction the statute was designed to prevent or because the agreement was an option in form but a sale in fact. But the mere execution of an option to sell is not generally regarded as a “sale.” See Booth v. Varian Associates, 334 F. 2d 1 (CA1 1964), cert, denied, 379 U. S. 961 (1965); Allis-Chalmers Mjg. Co. v. Gulf & Western Industries, 309 F. Supp. 75 (ED Wis. 1970); Marquette Cement Mjg. Co. v. Andreas, 239 F. Supp. 962 (SDNY 1965). And we do not find in the execution of the Occidental-Tenneco option agreement a sufficient possibility for the speculative abuse of inside information with respect to Old Kern’s affairs to warrant holding that the option agreement was itself a “sale” within the meaning of § 16 (b). The mutual advantages of the arrangement appear quite clear. As the District Court found, Occidental wanted to avoid the position of a minority stockholder with a huge investment in a company over which it had no control and in which it had not chosen to invest. On the other hand, Tenneco did not want a potentially troublesome minority stockholder that had just been vanquished in a fight for the control of Old Kern. Motivations like these do not smack of insider trading; and it is not clear to us, as it was not to the Court of Appeals, how the negotiation and execution of the option agreement gave Occidental any possible opportunity to trade on inside information it might have obtained from its position as a major stockholder of Old Kern. Occidental wanted to get out, but only at a date more than six months thence. It was willing to get out at a price of $105 per share, a price at which it had publicly valued Tenneco preferred on May 19 when the Tenneco-Old Kern agreement was announced. In any event, Occidental was dealing with the putative new owners of Old Kern, who undoubtedly knew more about Old Kern and Tenneco’s affairs than did Occidental. If Occidental had leverage in dealing with Tenneco, it is incredible that its source was inside information rather than the fact of its large stock ownership itself.
Neither does it appear that the option agreement, as drafted and executed by the parties, offered measurable possibilities for speculative abuse. What Occidental granted was a “call” option. Tenneco had the right to buy after six months, but Occidental could not force Tenneco to buy. The price was fixed at $105 for each share of Tenneco preferred. Occidental could not share in a rising market for the Tenneco stock See Silverman v. Landa, 306 F. 2d 422 (CA2 1962). If the stock fell more than $10 per share, the option might not be exercised, and Occidental might suffer a loss if the market further deteriorated to a point where Occidental was forced to sell. Thus, the option, by its very form, left Occidental with no choice but to sell if Tenneco exercised the option, which it was almost sure to do if the value of Tenneco stock remained relatively steady. On the other hand, it is difficult to perceive any speculative value to Occidental if the stock declined and Tenneco chose not to exercise its option. See generally Note, Put and Call Options Under Section 16 of the Securities Exchange Act, 69 Yale L. J. 868 (1960); H. Filer, Understanding Put and Call Options 96-111 (1959); G. Leffler, The Stock Market 363-378 (2d ed. 1957).
The option, therefore, does not appear to have been an instrument with potential for speculative abuse, whether or not Occidental possessed inside information about the affairs of Old Kern. In addition, the option covered Tenneco preference stock, a stock as yet unissued, unregistered, and untraded. It was the value of this stock that underlay the option and that determined whether the option would be exercised, whether Occidental would be able to profit from the exercise, and whether there was any real likelihood of the exploitation of inside information. If Occidental had inside information when it negotiated and signed the option agreement, it was inside information with respect to Old Kern. Whatever it may have known or expected as to the future value of Old Kern stock, Occidental had no ownership position in Tenneco giving it any actual or presumed insights into the future value of Tenneco stock. That was the critical item of intelligence if Occidental was to use the option for purposes of speculation. Also, the date for exercise of the option was over six months in the future, a period that, under the statute itself, is assumed to dissipate whatever trading advantage might be imputed to a major stockholder with inside information. See Comment, Stock Exchanges Pursuant to Corporate Consolidation: A Section 16 (b) “Purchase or Sale?,” 117 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1034,1054 (1969); Silverman v. Landa,, supra. By enshrining the statutory period into the option, Occidental also, at least if the statutory period is taken to accomplish its intended purpose, limited its speculative possibilities. Nor should it be forgotten that there was no absolute assurance that the merger, which was not controlled by Occidental, would be consummated. In the event the merger did not close, the option itself would become null and void.
Nor can we agree that we must reverse the Court of Appeals on the ground that the option agreement was in fact a sale because the premium paid was so large as to make the exercise of the option almost inevitable, particularly when coupled with Tenneco’s desire to rid itself of a potentially troublesome stockholder. The argument has force, but resolution of the question is very much a matter of judgment, economic and otherwise, and the Court of Appeals rejected the argument. That court emphasized that the premium paid was what experts had said the option was worth, the possibility that the market might drop sufficiently in the six months following execution of the option to make exercise unlikely, and the fact that here, unlike the situation in Bershad v. McDonough, 428 F. 2d 693 (CA7 1970), the optionor did not surrender practically all emoluments of ownership by executing the option. Nor did any other special circumstances indicate that the parties understood and intended that the option was in fact a sale. We see no satisfactory basis or reason for disagreeing with the judgment of the Court of Appeals in this respect.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
So ordered.
“For the. purpose of preventing the unfair use of information which may have been obtained by such beneficial owner, director, or officer by reason of his relationship to the issuer, any profit realized by him from any purchase and sale, or any sale and purchase, of any equity security of such issuer (other than an exempted security) within any period of less than six months, unless such security was acquired in good faith in connection with a debt previously contracted, shall inure to and be recoverable by the issuer, irrespective of any intention on the part of such beneficial owner, director, or officer in entering into such transaction of holding the security purchased or of not repurchasing the security sold for a period exceeding six months. Suit to recover such profit may be instituted at law or in equity in any court of competent jurisdiction by the issuer, or by the owner of any security of the issuer in the name and in behalf of the issuer if the issuer shall fail or refuse to bring such suit within sixty days after request or shall fail diligently to prosecute the same thereafter; but no such suit shall be brought more than two years after the date such profit was realized. This subsection shall not be construed to cover any transaction where such beneficial owner was not such both at the time of the purchase and sale, or the sale and purchase, of the security involved, or any transaction or transactions which the Commission by rules and regulations may exempt as not comprehended within the purpose of this subsection.” 15 U. S. C. § 78p (b).
Old Kern was a California corporation having substantial real estate holdings, including oil-producing lands, oil-exploration activities, cattle ranching, cattle-feeding operations, and interests in the manufacture of automotive parts, electronic systems and devices, and farm machinery and construction equipment. After the reorganization described in the text, Old Kern became known as the 600 California Corporation until its eventual dissolution under California law on October 6, 1967.
Occidental is the respondent in this Court. A California corporation with its principal place of business in California, Occidental is engaged in the production and sale of oil, gas, coal, sulphur, and fertilizers.
The Old Kern stock was registered pursuant to § 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 781. The stock was a nonexempt, equity security for purposes of § 16 (b).
The Old Kern stock closed at 63% on Friday, May 8, 1967, the last trading day prior to the announcement of the tender offer. It had reached a high of 64ys and a low of 57% in 1967, a high of 76% and a low of 51% in 1966, a high of 71% and a low of 56 in 1965, and a high of 70% and a low of 56% in 1964. Thus, the $85-per-share tender-offer price represented a substantial profit for shareholders of Old Kern.
On May 10, Old Kern had 4,328,000 shares outstanding.
On May 18, 1967, Occidental filed a Form 3, Initial Statement of Beneficial Ownership of Securities, with the Securities and Exchange Commission indicating direct ownership of 507,055 shares of Old Kern stock; on June 9, 1967, Occidental filed a Form 4, Statement of Changes in Beneficial Ownership of Securities, for the month of May, indicating the purchase of an additional 376,326 shares of Old Kern stock, for a total ownership as of May 31, 1967, of 883,381 shares. An additional 4,168 shares were purchased by June 8, 1967, so that as of June 30, 1967, Occidental held 887,549 shares of Old Kern stock. This figure included 1,900 shares which Occidental purchased on the open market in April 1967. Section 16 (b) liability is not asserted with respect to these shares, because these purchases did not make Occidental a “beneficial owner” for purposes of § 16 (b).
Tenneco, a Delaware corporation, is a diversified industrial company with operations in natural gas transmission, oil and gas, chemicals, packaging, manufacturing, and shipbuilding. Tenneco is not a party to this litigation.
Although technically a sale of assets, the corporate combination has been consistently referred to by the parties as a “merger” and will be similarly denominated in this opinion. The only significance of the characterization is the fact that a sale of assets required, under California law, approval of only a majority of the Old Kern shareholders and provided no appraisal rights for dissenters.
New Kern, a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in California, is the petitioner in this Court and is a wholly owned subsidiary of Tenneco Corp. Tenneco Corp. is, in turn, a wholly owned subsidiary of Tenneco and owns all of the capital stock or controlling interests in most of Tenneco’s nonpipeline operating subsidiaries. When first incorporated, New Kern was known as KCL Corp.
The annual dividend of $5.50 per share on the new Tenneco stock would be more than double the current annual dividend of $2.60 per share on the Old Kern stock. Each share of the new Tenneco preference stock was convertible into 3.6 shares of Tenneco common stock. During 1967, Tenneco common stock had sold at a high of 32% and a low of 20%. Moreover, in contrast to Occidental’s cash offer, the Tenneco exchange was expected to be, and was ultimately approved by the Internal Revenue Service as, free of capital gains tax.
Prior to any court ruling on Occidental’s mandamus petitions, Old Kern voluntarily permitted inspection of Old Kern’s general ledger, consolidated financial statements, consolidated journal entries, details of cash receipts from oil operations, supporting trial balances, and other records over a six-day period. A list of stockholders, however, was withheld.
The agreement covered 886,623 shares. This figure is 926 shares less than the number of Old Kern shares ultimately owned by Occidental. This discrepancy apparently results from uncertainty as to the number of shares tendered.
An outside investment banking firm in New York had determined that between $9 and $12 per share was a fair premium on an option on the Old Kern stock.
On that date, and on the date of the exercise of the option, Old Kern common stock was selling at approximately $95 per share.
Seeking to prevent its acquisition of Tenneco shares pursuant to the merger from being matched with the sale of those shares upon exercise of the option for purposes of establishing § 16 (b) liability, Occidental asked that the new Tenneco stock not be immediately registered pursuant to § 12 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U. S. C. § 78l. See 450 F. 2d 157, 160 n. 6.
The letter indicated that Occidental “did not consider it to be in its best interest, or the best interest of its shareholders, or the best interest of KCL Shareholders generally for it to [oppose] the transaction.” However, Occidental stated that “[i]n view of the fact that we would rather have worked out our own transaction with KCL, we shall not vote our KCL shares at the KCL Shareholder’s Meeting on July 17, 1967.” Under applicable California law, the abstention from voting was tantamount to opposing the merger.
This history of this litigation is reviewed in 600 California Corp. v. Harjean Co., 284 F. Supp. 843 (ND Tex. 1968).
Occidental answered asserting various affirmative defenses and shareholders, and one was subsequently begun.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a civil contempt proceeding arising out of Walling v. Jacksonville Paper Co., 317 U. S. 564, which we decided January 18, 1943. The District Court had held that none of respondents’ employees in specified classes were covered by the Fair Labor Standards Act. 52 Stat. 1060, 29 U. S. C. § 201. We sustained a judgment of the United States Court of Appeals which reversed the District Court, modifying it slightly to include a larger class of employees than the United States Court of Appeals had held to be covered.
On remand the District Court, without a further hearing, entered a decree enjoining respondents from violating the Act in any of the following particulars: (1) by paying the designated classes of employees less than 300 an hour from the date of the judgment to October 24, 1945, or less than 400 an hour thereafter, except as permitted by orders of the Administrator under § 8 or § 14 of the Act; (2) by employing such employees for a workweek longer than 40 hours unless they receive compensation for employment in excess of 40 hours in the workweek at a rate not less than one and one-half times the regular rate at which they are employed; and (3) by failing to keep and preserve records as prescribed by the Administrator, particularly records of the hours worked each workday and each workweek by each of the employees and of the total wages paid to each for each workweek.
Respondent took no appeal from this order. This was in 1943. In 1946 the Administrator instituted this contempt proceeding alleging that respondents had not complied with the minimum wage, overtime, and record-keeping provisions of the judgment in many specified respects. He prayed that respondents be required to termínate their continuing violations and in order to purge themselves of their contempts to make payment of the amounts of unpaid wages due the affected employees. The District Court found violations of the provisions of the decree. It found that (1) respondents had set up a completely false and fictitious method of computing compensation without regard to the hours actually worked which were unlawful under the Act; (2) respondents had adopted a plan which gave the employees a wage increase in the guise of a bonus and yet excluded that increase from the regular rate of pay for the purpose of computing overtime; (3) respondents had classified some employees as executive or administrative employees in plain violation of the regulations of the Administrator adopted under § 13 (a) (1) of the Act; and (4) one of the respondents had employed pieceworkers in excess of the maximum workweek without paying them overtime compensation.
The District Court held that a civil contempt required a “wilful” violation of a decree; and that there was in this case no showing of any “wilful” violation of any “specific” provision of the former decree “prohibiting the doing of any specific thing.” The District Court further held that it had no power on the application of the Administrator to enforce compliance with its former decree by ordering the payment of unpaid statutory wages. It accordingly considered the application of the Administrator as an amended complaint seeking a broadening of the previous decree and entered such an injunction. 69 F. Supp. 599.
All parties appealed. The United States Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment. It ruled that respondents had violated the provisions of the decree couched in terms of the Act in the respects found by the District Court. It also held that the District Court was warranted in concluding that there was no “wilful contempt” since neither the law nor the injunction specifically referred to or condemned the practices which were found to violate the Act. 167 F. 2d 448.
The case is here on a petition for a writ of certiorari which we granted because of the importance of the problem in the administration of the Act.
First. The absence of wilfulness does not relieve from civil contempt. Civil as distinguished from criminal contempt is a sanction to enforce compliance with an order of the court or to compensate for losses or damages sustained by reason of noncompliance. See United States v. United Mine Workers, 330 U. S. 258, 303-304; Penfield Co. v. Securities & Exchange Commission, 330 U. S. 585, 590; Maggio v. Zeitz, 333 U. S. 56, 68. Since the purpose is remedial, it matters not with what intent the defendant did the prohibited act. The decree was not fashioned so as to grant or withhold its benefits dependent on the state of mind of respondents. It laid on them a duty to obey specified provisions of the statute. An act does not cease to be a violation of a law and of a decree merely because it may have been done innocently. The force and vitality of judicial decrees derive from more robust sanctions. And the grant or withholding of remedial relief is not wholly discretionary with the judge, as Mr. Justice Brandeis wrote for a unanimous Court in Union Tool Co. v. Wilson, 259 U. S. 107, 111-112. The private or public rights that the decree sought to protect are an important measure of the remedy.
Second. As we have noted, the decree directed respondents to obey the provisions of the Act dealing with minimum wages, overtime, and the keeping of records. There was no appeal from it. By its terms it enjoined any practices which were violations of those statutory provisions. Decrees of that generality are often necessary to prevent further violations where a proclivity for unlawful conduct has been shown. See May Stores Co. v. Labor Board, 326 U. S. 376, 390, 391; United States v. Crescent Amusement Co., 323 U. S. 173, 186. Respondents’ record of continuing and persistent violations of the Act would indicate that that kind of a decree was wholly warranted in this case. Yet if there were extenuating circumstances or if the decree was too burdensome in operation, there was a method of relief apart from an appeal. Respondents could have petitioned the District Court for a modification, clarification or construction of the order. See Regal Knitwear Co. v. Labor Board, 324 U. S. 9, 15. But respondents did not take that course either. They undertook to make their own determination of what the decree meant. They knew they acted at their peril. For they were alerted by the decree against any violation of specified provisions of the Act.
It does not lie in their mouths to say that they have an immunity from civil contempt because the plan or scheme which they adopted was not specifically enjoined. Such a rule would give tremendous impetus to the program of experimentation with disobedience of the law which we condemned in Maggio v. Zeitz, supra, at 69. The instant case is an excellent illustration of how it could operate to prevent accountability for persistent contumacy. Civil contempt is avoided today by showing that the specific plan adopted by respondents was not enjoined. Hence a new decree is entered enjoining that particular plan. Thereafter the defendants work out a plan that was not specifically enjoined. Immunity is once more obtained because the new plan was not specifically enjoined. And so a whole series of wrongs is perpetrated and a decree of enforcement goes for naught.
That result not only proclaims the necessity of decrees that are not so narrow as to invite easy evasion; it also emphasizes the danger in the attitude expressed by the courts below that the remedial benefits of a decree will be withheld where the precise arrangement worked out to discharge the duty to pay which both the statute and the decree imposed was not specifically enjoined.
We need not impeach the findings of the lower courts that respondents had no purpose to evade the decree, in order to hold that their violations of it warrant the imposition of sanctions. They took a calculated risk when under the threat of contempt they adopted measures designed to avoid the legal consequences of the Act. Respondents are not unwitting victims of the law. Having been caught in its toils, they were endeavoring to extricate themselves. They knew full well the risk of crossing the forbidden line. Accordingly where as here the aim is remedial and not punitive, there can be no complaint that the burden of any uncertainty in the decree is on respondents’ shoulders.
Third. We have no doubts concerning the power of the District Court to order respondents, in order to purge themselves of contempt, to pay the damages caused by their violations of the decree. We can lay to one side the question whether the Administrator, when suing to restrain violations of the Act, is entitled to a decree of restitution for unpaid wages. Cf. Porter v. Warner Holding Co., 328 U. S. 395. We are dealing here with the power of a court to grant the relief that is necessary to effect compliance with its decree. The measure of the court’s power in civil contempt proceedings is determined by the requirements of full remedial relief. They may. entail the doing of a variety of acts, such as the production of books. Penfield Co. v. Securities & Exchange Commission, supra. They may also require the payment of money as in the alimony cases. See Gompers v. Bucks S. & R. Co., 221 U. S. 418, 442; Oriel v. Russell, 278 U. S. 358, 36A-365.
The decree that was violated in the present case relates to the payment of wages and overtime pay required by § § 6 and 7 of the Act. It does not, however, compute the weekly and monthly amount that is due each employee under the correct construction of the Act. Nor does it contain the names of the payees. But it provides the formula by which the amounts can be simply computed. If it had gone one step further and made the computation, listing the amounts due each employee, the case would then be on all fours with the alimony cases. Yet the circumstance that changing payrolls and fluctuating rates of pay make that impractical in this type of case does not mark a material difference.
The direction of the court was that respondents make payments of wages to their employees pursuant to a prescribed formula. If the court is powerless tó require the prescribed payments to be made, it has lost the most effective sanction for its decree and a premium has been placed on violations. The fact that another suit might be brought to collect the payments is, of course, immaterial. For the court need not sit supinely by waiting for some litigant to take the initiative. Vindication of its authority through enforcement of its decree does not depend on such whimsical or fortuitous circumstances. The fact that the Administrator is the complainant and that the back wages go to the employees is not material. It is the power of the court with which we are dealing — the power of the court to enforce compliance with the injunction which the Act authorizes, which the court has issued, and which respondents have long disobeyed.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Rutledge concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter, with whom Mr. Justice Jackson concurs, dissenting.
Obedience must of course be secured for the command of a court. To secure such obedience is the function of a proceeding for contempt. But courts should be explicit and precise in their commands and should only then be strict in exacting compliance. To be both strict and indefinite is a kind of judicial tyranny.
In such a case as this, only after an administrative order has been formulated and a court has adjudicated that the order is within the administrator’s statutory authority does the command of a court come into existence, disobedience of which may be punished as contempt. For violation of the Fair Labor Standards Act as such, one may be made to suffer civil penalties or imprisonment, but the latter only after conviction by a jury. For violation of the command of an injunction issued under the Act, however, he may not only be exposed to more severe civil penalties than the Act by its own terms imposes, but made to suffer imprisonment without benefit of jury trial. It is for such reasons that this Court has indicated again and again that a statute cannot properly be made the basis of contempt proceedings merely by incorporating a reference to its broad terms into a court order. See, e. g., Swift & Co. v. United States, 196 U. S. 375, 396; New York, N. H. & H. R. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 200 U. S. 361, 404; Labor Board v. Express Publishing Company, 312 U. S. 426, 435. These considerations become increasingly important as there is increasing use of injunctions for the enforcement of administrative orders and statutory duties.
These are general principles but their application governed the decisions of the District Court and of the Court of Appeals; they should control the decision here. The two lower courts found that while the practices now complained of by the Administrator of the Wage and Hour Division of the Department of Labor constituted violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, they were not on any fair consideration covered by the injunction, contempt of which is now charged. The injunction underlying this proceeding takes eight pages of a printed record and particularizes in great detail the violations which were enjoined. It also contains omnibus clauses prohibiting violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. On full consideration, the District Court treated the application for an adjudication of civil contempt “as an amended complaint seeking a broadening of the injunctive orders heretofore entered in this case, and will enter an amended judgment enjoining defendants from violating the provisions of the Fair Labor Standards Act as adjudicated in this Memorandum Opinion.” 69 F. Supp. 599, 608. The Court of Appeals agreed with this view of the District Court (with a minor modification not here relevant). 167 F. 2d 448. In short, both courts found no contempt. They did so because there was lacking that clearness of command in the court’s order which warranted a finding of its disobedience, if due regard were paid to the proper construction of the injunction as the starting point of the contempt proceedings. At the least, such was a warrantable interpretation of the circumstances of this case, and we are disentitled to set our interpretation against theirs.
In reversing the conclusion of the two lower courts that there was no contempt because there was no disobedience of the injunction, the Court is rendering a decision of far-reaching import to the law of injunctions. Today’s ruling happens to concern an injunction against an employer. Tomorrow it may be an injunction against employees, as it was yesterday and too often in the past. One of the grievances which led to the Norris-LaGuardia Act was the generality of the terms of labor injunctions. Ambiguity lurks in generality and may thus become an instrument of severity. Behind the vague inclusiveness of an injunction like the one before us is the hazard of retrospective interpretation as the basis of punishment through contempt proceedings. The two lower courts, in finding that generally to enjoin obedience to a law is too vague a foundation for proceedings in contempt, were avoiding the very evil with which labor injunctions were justly charged. And of course it is not to be assumed that the allowable vagueness of an injunction varies with the use to which the injunction is put. This Court ought not to encourage injunctions couched in such indefinite terms by setting aside the findings of the courts below that the injunction did not forbid with explicitness sufficient to justify a finding of contempt.
I would affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
It also found violations of the record-keeping provisions of the decree, some of which it held to be trivial and others of which had been discontinued.
See 2 High on Injunctions (4th ed., 1905) §§ 1416 et seq.
Section 16 (b) authorizes suits by employees to recover wages and overtime unlawfully withheld.
It is the Administrator who is directed and authorized by § 11 (a) of the Act to bring actions to restrain violations of the Act of the character involved here. Cf. Inland Steel Co. v. United States, 306 U. S. 153, 157; United States v. Morgan, 307 U. S. 183, 193-194; Commission v. Brashear Lines, 312 U. S. 621, 628-630.
See §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:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This suit for declaratory relief that a Maryland teacher’s oath required of appellant was unconstitutional was heard by a three-judge court and dismissed. 258 P. Supp. 589. We noted probable jurisdiction. 386 U. S. 906.
Appellant, who was offered a teaching position with the University of Maryland, refused to take the following oath:
“I,-, do hereby (Print Name— including middle initial) certify that I am not engaged in one way or another in the attempt to overthrow the Government of the United States, or the State of Maryland, or any political subdivision of either of them, by force or violence.
“I further certify that I understand the afore-going statement is made subject to the penalties of perjury prescribed in Article 27, Section 439 of the Annotated Code of Maryland (1957 edition).”
The question is whether the oath is to be read in isolation or in connection with the Ober Act (Art. 85A, Md. Ann. Code, 1957) which by §§ 1 and 13 defines a “subversive” as “. . . any person who commits, attempts to commit, or aids in the commission, or advocates, abets, advises or teaches by any means any person to commit, attempt to commit, or aid in the commission of any act intended to overthrow, destroy or alter, or to assist in the overthrow, destruction or alteration of, the constitutional form of the government of the United States, or of the State of Maryland, or any political subdivision of either of them, by revolution, force, or violence; or who is a member of a subversive organization or a foreign subversive organization, as more fully defined in this article.” (Italics supplied.) Section 1 defines the latter terms: “subversive organization” meaning a group that would, inter alia', “alter” the form of government “by revolution, force, or violence”; “foreign subversive organization” is such a group directed, dominated, or controlled by a foreign government which engages in such activities.
The oath was prepared by the Attorney General and approved by the Board of Regents that has exclusive management of the university. It is conceded that the Board had authority to provide an oath, as § 11 of the Act directs every agency of the State which appoints, employs, or supervises officials or employees to establish procedures designed to ascertain before a person is appointed or employed that he or she “is not a subversive person.” And that term is, as noted, defined by §§ 1 and 13. Our conclusion is that, since the authority to prescribe oaths is provided by § 11 of the Act and since it is in turn tied to §§ 1 and 13, we must consider the oath with reference to § § 1 and 13, not in isolation. Nor can we assume that the Board of Regents meant to encompass less than the Ober Act, as construed, sought to cover.
If the Federal Constitution is our guide, a person who might wish to “alter” our form of government may not be cast into the outer darkness. For the Constitution prescribes the method of “alteration” by the amending process in Article V; and while the procedure for amending it is restricted, there is no restraint on the kind of amendment that may be offered. Moreover, the First Amendment, which protects a controversial as well as a conventional dialogue (Terminiello v. Chicago, 337 U. S. 1), is as applicable to the States as it is to the Federal Government; and it extends to petitions for redress of grievances (Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229, 235) as well as to advocacy and debate. So if §§ 1 and 13 of the Ober Act are the frame of reference in which the challenged oath is to be adjudged, we have important questions to resolve.
We are asked to treat §§ 1 and 13 as if they barred only those who seek to overthrow or destroy the Government by force or violence. Reference is made to Gerende v. Election Board, 341 U. S. 56, where, in considering the definition of “subversive” person applicable to § 15 of the Act, governing candidates for office, we accepted the representation of the Attorney General that he would advise the proper authorities in Maryland to take and adopt the narrower version of the term “subversive.” The Court of Appeals of Maryland had indicated in Shub v. Simpson, 196 Md. 177, 76 A. 2d 332, that the purpose of the Act was to reach that group, and that the words “revolution, force, or violence” in § 1 did not include a peaceful revolution but one accomplished by force or violence. Id., at 190-191, 76 A. 2d, at 337-338, In that view the “alteration” defined would be an alteration by force and violence. That construction had not yet been fashioned into an oath or certificate when Gerende reached us. That case involved an attempt by a candidate for public office in Maryland to require the election officials to dispense with an oath that incorporated the statutory language. The Court of Appeals refused the relief asked. We referred to the narrow construction of §§ 1 and 15 given in the Shub case saying:
“We- read this decision to hold that to obtain a place on a Maryland ballot a candidate need only make oath that he is not a person who is engaged fin one way or another in the attempt to overthrow the government by force or violence,’ and that he is not knowingly a member of an organization engaged in such an attempt. [196] Md. at [192], 76 A. 2d at 338. At the bar of this Court the Attorney General of the State of Maryland declared that he would advise the proper authorities to accept an affidavit in these terms as satisfying in full the statutory requirement. Under these circumstances and with this understanding, the judgment of the Maryland Court of Appeals is affirmed.” 341 U. S., at 56-57.
As we said in Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360, 368, n. 7, we did not pass upon or approve the statutory definition of a “subversive” person in the Gerende case. Rather we accepted the narrowing construction tendered by the Attorney General during oral argument so as to avoid the constitutional issue that was argued.
It is, however, urged that § 18 of the Act which contains a severability clause makes it possible for the Maryland Attorney General and for us to separate the wheat from the chaff that may be in §§ 1 and 13. The District Court found merit in the point. 258 F. Supp., at 596. But our difficulty goes deeper. As we have said in like situations, the oath required must not be so vague and broad as to make men of common intelligence speculate at their peril on its meaning. Baggett v. Bullitt, supra; Elfbrandt v. Russell, 384 U. S. 11; Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U. S. 589. And so we are faced with the kind of problem which we thought we had avoided in Gerende.
As we have seen, §§ 1 and 13 reach (1) those who would “alter” the form of government “by revolution, force, or violence” and (2) those who are members of a subversive organization or a foreign subversive organization.
The prescribed oath requires, under threat of perjury, a statement that the applicant is not engaged “in one way or another” in an attempt to overthrow the Government by force or violence. Though we assume arguendo that the Attorney General and the Board of Regents were authorized so to construe the Act as to prescribe a narrow oath (1) that excluded “alteration” of the Government by peaceful “revolution” and (2) that excluded all specific reference to membership in subversive groups, we still are beset with difficulties. Would a member of a group that was out to overthrow the Government by force or violence be engaged in that attempt “in one way or another” within the meaning of the oath, even though he was ignorant of the real aims of the group and wholly innocent of any illicit purpose? We do not know; nor could a prospective employee know, save as he risked a prosecution for perjury.
We are in the Eirst Amendment field. The continuing surveillance which this type of law places on teachers is hostile to academic freedom. As we said in Sweezy v. New Hampshire, 354 U. S. 234, 250:
“The essentiality of freedom in the community of American universities is almost self-evident. No one should underestimate the vital role in a democracy that is played by those who guide and train our youth. To impose any straitjacket upon the intellectual leaders in our colleges and universities would imperil the future of our Nation. No field of education is so thoroughly comprehended by man that new discoveries cannot yet be made. Particularly is that true in the social sciences, where few, if any, principles are accepted as absolutes. Scholarship cannot flourish in an atmosphere of suspicion and distrust. Teachers and students must always remain free to inquire, to study and to evaluate, to gain new maturity and understanding; otherwise our civilization will stagnate and die.”
The restraints on conscientious teachers are obvious. As we noted in the Elfbrandt case, even attendance at an international conference might be a trap for the innocent if that conference were predominantly composed of those who would overthrow the Government by force or violence. 384 U. S., at 16-17. “Juries might convict though the teacher did not subscribe to the wrongful aims of the organization.” Id., at 17.
In sum, we read the oath as an integral part of the Ober Act; and we undertake to read §§ 1 and 13 of that Act in light of the gloss that the Maryland courts have placed on it. We know that the Shut case says that “[a] person who advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States . . . through force or violence could scarcely in good faith, take the constitutional oath of office . . . .” 196 Md., at 190, 76 A. 2d, at 337. (Italics supplied.) Yet that case does little more than afford the basis for argument that membership in a subversive organization means that the member must advocate a violent overthrow. This, however, is speculation, not certainty! Another Maryland case bearing on the question is Character Committee v. Mandras, 233 Md. 285, 196 A. 2d 630. There an applicant for admission to the Maryland bar answered “No” to the question “Are you now or have you ever been a subversive person as defined by the [Ober Act]?” He had apparently at one time been a member of the Communist Party. At a hearing he testified he had joined the party because he was interested in the candidacy of Henry Wallace and in the cause of civil liberties; but he denied he had been a subversive person or that he had advocated violent overthrow of the Government. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Board of Law Examiners, finding that the applicant was not a subversive person. So it can be argued that passive membership as a matter of Maryland law does not make a person a subversive. Yet, as we read §§ 1 and 13 of the Ober Act, the alteration clause and membership clause are still befogged. The lines between permissible and impermissible conduct are quite indistinct. Precision and clarity are not present. Rather we find an overbreadth that makes possible oppressive or capricious application as regimes change. That very threat, as we said in another context (NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 432-433), may deter the flowering of academic freedom as much as successive suits for perjury.
Like the other oath cases mentioned, we have another classic example of the need for “narrowly drawn” legislation (Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 311) in this sensitive and important First Amendment area.
Reversed.
There is not only the provision for perjury prescribed in § 11, but also § 14 which provides in part that “Reasonable grounds on all the evidence to believe that any person is a subversive person, as defined in this article, shall be cause for discharge” of the employee. See Anti-Fascist Committee v. McGrath, 341 U. S. 123, 175, n. 1 (concurring opinion).
Art. 15, §11, of the Maryland Constitution reads:
“No person who is a member of an organization that advocates the overthrow of the Government of the United States or of the State of Marjdand through force or violence shall be eligible to hold any office, be it elective or appointive, or any other position of profit or trust in the Government of or in the administration of the business of this State or of any county, municipality or other political subdivision of this State.”
Shub tells us that the Ober Act was enacted pursuant to this state constitutional provision. 196 Md., at 192, 76 A. 2d, at 338. Our attention is not drawn to, nor have we found, any severability clause applicable to this constitutional provision. It is certainly dubious, then, whether the severability clause of the Ober Act can operate to “sever” the membership clause in the definition of subversive person so that it reads more narrowly than the constitutional provision upon which the Ober Act rests.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Opinion of the Court, by
Mr. Justice Frankfurter,
announced by Mr. Justice Clark.
In view of this Court’s prior decisions, our limited grant of certiorari in this case brings a narrow question here. We are to determine whether, in the particular circumstances of this record, petitioner’s conviction at his see-ond trial for violation of 18 U. S. C. § 659, after his first trial had been terminated by the trial judge’s declaration of a mistrial sua sponte and without petitioner’s “active and express consent,” violates the Fifth Amendment’s prohibition of double jeopardy. The Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in baric affirmed petitioner’s conviction (one judge dissenting), holding his constitutional objection without merit. 282 F. 2d 43. We agree that the Fifth Amendment does not require a contrary result.
Petitioner was brought to trial before a jury in the District Court for the Eastern District of New York on February 4, 1959, on an information charging that he had knowingly received and possessed goods stolen in interstate commerce. That same afternoon, during the direct examination of the fourth witness for the Government, the presiding judge, on his own motion and with neither approval nor objection by petitioner’s counsel, withdrew a juror and declared a mistrial. It is unclear what reasons caused the court to take this action, which the Court of Appeals characterized as “overassiduous” and criticized as premature. Apparently the trial judge inferred that the prosecuting attorney’s line of questioning presaged inquiry calculated to inform the jury of other crimes by the accused, and took action to forestall it. In any event, it is obvious, as the Court of Appeals concluded, that the judge “was acting according to his convictions in protecting the rights of the accused.” 282 F. 2d, at 46. The court below did not hold the mistrial ruling erroneous or an abuse of discretion. It did find the prosecutor’s conduct unexceptionable and the reason for the mistrial, therefore, not “entirely clear.” It did say that “the judge should have awaited a definite question which would have permitted a clear-cut ruling,” and that, in failing to do so, he displayed an “overzealousness” and acted “too hastily.” Id,., at 46, 48. But after discussing the wide range of discretion which the “fundamental concepts of the federal administration of criminal justice” allow to the trial judge in determining whether or not a mistrial is appropriate — a responsibility which “is particularly acute in the avoidance of prejudice arising from nuances in 'the heated atmosphere of trial, which cannot be fully depicted in the cold record on appeal,” id., at 47 — and the corresponding affirmative responsibility for the conduct of a criminal trial which the federal precedents impose, it concluded:
“On this basis we do not believe decision should be difficult, for the responsibility and discretion exercised by the judges below seem to us sound. . . .” Id., at 48.
Certainly, on the skimpy record before us it would exceed the appropriate scope of review were we ourselves to attempt to pass an independent judgment upon the propriety of the mistrial, even should we be prone to do so — as we are not, with due regard for the guiding familiarity with district judges and with district court conditions possessed by the Courts of Appeals.
On March 9, 1959, petitioner moved to dismiss the information on the ground that to try him again would constitute double jeopardy. The motion was denied and he was retried in April. He now attacks the conviction in which the second trial resulted.
In this state of the record, we are not required to pass upon the broad contentions pressed, respectively, by counsel for petitioner and for the Government. The case is one in which, viewing it most favorably to petitioner, the mistrial order upon which his claim of jeopardy is based was found neither apparently justified nor clearly erroneous by the Court of Appeals in its review of a cold record. What that court did find and what is unquestionable is that the order was the product of the trial judge’s extreme solicitude — an overeager solicitude, it may be — in favor of the accused.
Since 1824 it has been settled law in this Court that “The double-jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment . . . does not mean that every time a defendant is put to trial before a competent tribunal he is entitled to go free if the trial fails to end in a final judgment.” Wade v. Hunter, 336 U. S. 684, 688. United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579; Thompson v. United States, 155 U. S. 271; Keerl v. Montana, 213 U. S. 135, 137-138; see Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 173-174; Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, 188. Where, for reasons deemed compelling by the trial judge, who is best situated intelligently to make such a decision, the ends of substantial justice cannot be attained without discontinuing the trial, a mistrial may be declared without the defendant’s consent and even over his objection, and he may be retried consistently with the Fifth Amendment. Simmons v. United States, 142 U. S. 148; Logan v. United States, 144 U. S. 263; Dreyer v. Illinois, 187 U. S. 71, 85-86. It is also clear that “This Court has long favored the rule of discretion in the trial judge to declare a mistrial and to require another panel to try the defendant if the ends of justice will be best served . . . ,” Brock v. North Carolina, 344 U. S. 424, 427, and that we have consistently declined to scrutinize with sharp surveillance the exercise of that discretion. See Lovato v. New Mexico, 242 U. S. 199; cf. Wade v. Hunter, supra. In the Perez case, the authoritative starting point of our law in this field, Mr. Justice Story, for a unanimous Court, thus stated the principles which have since guided the federal courts in their application of the concept of double jeopardy to situations giving rise to mistrials:
“. . . We think, that in all cases of this nature, the law has invested Courts of justice with the authority to discharge a jury from giving any verdict, whenever, in their opinion, taking all the circumstances into consideration, there is a manifest necessity for the act, or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated. They are to exercise a sound discretion on the subject; and it is impossible to define all the circumstances, which would render it proper to interfere. To be sure, the power ought to be used with the greatest caution, under urgent circumstances, and for very plain and obvious causes; and, in capital cases especially, courts should be extremely careful how they interfere with any of the chances of life, in favor of the prisoner. But, after all, they have the right to order the discharge; and the security which the public have for the faithful, sound, and conscientious exercise of this discretion, rests, in this, as in other cases, upon the responsibility of the judges, under their oaths of office. ...” 9 Wheat., at 580.
The present case falls within these broad considerations. Judicial wisdom counsels against-anticipating hypothetical situations in which the discretion of the trial judge may be abused and so call for the safeguard of the Fifth Amendment — cases in which the defendant would be harassed by successive, oppressive prosecutions, or in which a judge exercises his authority to help the prosecution, at a trial in which its case is going badly, by affording it another, more favorable opportunity to convict the accused. Suffice that we are unwilling, where it clearly appears that a mistrial has been granted in the sole interest of the defendant, to hold that its necessary consequence is to bar all retrial. It would hark back to the formalistic artificialities of seventeenth century criminal procedure so to confine our federal trial courts by compelling them to navigate a narrow compass between Scylla and Charybdis. We would not thus make them unduly hesitant conscientiously to exercise their most sensitive judgment — according to their own lights in the immediate exigencies of trial — for the more effective protection of the criminal accused.
Affirmed.
364 U. S. 917.
Prior to the proceedings in the two trials which are relevant for present purposes, denominated the “first” and “second” trials herein, there had been a mistrial granted upon motion of petitioner.
The statute makes unlawful, inter alia, the receipt or possession of any goods stolen from a vehicle and moving as, or constituting, an interstate shipment of freight, knowing the goods to be stolen.
282 F. 2d 43,46.
We cannot, of course, determine what result would obtain had the Court of Appeals, in light of its close acquaintance with the local situation, decided that petitioner’s mistrial operated to bar his further prosecution, and were such a decision before us.
In light of our disposition, we need not reach the Government’s suggestion that petitioner’s failure to object to the mistrial adversely affects his claim. We note petitioner’s argument that, because of the precipitous course of events, there was no opportunity for such objection.
“The colloquy [immediately preceding the mistrial] . . . demonstrates that the prosecutor did nothing to instigate the declaration of a mistrial and that he was only performing his assigned duty under trying conditions. This is borne out by the entire transcript, including also that covering the morning session. Nor does it make entirely clear the reasons which led the judge to act, though the parties appear agreed that he intended to prevent the prosecutor from bringing out evidence of other crimes by the accused. Even so, the judge should have awaited a definite question which would have permitted a clear-cut ruling. . . .” 282 F. 2d, at 46.
The record here contains, with respect to the February 4 trial, two paragraphs from the Government’s opening, four paragraphs from the petitioner’s opening, a six-line colloquy between the court and prosecuting counsel, a portion of the examination of the third of the Government’s first three witnesses, and the entire transcript of the testimony of the fourth witness. The last two items are set out in the affidavit of the Assistant United States Attorney in opposition to petitioner’s motion to dismiss the information following the mistrial.
Brock v. North Carolina was a state prosecution and therefore arose, of course, under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The passage quoted from Brock, however, related to the application in federal prosecutions of the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The case is here on a direct appeal, Act of August 24, 1937, 50 Stat. 752, 28 U. S. C. § 349a, from a judgment of the District Court holding unconstitutional Title II of the Housing and Rent Act of 1947. 61 Stat. 193, 196.
The Act became effective on July 1, 1947, and the following day the appellee demanded of its tenants increases of 40% and 60% for rental accommodations in the Cleveland Defense-Rental Area, an admitted violation of the Act and regulations adopted pursuant thereto. Appellant thereupon instituted this proceeding under § 206 (b) of the Act to enjoin the violations. A preliminary injunction issued. After a hearing it was dissolved and a permanent injunction denied.
The District Court was of the view that the authority of Congress to regulate rents by virtue of the war power (see Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U. S. 503) ended with the Presidential Proclamation terminating hostilities on December 31, 1946, since that, proclamation inaugurated “peace-in-fact” though it did not mark termination of the war. It also concluded that, even if the war power continues, Congress did not act under it because it did not say so, and only if Congress says so, or enacts provisions so implying, can it be held that Congress intended to exercise such power. That Congress did not so intend, said the District Court, follows from the provision that the Housing Expediter can end controls in any area without regard to the official termination of the war, and from the fact that the preceding federal rent control laws (which were concededly exercises of the war power) were neither amended nor extended. The District Court expressed the further view that rent control is not within the war power because “the emergency created by housing shortage came into existence long before the war.” It held that the Act “lacks in uniformity of application and distinctly constitutes a delegation of legislative power not within the grant of Congress” because of the authorization to the Housing Expediter to lift controls in any area before the Act’s expiration. It also held that the Act in effect provides “low rentals for certain groups without taking the property or compensating the owner in any way.” See 74 F. Supp. 546.
We conclude, in the first place, that the war power sustains this legislation. The Court said in Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Co., 251 U. S. 146, 161, that the war power includes the power “to remedy the evils which have arisen from its rise and progress” and continues for the duration of that emergency. Whatever may be the consequences when war is officially terminated, the war power does not necessarily end with the cessation of hostilities. We recently held that it is adequate to support the preservation of rights created by wartime legislation, Fleming v. Mohawk Wrecking & Lumber Co., 331 U. S. 111. But it has a broader sweep. In Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Co., supra, and Ruppert v. Caffey, 251 U. S. 264, prohibition laws which were enacted after the Armistice in World War I were sustained as exercises of the war power because they conserved manpower and increased efficiency of production in the critical days during the period of demobilization, and helped to husband the supply of grains and cereals depleted by the war effort. Those cases followed the reasoning of Stewart v. Kahn, 11 Wall. 493, which held that Congress had the power to toll the statute of limitations of the States during the period when the process of their courts was not available to litigants due to the conditions obtaining in the Civil War.
The constitutional validity of the present legislation follows a fortiori from those cases. The legislative history of the present Act makes abundantly clear that there has not yet been eliminated the deficit in housing which in considerable measure was caused by the heavy demobilization of veterans and by the cessation or reduction in residential construction during the period of hostilities due to the allocation of building materials to military projects. Since the war effort contributed heavily to that deficit, Congress has the power even after the cessation of hostilities to act to control the forces that a short supply of the needed article created. If that were not true, the Necessary and Proper Clause, Art. I, § 8, cl. 18, would be drastically limited in its application to the several war powers. The Court has declined to follow that course in the past. Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Co., supra, pp. 155, 156; Ruppert v. Caffey, supra, pp. 299, 300. We decline to take it today. The result would be paralyzing. It would render Congress powerless to remedy conditions the creation of which necessarily followed from the mobilization of men and materials for successful prosecution of the war. So to read the Constitution would be to make it self-defeating.
We recognize the force of the argument that the effects of war under modern conditions may be felt in the economy for years and years, and that if the war power can be used in days of peace to treat all the wounds which war inflicts on our society, it may not only swallow up all other powers of Congress but largely obliterate the Ninth and the Tenth Amendments as well. There are no such implications in today’s decision. We deal here with the consequences of a housing deficit greatly intensified during the period of hostilities by the war effort. Any power, of course, can be abused. But we cannot assume that Congress is not alert to its constitutional responsibilities. And the question whether the war power has been properly employed in cases such as this is open to judicial inquiry. Hamilton v. Kentucky Distilleries Co., supra; Ruppert v. Caffey, supra.
The question of the constitutionality of action taken by Congress does not depend on recitals of the power which it undertakes to exercise. Here it is plain from the legislative history that Congress was invoking its war power to cope with a current condition of which the war was a direct and immediate cause. Its judgment on that score is entitled to the respect granted like legislation enacted pursuant to the police power. See Block v. Hirsh, 256 U. S. 135; Marcus Brown Co. v. Feldman, 256 U. S. 170; Chastleton Corp. v. Sinclair, 264 U. S. 543.
Under the present Act the Housing Expediter is authorized to remove the rent controls in any defense-rental area if in his judgment the need no longer exists by reason of new construction or satisfaction of demand in other ways. The powers thus delegated are far less extensive than those sustained in Bowles v. Willingham, supra, pp. 512-515. Nor is there here a grant of unbridled administrative discretion. The standards prescribed pass muster under our decisions. See Bowles v. Willingham, supra, pp. 514-516, and cases cited.
Objection is made that the Act by its exemption of certain classes of housing accommodations violates the Fifth Amendment. A similar argument was rejected under the Fourteenth Amendment when New York made like exemptions under the rent-control statute which was here for review in Marcus Brown Co. v. Feldman, supra, pp. 195, 198-199. Certainly Congress is not under greater limitations. It need not control all rents or none. It can select those areas or those classes of property where the need seems the greatest. See Barclay & Co. v. Edwards, 267 U. S. 442, 450. This alone is adequate answer to the objection, equally applicable to the original Act sustained in Bowles v. Willingham, supra, that the present Act lacks uniformity in application.
The fact that the property regulated suffers a decrease in value is no more fatal to the exercise of the war power (Bowles v. Willingham, supra, pp. 517, 518) than it is where the police power is invoked to the same end. See Block v. Hirsh, supra.
Reversed.
Section 204 (b) of the Act provides that “no person shall demand, accept, or receive any rent for the use or occupancy of any controlled housing accommodations greater than the maximum rent established under the authority of the Emergency Price Control Act of 1942, as amended, and in effect with respect thereto on June 30, 1947.” Controlled Housing Rent Regulation, 12 Fed. Reg. 4331, contains similar provisions. §§ 2 (a), 4 (a). Provisions of this statute and regulation, not here material, allow adjustment of maximum rentals when necessary to correct inequities and permit a 15% increase if negotiated between landlord and tenant and incorporated in a lease of a designated term.
Section 206 (a) makes it unlawful “to offer, solicit, demand, accept, or receive any rent for the use or occupancy of any controlled housing accommodations in excess of the maximum rent prescribed under section 204.” Section 206 (b) authorized the Housing Expediter to apply to any federal, state, or territorial court of competent jurisdiction for an order enjoining “any act or practice which constitutes or will constitute a violation of subsection (a) of this section.”
Proclamation 2714, 12 Fed. Reg. 1. That proclamation recognized that “a state of war still exists.” On July 25, 1947, on approving S. J. Res. 123 terminating certain war statutes, the President issued a statement in which he declared that “The emergencies declared by the President on September 8, 1939, and May 27, 1941, and the state of war continue to exist, however, and it is not possible at this time to provide for terminating all war and emergency powers.”
Section 204 (c) provides: “The Housing Expediter is hereby authorized and directed to remove any or all maximum rents before this title ceases to be in effect, in any defense-rental area, if in his judgment the need for continuing maximum rents in such area no longer exists due to sufficient construction of new housing accommodations or when the demand for rental housing accommodations has been otherwise reasonably met.”
See Commercial Trust Co. v. Miller, 262 U. S. 51, 57.
See H. R. Rep. No. 317, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., pp. 1, 2, 3, 10-11.
The Report states, p. 2:
“There are several factors, in addition to the normal increase in population, which have contributed to the existing housing shortage. These include demobilization of a large number of veterans, shifts in population, less intensive use of housing accommodations, amount of new housing construction, trend away from construction of rental units, and change from tenant to owner occupancy.”
As to the effect of demobilization of veterans the Report states, p.2:
“Heavy demobilization of members of our armed forces, particularly in late 1945 and the first half of 1946, made effective an important demand for housing accommodations. In 1945 an estimated 6,279,000 veterans of World War II were returned to civilian life, in 1946 the number so returned was 5,659,000, and in 1947 to February 28 an additional 212,000 veterans were demobilized. Statistics are not available as to the number of new family units created by returning veterans but undoubtedly the figure is substantial and in many cases creation of new family units was delayed until these veterans were returned to civilian life. The importance and delayed impact of the 11,938,000 veterans returned to civilian life in 1945 and 1946 on an already acute housing shortage is readily apparent.”
The effect of the war upon the construction of new dwelling units is shown by the following table:
Total non-farm dwelling units constructed
1937. 336,000
1938. 406,000
1939. 515,000
1940 . 603,000
1941. 715,000
1942. 497,000
1943. 350,000
1944. 169,000
1945 . 247,000
1946. 776,200
1947 (11 months). 799,000
The figures for the years 1937-1945 inclusive are taken from H. R. Rep. No. 317, supra, p. 3. Those for 1946 and 1947 are taken from U. S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, Construction, Dec. 1947, p. 4.
See H. R. Rep. No. 317, supra, note 6, and statement of Representative Wolcott, Chairman of the House Committee on Banking and Currency which reported the rent bill, 93 Cong. Rec. 4395.
See note 4, supra.
Sec. 202 (c) provides: “The term ‘controlled housing accommodations’ means housing accommodations in any defense-rental area, except that it does not include — (1) those housing accommodations, in any establishment which is commonly known as a hotel in the community in which it is located, which are occupied by persons who are provided customary hotel services such as maid service, furnishing and laundering of linen, telephone and secretarial or desk service, use and upkeep of furniture and fixtures, and bellboy service; or (2) any motor court, or any part thereof; or any tourist home serving transient guests exclusively, or any part thereof; or (3) any housing accommodations (A) the construction of which was completed on or after February 1, 1947, or which are additional housing accommodations created by conversion on or after February 1, 1947, except that contracts for the rental of housing accommodations to veterans of World War II and their immediate families, the construction of which was assisted by allocations or priorities under Public Law 388, Seventy-ninth Congress, approved May 22, 1946, shall remain in full force and effect, or (B) which at no time during the period February 1, 1945, to January 31, 1947, both dates inclusive, were rented (other than to members of the immediate family of the occupant) as housing accommodations.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Application for stay of order.
Petitioner applied to Mr. Justice White, Circuit Justice for the Tenth Circuit, for “Stay of Order of Judicial Council of the Tenth Circuit of the United States” in the above matter, and the application was by him referred to the Court for its consideration and action.
It appearing to the Court from the response of the Solicitor General to the application that the order from which relief is sought is entirely interlocutory in character pending prompt further proceedings inquiring into the administration of Judge Chandler of judicial business in the Western District of Oklahoma, and that at such proceedings Judge Chandler will be permitted to appear before the Council, with counsel, and that after such proceedings the Council will, as soon as possible, undertake to decide what use, if any, should be made of such powers as it may have in the premises, it is hereby ordered that the application for stay be denied pending this contemplated prompt action of the Judicial Council. The Court expresses no opinion concerning the propriety of the interlocutory action taken.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Reed
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case, as stated in the brief for the United Automobile, Aircraft and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, presents the question whether or not a State may enjoin through its labor statute, the Wisconsin Employment Peace Act, union conduct of a kind which may be an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended.
Appellant concedes that a State may punish violence arising in labor relation controversies under its generally applicable criminal statutes. It does not admit or deny the charged violence. The union considers the coercion immaterial in this case. Its position is that a State may not exercise this police power through an agency that is concerned only with labor relations. The argument is that a State Board will use this power to stop force and violence in order to further state labor policy, thus creating a conflict with the federal policy as developed by the National Labor Relations Board. The union argues that Wisconsin has no jurisdiction to enjoin the alleged conduct under its labor act because such conduct would be an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act.
This controversy arose out of the failure of appellant and the Kohler Company to reach an accord concerning a new collective-bargaining agreement. As the parties were unable to agree, Kohler’s production workers struck and picketed the premises of the company. Ten days later Kohler filed a complaint with the Wisconsin Employment Relations Board charging appellant and others with committing unfair labor practices within the meaning of the Wisconsin Employment Peace Act. It was alleged that appellant’s members had engaged in mass picketing, thereby obstructing ingress to and egress from the Kohler plant; interfered with the free and uninterrupted use of public ways; prevented persons desiring to be employed by Kohler from entering the plant; and coerced employees who desired to work, and threatened them and their families with physical injury. The State Board found the allegations to be true and issued an order that directed the union and certain of its members to cease all such activities. The order appears below. Without change of substance it was enforced by a Wisconsin Circuit Court, and the State Supreme Court affirmed that judgment. 269 Wis. 578, 70 N. W. 2d 191. As the appeal raised an important question of federalism, we noted probable jurisdiction. 350 U. S. 957.
The Kohler Company is subject to the National Labor Relations Act. It seems agreed, and we think correctly in view of the findings of fact, that the alleged conduct of the union in coercing employees in the exercise of their rights is a violation of §8 (b)(1) of that Act. Since there is power under the Act to protect employees against violence from labor organizations by assuring their right to refrain from concerted labor activities, the National Labor Board might have issued an order similar to that of the State Board. The provisions of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, cover the labor relations of the Kohler Company. Labor Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, 31. These provisions may be assumed to include the coercion not only of strikers but also of other persons seeking employment with the plant.
By virtue of the Commerce Clause, Congress has power to regulate all labor controversies in or affecting interstate commerce, such as are here involved. If the congressional enactment occupies the field, its control by the Supremacy Clause supersedes or, in the current phrase, pre-empts state power. Kelly v. Washington, 302 U. S. 1, 9. In the 1935 Act, § 10 (a), the Board was empowered to prevent unfair labor practices. By § 10 (a) this power was made “exclusive.” 49 Stat. 449, 453, 29 U. S. C. § 160. In the Taft-Hartley amendments of 1947, the word “exclusive” was omitted but the phrase, “shall not be affected by any other means of adjustment or prevention that has been or may be established by agreement, code, law, or otherwise,” was re-enacted without significant change. The omission was explained in the Conference Report.
Yet under the 1935 Wagner Act this Court ruled that Wisconsin, under its same Labor Peace Act, could enjoin union conduct of the kind here involved. Allen-Bradley Local v. Wisconsin Board, 315 U. S. 740. At that time, however, the federal Act made no provision for enjoining union activities. With the passage of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, the Congress recognized that labor unions also might commit unfair labor practices to the detriment of employees, and prohibited, among other practices, coercion of employees who wish to refrain from striking. See n. 5, supra. Appellant urges that this amendment eliminated the State’s power to control the activities now under consideration through state labor statutes.
It seems obvious that §8 (b)(1) was not to be the exclusive method of controlling violence even against employees, much less violence interfering with others approaching an area where a strike was in progress. No one suggests that such violence is beyond state criminal power. The Act does not have such regulatory pervasiveness. The state interest in law and order precludes such interpretation. Senator Taft explained that the federal prohibition against union violence would allow state action.
Appellant is of the view that such references were “to the general state criminal law against violence and coercion, not to state labor relations statutes.” But this cannot be correct since Allen-Bradley Local v. Wisconsin Board, the leading case dealing with violence under this same Wisconsin statute, was well known to Congress. The fact that the Labor Management Relations Act covered union unfair practices for the first time does not make the Allen-Bradley case obsolete. Orders which originate in state boards and become effective through the state judiciary should give more careful protection to the rights of labor than the purely judicial orders of a court.
There is no reason to re-examine the opinions in which this Court has dealt with problems involving federal-state jurisdiction over industrial controversies. They have been adequately summarized in Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 348 U. S. 468, 474-477. As a general matter we have held that a State may not, in the furtherance of its public policy, enjoin conduct “which has been made an ‘unfair labor practice’ under the federal statutes.” Id., at 475, and cases cited. But our post-Taft-Hartley opinions have made it clear that this general rule does not take from the States power to prevent mass picketing, violence, and overt threats of violence. The dominant interest of the State in preventing violence and property damage cannot be questioned. It is a matter of genuine local concern. Nor should the fact that a union commits a federal unfair labor practice while engaging in violent conduct prevent States from taking steps to stop the violence. This conclusion has been explicit in the opinions cited in note 12.
The States are the natural guardians of the public against violence. It is the local communities that suffer most from the fear and loss occasioned by coercion and destruction. We would not interpret an act of Congress to leave them powerless to avert such emergencies without compelling directions to that effect.
We hold that Wisconsin may enjoin the violent union conduct here involved. The fact that Wisconsin has chosen to entrust its power to a labor board is of no concern to this Court.
Affirmed.
The question presented is narrowed by appellant in another paragraph to apply only to instances, as here, where the National Board, has asserted jurisdiction over certain other labor practices arising from the same employer-union relationship. These proceedings include a plea by the employer that the state-enjoined union conduct constitutes a defense to a union charge filed with the Board. Appellant also asserted that the State should act only after the Board has passed upon the pending union complaint. In view of our disposition of this appeal, we do not consider these narrower issues material.
Wisconsin Statutes, 1953, c. Ill, p. 1903.
§ 111.04, p. 1905:
“111.04 Rights of employes. Employes shall have the right of self-organization and the right to form, join or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in lawful, concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection; and such employes shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities.”
§111.06 (2), p.1907:
“ (2) It shall be an unfair labor practice for an employe individually or in concert with others:
“(a) To coerce or intimidate an employe in the enjoyment of his legal rights, including those guaranteed in section 111.04, or to intimidate his family, picket his domicile, or injure the person or property of such employe or his family.
“(f) To hinder or prevent, by mass picketing, threats, intimidation, force or coercion of any kind the pursuit of any lawful work or employment, or to obstruct or interfere with entrance to or egress from any place of employment, or to obstruct or interfere with free and uninterrupted use of public roads, streets, highways, railways, airports, or other ways of travel or conveyance.”
§111.07, p. 1908:
“111.07 Prevention of unfair labor practices. (1) Any controversy concerning unfair labor practices may be submitted to the board in the manner and with the effect provided in this subchapter, but nothing herein shall prevent the pursuit of legal or equitable relief in courts of competent jurisdiction.”
“It is ordered that the Respondent Unions, their officers, members and agents immediately cease and desist from
“1. Coercing and intimidating any person desiring to be employed by the Kohler Company in the enjoyment of his legal rights, intimidating his family, picketing his domicile, or injuring the person or property of such persons or his employe.
“2. Hindering or preventing by mass picketing, threats, intimidation, force or coercion of any kind the pursuit of lawful work or employment by any person desirous of being employed by the Kohler Company.
“3. Obstructing or interfering in any way with entrance to and egress from the premises of the Kohler Company.
“4. Obstructing or interfering with the free and uninterrupted use of public roads, streets, highways, railways or private drives leading to the premises of the Kohler Company.
“It is further ordered that the Respondent Unions, their officers, members and agents take the following affirmative action:
“1. Limit the number of pickets around the Kohler Company premises to a total of not more than 200, with not more than 25 at any one entrance. Such pickets are to march in single file and to at all times maintain a space of at least 20 feet in width at each entrance to the Kohler Company premises over which pickets will not pass and on which persons either on foot or in conveyance may freely enter or leave the premises without interference.”
The legal problems have received considerable attention in recent years. A collection of available articles appears in Note, 53 Mich. L. Rev. 602. See also Further Comments on Federalism, 54 Mich. L. Rev. 540; Isaacson, Labor Relations Law: Federal versus State Jurisdiction, 42 A. B. A. J. 415.
“Sec. 8. . . .
“(b) It shall be an unfair labor practice for a labor organization or its agents—
“(1) to restrain or coerce (A) employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in section 7 . . . .” 61 Stat. 136, 141, 29 U. S. C. §158 (b)(1);
“Sec. 7. Employees shall have the right to self-organization, to form, join, or assist labor organizations, to bargain collectively through representatives of their own choosing, and to engage in other concerted activities for the purpose of collective bargaining or other mutual aid or protection, and shall also have the right to refrain from any or all of such activities . . . .” 61 Stat. 140, 29 U. S. C. §157.
Cf. In the Matter of Local #1150, United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers, 84 N. L. R. B. 972; In the Matter of Perry Norvell Co., 80 N. L. R. B. 225; United Mine Workers of America, District 2, 96 N. L. R. B. 1389.
See Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board, 313 U. S. 177, 182, First. Cf. Labor Board v. Hearst Publications, 322 U. S. 111, 120, I.
H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 510, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 52:
“(1) The House bill omitted from section 10 (a) of the existing law the language providing that the Board’s power to deal with unfair labor practices should not be affected by other means of adjustment or prevention, but it retained the language of the present act which makes the Board’s jurisdiction exclusive. The Senate amendment, because of its provisions authorizing temporary injunctions enjoining alleged unfair labor practices and because of its provisions making unions suable, omitted the language giving the Board exclusive jurisdiction of unfair labor practices, but retained that which provides that the Board’s power shall not be affected by other means of adjustment or prevention. The conference agreement adopts the provisions of the Senate amendment. By retaining the language which provides the Board’s powers under section 10 shall not be affected by other means of adjustment, the conference agreement makes clear that, when two remedies exist, one before the Board and one before the courts, the remedy before the Board shall be in addition to, and not in lieu of, other remedies.”
United Construction Workers v. Laburnum Construction Corp., 347 U. S. 656, 666-669, a state case that allowed tort recovery, makes this clear.
93 Cong. Rec. 4437:
“The Senator from Oregon a while ago said that the enactment of this proposed legislation will result in duplication of some of the State laws. It will duplicate some of the State laws only to the extent, as I see it, that actual violence is involved in the threat or in the operation.
“Mr. President, I may say further that one of the arguments has suggested that in ease this provision covered violence it duplicated State law. I wish to point out that the provisions agreed to by the committee covering unfair labor practices on the part of labor unions also might duplicate to some extent that State law. Secondary boycotts, jurisdictional strikes, and so forth, may involve some violation of State law respecting violence which may be criminal, and so to some extent the measure may be duplicating the remedy existing under State law. But that, in my opinion, is no valid argument.”
See also 93 Cong. Rec. 4024; S. Rep. No. 105, 80th Cong., 1st Sess. 50.
There it was said:
“The only employee or union conduct and activity forbidden by the state Board in this case was mass picketing, threatening employees desiring to work with physical injury or property damage, obstructing entrance to and egress from the company's factory, obstructing the streets and public roads surrounding the factory, and picketing the homes of employees. So far as the fourteen individuals are concerned, their status as employees of the company was not affected.
“We agree with the statement of the United States as amicus curiae that the federal Act was not designed to preclude a State from enacting legislation limited to the prohibition or regulation of this type of employee or union activity. The Committee Reports on the federal Act plainly indicate that it is not ‘a mere police court measure’ and that authority of the several States may be exerted to control such conduct. Furthermore, this Court has long insisted that an 'intention of Congress to exclude States from exerting their police power must be clearly manifested.’. . . Congress has not made such employee and union conduct as is involved in this case subject to regulation by the federal Board.” 315 U. S. 740, 748-749.
See Weber v. Anheuser-Busch, Inc., 348 U. S. 468, 477, 482; United Construction Workers v. Laburnum Construction Corp., 347 U. S. 656, 666-669; Garner v. Teamsters Union, 346 U. S. 485, 488; International Union v. O’Brien, 339 U. S. 454, 459; International Union v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, 336 U. S. 245, 253.
Cf. Hughes v. Superior Court, 339 U. S. 460, 467; International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Hanke, 339 U. S. 470, 479.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
J
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The New York State Racing and Wagering Board (Board) is empowered to license horse trainers and others participating in harness horse-race meets in New York. The Board also issues regulations setting forth the standards of conduct that a horse trainer must satisfy to retain his license. Among other things, the rules issued by the Board forbid the drugging of horses within 48 hours of a race and make trainers responsible for the condition and soundness of their horses before, during, and after a race. A trainer is forbidden to permit a horse in his custody to start a race “if he knows, or if by the exercise of reasonable care he might have known or have cause to believe” that a horse trained by him has been drugged. Every trainer is required to “guard or cause to be guarded each horse trained by him in such manner ... as to prevent any person not employed by or connected with the owner or trainer from administering any drug . ...” And when a postrace test, which must be administered to horses finishing first, second, or third, reveals the presence of drugs, it is to be presumed — subject to rebuttal — that the drug “was either administered by the trainer or resulted from his negligence in failing to adequately protect against such occurrence.”
On June 22, 1976, Be Alert, a harness race horse trained by appellee, John Barchi, finished second in a race at Monticello Raceway. Two days later, Barchi was advised by the Board steward that a postrace urinalysis had revealed a drug in Be Alert’s system. Barchi proclaimed his innocence, and two lie-detector tests supported his lack of knowledge of the drugging. On July 8, relying on the trainer’s responsibility rules and the evidentiary presumption arising thereunder, the steward suspended Barchi for 15 days, commencing July 10. Under § 8022 of the New York Unconsolidated Laws, a suspended licensee is entitled to a post-suspension hearing, but the section ordains that “[p]ending such hearing and final determination thereon, the action of the [Board] in . . . suspending a license . . . shall remain in full force and effect.” The section specifies no time in which the hearing must be held, and it affords the Board as long as 30 days after the conclusion of the hearing in which to issue a final order adjudicating a case. Without resorting to the § 8022 procedures, Barchi filed this suit in the United States District Court.
Barchi alleged that his trainer’s license was protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and that § 8022 was unconstitutional because it permitted his license to be suspended without a prior hearing to determine his culpability and because a summary suspension could not be stayed pending the administrative review provided by the statute. Barchi also challenged the rule permitting the Board to presume rebuttably from the drugging of a horse that its trainer was responsible. His claim was that “there is no rational connection between the fact proved, that the horse was illegally drugged, and the ultimate fact presumed that the trainer is guilty of the act or carelessly guarded against the act occurring,” App. 15a (complaint), it being impossible, Barchi alleged, for the trainer to guard the horse against all those who by stealth might gain access to it. Barchi’s third claim was that, in prohibiting a stay of his suspension pending administrative review, § 8022 denied him equal protection of the laws, since in the context of' thoroughbred racing, in contrast to harness racing, suspensions can be stayed pending appeal.
The District Court upheld the evidentiary presumption on its face, concluding: “[T]he duty of a trainer to oversee his horses is sufficiently connected to the occurrence of tampering to support the presumption established by the trainer’s ‘insurer’ rules. The state’s definition of trainer responsibility is reasonably related to the interests involved and, given the rebuttable nature of the 4120.5 presumption, the high standard of accountability is not unconstitutional.” Barchi v. Sarafan, 436 F. Supp. 775, 784 (SDNY 1977). The District Court went on to hold, however, that § 8022 of the New York law was unconstitutional under the Due Process Clause since it permitted the State “to irreparably sanction a harness race horse trainer without a pre-suspension or a prompt post-suspension hearing in violation of plaintiff’s right to due process.” App. to Juris. Statement 2a (order of judgment). The court further concluded that the difference between the procedures applicable to harness racing and those applicable to thoroughbred racing was so unwarranted as to violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
We noted probable jurisdiction of the appeal. 435 U. S. 921 (1978). In this Court, the appellants adhere to their fundamental position that, as a constitutional matter, Barchi was entitled to no more process than was available to him under § 8022 either before or after the suspension was imposed and became effective. Barchi, on the other hand, continues to insist that his suspension could in no event become effective without a prior hearing to establish that his horse had been drugged and that he was culpable.
We agree with appellants that § 8022 does not affront the Due Process Clause by authorizing summary suspensions without a presuspension hearing, and we reject Barchi’s contrary contention. In disagreement with appellants, however, we conclude that Barchi was not assured a sufficiently timely postsuspension hearing and that § 8022 was unconstitutionally applied in this respect.
It is conceded that, under New York law, Barchi’s license could have been suspended only upon a satisfactory showing that his horse had been drugged and that he , was at least negligent in failing to prevent the drugging. As a threshold matter, therefore, it is clear that Barchi had a property interest in his license sufficient to invoke the protection of the Due Process Clause. We do not agree with Barchi’s basic contention, however, that an evidentiary hearing was required prior to the effectuation of his suspension. Unquestionably, the magnitude of a trainer’s interest in avoiding suspension is substantial; but the State also has an important interest in assuring the integrity of the racing carried on under its auspices. In these circumstances, it seems to us that the State is entitled to impose an interim suspension, pending a prompt judicial or administrative hearing that would definitely determine the issues, whenever it has satisfactorily established probable cause to believe that a horse has been drugged and that a trainer has been at least negligent in connection with the drugging. Cf. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U. S. 103, 111-112 (1975); Mitchell v. W. T. Grant Co., 416 U. S. 600, 609 (1974); Bell v. Burson, 402 U. S. 635, 542 (1971). In such circumstances, the State’s interest in preserving the integrity of the sport and in protecting the public from harm becomes most acute. At the same time, there is substantial assurance that the trainer’s interest is not being baselessly compromised.
Under this standard, Barchi received all the process that was due him prior to the suspension of his license. As proof that Barchi’s horse had been drugged, the State adduced the assertion of its testing official, who had purported to examine Barchi’s horse pursuant to prescribed testing procedures. To establish probable cause, the State need not postpone a suspension pending an adversary hearing to resolve questions of credibility and conflicts in the evidence. At the interim suspension stage, an expert’s affirmance, although untested and not beyond error, would appear sufficiently reliable to satisfy constitutional requirements.
As for Barchi’s culpability, the New York trainer’s responsibility rules, approved by the District Court, established a rebuttable presumption or inference, predicated on the fact of drugging, that Barchi was at least negligent. In light of the duties placed upon the trainer by the trainer’s responsibility rules, we accept this inference of culpability as defensible and would not put the State to further presuspension proof that Barchi had not complied with the applicable rules. Furthermore, although Barchi was not given a formal hearing prior to the suspension of his license, he was immediately notified of the alleged drugging, 16 days elapsed prior to the imposition of the suspension, and he was given more than one opportunity to present his side of the story to the State’s investigators. In fact, he stated his position in the course of taking two lie-detector examinations. He points to nothing in the record demonstrating convincingly that he was not negligent, and the State’s investigators apparently failed to unearth an explanation for the drugging that would completely exonerate him. Even if the State's presuspension procedures, then, were not adequate finally to resolve the issues fairly and accurately, they sufficed for the purposes of probable cause and interim suspension.
That the State’s presuspension procedures were satisfactory, however, still leaves unresolved how and when the adequacy of the grounds for suspension is ultimately to be determined. As the District Court found, the consequences to a trainer of even a temporary suspension can be severe; and we have held that the opportunity to be heard must be “at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.” Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U. S. 545, 552 (1965). Here, the provision for an administrative hearing, neither on its face nor as applied in this case, assured a prompt proceeding and prompt disposition of the outstanding issues between Barchi and the State. Indeed, insofar as the statutory requirements are concerned, it is as likely as not that Barchi and others subject to relatively brief suspensions would have no opportunity to put the State to its proof until they have suffered the full penalty imposed. Yet, it is possible that Barchi’s horse may not have been drugged and Barchi may not have been at fault at all. Once suspension has been imposed, the trainer’s interest in a speedy resolution of the controversy becomes paramount, it seems to us. We also discern little or no state interest, and the State has suggested none, in an appreciable delay in going forward with a full hearing. On the contrary, it would seem as much in the State’s interest as Barchi’s to have an early and reliable determination with respect to the integrity of those participating in state-supervised horse racing.
In these circumstances, it was necessary that Barchi be assured a prompt postsuspension hearing, one that would proceed and be concluded without appreciable delay. Because the statute as applied in this case was deficient in this respect, Barchi’s suspension was constitutionally infirm under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.
The question remains whether the State’s prohibition of administrative stays pending a hearing in the harness racing context without a like prohibition in thoroughbred racing denies harness racing trainers equal protection of the laws. The District Court acknowledged that the inquiry in this respect is “whether or not the classification is without a reasonable basis.” 436 F. Supp., at 783. Put another way, a statutory classification such as this should not be overturned “unless the varying treatment of different groups or persons is so unrelated to the achievement of any combination of legitimate purposes that we can only conclude that the legislature’s actions were irrational.” Vance v. Bradley, 440 U. S. 93, 97 (1979). In holding that §8022 violated the Equal Protection Clause, the District Court misapplied this standard. The legislative history of § 8022 makes clear that the section and other provisions applicable to harness racing resulted from a legislative conclusion that harness racing should be subject to strict regulation, and neither Barchi nor the District Court has demonstrated that the acute problems attending harness racing also plague the thoroughbred racing industry. Barchi has not shown that the two industries should be identically regulated in all respects; he has not convinced us that “the legislative facts on which the classification is apparently based could not reasonably be conceived to be true by the governmental decisionmaker.” Vance v. Bradley, supra, at 111. It was not the State’s burden to disprove by resort to “current empirical proof,” 440 U. S., at 110, Barchi’s bare assertions that thoroughbred and harness racing should be treated identically.
It also seems clear to us that the procedural mechanism selected to mitigate the threats to the public interest arising in the harness racing context is rationally related to the achievement of that goal. The State could reasonably conclude that swift suspension of harness racing trainers was necessary to protect the public from fraud and to foster public confidence in the harness racing sport. Accordingly, we think the District Court erred in disapproving the difference in the procedural courses applicable to harness racing and thoroughbred racing.
We thus affirm the judgment of the District Court insofar as it ruled Barchi’s suspension unconstitutional for lack of assurance of a prompt postsuspension hearing. We reverse its judgment, however, to the extent that it declared § 8022 unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The judgment of the District Court is accordingly affirmed in part and reversed in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
New York Unconsol. Laws §8010(1) (McKinney 1979) authorizes the “state harness racing commission,” whose powers are now exercised by the New York State Racing and Wagering Board, see §§ 7951-a, 8162 (McKinney 1979), to “license drivers and such other persons participating in harness horse race meets, as the commission may by rule prescribe ....” See also 9 N. Y. C. R. R. § 4101.24 (1975).
The Board has issued, in particular, a series of rules specifying a trainer’s responsibility for the condition of horses under the trainer’s care, 9 N. Y. C. R. R. §§ 4116.11, 4120.5, 4120.6 (1974):
“4116.11. Trainer’s responsibility. A trainer is responsible for the condition, fitness, equipment, and soundness of each horse at the time it is declared to race and thereafter when it starts in a race.”
“4120.5. Presumptions. Whenever [certain tests required to be made pn horses that place first, second, or third in a race] disclose the presence
in any horse of any drug, stimulant, depressant or sedative, in any amount whatsoever, it shall be presumed:
“ (a) that the same was administered by a person or persons having the control and/or care and/or custody of such horse with the intent thereby to affect the speed or condition of such horse and the result of the race in which it participated;
“(b) that it was administered within the period prohibited [by § 4120.4 (d), see n. 3, infra]; and
“(c) that a sufficient quantity was administered to affect the speed or condition of such animal.
“4120.6. Trainer’s responsibility. A trainer shall be responsible at all times for the condition of all horses trained by him. No trainer shall start a horse or permit a horse in his custody to be started if he knows, or if by the exercise of reasonable care he might have known or have cause to believe, that the horse has received any drug, stimulant, sedative, depressant, medicine, or other substance that could result in a positive test. Every trainer must guard or cause to be guarded each horse trained by him in such manner and for such period of time prior to racing the horse so as to prevent any person not employed by or connected with the owner or trainer from administering any drug, stimulant, sedative, depressant, or other substance resulting in a positive test.”
Title 9 N. Y. C. R. R. §4120.4 (1974) provides in part:
“No person shall, or attempt to, or shall conspire with another or others to:
“(a) Stimulate or depress a horse through the administration of any drug, medication, stimulant, depressant, hypnotic or narcotic.
“(d) Administer any drug, medicant, stimulant, depressant, narcotic or hypnotic to a horse within 48 hours of its race.”
See also § 4116.11, quoted in n. 2, supra.
9 N. Y. C. R. R. § 4120.6 (1974), quoted in n. 2, supra.
Ibid.
Barchi v. Sarafan, No. 76 Civ. 3070 (SDNY, Dec. 23, 1976), reprinted in-App. to Juris. Statement 24a; see Barchi v. Sarafan, 436 F. Supp. 775, 784 (SDNY 1977); App. 25a (affidavit of John Barchi). The Assistant Attorney General of New York interpreted the presumption in this way both before the three-judge court and in oral argument before this Court:
“QUESTION: What this is is a presumption to get the matter started and that can be rebutted by other evidence.
“MR. HAMMER: Absolutely, Your Honor. This is a permissive presumption. It is a rule of evidence, nothing more.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 7. See id., at 5; Tr. 33-34 (trainer not held absolutely responsible for drugging of horse “if it is shown that the trainer was not culpable, that he, himself, could not administer the drug and he was not found to be negligent in supervising the people under him”).
Title 9 N. Y. C. R. R. §4105.8 (f) (1974) authorizes presiding judges “[w]here a violation of any rule is suspected to conduct an inquiry promptly and to take such action as may be appropriate . . . .” New York Unconsol. Laws § 8010 (2) (McKinney 1979) states the grounds for revocation or suspension:
"... The commission may suspend or revoke a license issued pursuant to this section if it shall determine that (a) the applicant or licensee (1) has been convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude; (2) has engaged in boolonaking or other form of illegal gambling; (3) has been found guilty of any fraud in connection with racing or breeding; (4) has been guilty of any violation or attempt to violate any law, rule or regulation of any racing jurisdiction for which suspension from racing might be imposed in such jurisdiction; (5) or . . . has violated any rule, regulation or order of the commission, or [that (b)] the experience, character or general fitness of any applicant or licensee is such [that] the participation of such person in harness racing or related activities would be inconsistent with the public interest, convenience or necessity or with the best interests of racing generally.”
New York Unconsol. Laws §8022 (McKinney 1979) provides in full:
“If the state harness racing commission shall refuse to grant a license applied for under this act, or shall revoke or suspend such a license granted by it, or shall impose a monetary fine upon a participant in harness racing the applicant or licensee or party fined may demand, within ten days after notice of the said act of the commission, a hearing before the commission and the commission shall give prompt notice of a time and place for such hearing at which the commission will hear such applicant or licensee or party fined in reference thereto. Pending such hearing and final determination thereon, the action of the commission in refusing to grant or in revoking or suspending a license or in imposing a monetary fine shall remain in full force and effect. The commission may continue such hearing from time to time for the convenience of any of the parties. Any of the parties affected by such hearing may be represented by counsel, and the commission may be represented by the attorney-general, a deputy attorney-general or its counsel. In the conduct of such hearing the commission shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence, but all evidence offered before the commission shall be reduced to writing, and such evidence together with the exhibits, if any, and the findings of the commission, shall be permanently preserved and shall constitute the record of the commission in such case. In connection with such hearing, each member of the commission shall have the power to administer oaths and examine witnesses, and may issue subpoenas to compel attendance of witnesses, and the production of all material and relevant reports, books, papers, documents, correspondence and other evidence. The commission may, if occasion shall require, by order, refer to one or more of its members or officers, the duty of taking testimony in such matter, and to report thereon to the commission, but no determination shall be made therein except by the commission. Within thirty days after the conclusion of such hearing, the commission shall make a final order in writing, setting forth the reasons for the action taken by it and a copy thereof shall be served on such applicant or licensee or party fined, as the case may be. The action of the commission in refusing to grant a license or in revoking or suspending a license or in imposing a monetary fine shall be reviewable in the supreme court in the manner provided by the provisions of article seventy-eight of the civil practice law and rules.”
The provision applicable to thoroughbred racing, N. Y. Unconsol. Laws §7916 (3) (McKinney 1979), provides:
“No license shall be revoked unless such revocation is at a meeting of the state racing commission on notice to the licensee, who shall be entitled to a hearing in respect of such revocation. In the conduct of such hearing the commission shall not be bound by technical rules of evidence but all evidence offered before the commission shall be reduced to writing, and such evidence together with the exhibits, if any, and the findings of the commission, shall be permanently preserved and shall constitute the record of the commission in such case. The action of the commission in refusing, suspending or in revoking a license shall be reviewable in the supreme court in the manner provided by the provisions of article seventy-eight of the civil practice law and rules. Such hearing may be held by the chairman thereof or by any commissioner designated by him in writing, and the chairman or said commissioner may issue subpoenas for witnesses and administer oaths to witnesses. The chairman or commissioner holding such hearing shall, at the conclusion thereof, malee his findings with respect thereto and said findings, if concurred in by two members of the commission, shall become the findings and determination of the commission.”
The District Court declined to abstain to permit the state courts to construe § 8022 prior to adjudication of Barchi’s constitutional claims on their merits. Appellants had maintained that the provision might be construed to give the Board discretion to stay suspensions pending the outcome of the postsuspension hearing provided by § 8022. The District Court thought the language of the statute unequivocally foreclosed that construction. We cannot say that the District Court erred in this respect. Section 8022 provides that, pending a full hearing and final determination thereon, “the action of the [Board] in . . . suspending a license . . . shall remain in full force and effect.” (Emphasis added.) The provision gives no assurance of a presuspension or prompt postsuspension hearing and determination. And it makes clear that the Board need not reach a determination until “thirty days after the conclusion of [the] hearing.”
We reject appellants’ further contention that Barchi should not have commenced suit prior to exhausting the procedure contemplated under § 8022. Under existing authority, exhaustion of administrative remedies is not required when “the question of the adequacy of the administrative remedy . . . [is] for all practical purposes identical with the merits of [the plaintiff’s] lawsuit.” Gibson v. Berryhill, 411 U. S. 564, 575 (1973).
Under New York law, a license may not be revoked or suspended at the discretion of the racing authorities. Cf. Bishop v. Wood, 426 U. S. 341 (1976). Rather, suspension may ensue only upon proof of certain contingencies. See N. Y. Unconsol. Laws § 8010 (McKinney 1979), quoted in n. 7, supra. Notably, when a horse is found to have been drugged, the license of the horse’s trainer may be suspended or revoked if he did the drugging, if he knew'or should have known that the horse had been drugged, or if he negligently failed to prevent it. Accordingly, state law has engendered a clear expectation of continued enjoyment of a license absent proof of culpable conduct by the trainer. Barchi, therefore, has asserted a legitimate “claim of entitlement . . . that he may invoke at a hearing.” Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593, 601 (1972); see Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564 (1972); Bell v. Burson, 402 U. S. 535, 539 (1971); Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254 (1970).
In response to the slaying of a union official who represented employees at a harness track and the resulting disclosure of “a pattern of activities . . . clearly inimical to the public interest,” Governor Dewey appointed a commission to inquire into the general regulation of harness tracks. N. Y. Legis. Doc. No. 86, 177th Sess., 3 (1954). The investigation disclosed that harness racing had become “a lush and attractive field for every kind of abuse.” Id., at 4; see Report of the New York State Commission, in Public Papers of Governor Thomas E. Dewey 505 (1954). The Commission- recommended major changes in the harness racing laws, including enactment of the provisions of § 8022 ruled unconstitutional by the District Court. See 1954 N. Y. Laws, ch. 510, § 8; Report of the New York State Commission, supra, at 512.
We express no view on whether the procedures under § 8022, as that section may have been modified by subsequent legislation, satisfy the strictures of the Due Process Clause. After the District Court rendered its decision, the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court nullified a Board order summarily suspending a veterinarian’s license to practice medicine at racetracks on the ground that the Board had not made “any finding that the public health, safety, or welfare imperatively required such emergency action as a suspension prior to a hearing.” Gerard v. Barry, 59 App. Div. 2d 901, 399 N. Y. S. 2d 876 (1977). The court relied on § 401 (3) of the State Administrative Procedure Act, N. Y. State Admin. Proc. Act § 401 (3) (McKinney Supp. 1977), which provides:
“If the agency finds that public health, safety, or welfare imperatively requires emergency action, and incorporates a finding to that effect in its order, summary suspension of a license may be ordered, effective on the date specified in such order or upon service of a certified copy of such order on the licensee, whichever shall be later, pending proceedings for revocation or other action. These proceedings shall be promptly instituted and determined.”
Section 401 (3) did not take effect until September 1, 1976, two months after Barchi was suspended. The section has no bearing on the constitutionality of procedures under § 8022 as applied to persons like Barchi who were suspended prior to its effective date. See N. Y. State Admin. Proc. Act § 103 (3) (McKinney Supp. 1977).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Thomas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether the States, by accepting federal funds, consent to waive their sovereign immunity to suits for money damages under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 114 Stat. 803, 42 U. S. C. § 2000cc et seq. We hold that they do not. Sovereign immunity therefore bars this suit for damages against the State of Texas.
I
A
RLUIPA is Congress’ second attempt to accord heightened statutory protection to religious exercise in the wake of this Court’s decision in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872 (1990). Congress first enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq., with which it intended to “restore the compelling interest test as set forth in Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398 (1963) and Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U. S. 205 (1972) ... in all cases where free exercise of religion is substantially burdened.” § 2000bb(b)(1). See generally Gonzales v. O Centro Espirita Beneficente Unido, do Vegetal, 546 U. S. 418, 424 (2006). We held RFRA unconstitutional as applied to state and local governments because it exceeded Congress’ power under § 5 of the Fourteenth Amendment. See City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U. S. 507 (1997).
Congress responded by enacting RLUIPA pursuant to its Spending Clause and Commerce Clause authority. RLUIPA borrows important elements from RFRA — which continues to apply to the Federal Government — but RLUIPA is less sweeping in scope. See Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U. S. 709, 715 (2005). It targets two areas of state and local action: land-use regulation, 42 U. S. C. § 2000ce (RLUIPA §2), and restrictions on the religious exercise of institutionalized persons, § 2000cc-l (RLUIPA § 3).
Section 3 of RLUIPA provides that “[n]o government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise” of an institutionalized person unless, as in RFRA, the government demonstrates that the burden “is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest” and “is the least restrictive means of furthering” that interest. § 2000cc-l(a); cf. §§2000bb-l(a), (b). As relevant here, §3 applies “in any case” in which “the substantial burden is imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance. ” § 2000cc-l (b)(1).
RLUIPA also includes an express private cause of action that is taken from RFRA: “A person may assert a violation of [RLUIPA] as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government.” § 2000cc~2(a); cf. § 2000bb-l(e). For purposes of this provision, “government” includes, inter alia, States, counties, municipalities, their instrumentalities and officers, and persons acting under color of state law. § 2000ec-5(4)(A).
B
Petitioner Harvey Leroy Sossamon III is an inmate in the Robertson Unit of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division. In 2006, Sossamon sued the State of Texas and various prison officials in their official capacities under RLUIPA’s private cause of action, seeking injunctive and monetary relief. Sossamon alleged that two prison policies violated RLUIPA: (1) a policy preventing inmates from attending religious services while on cell restriction for disciplinary infractions; and (2) a policy barring use of the prison chapel for religious worship. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of respondents and held, as relevant here, that sovereign immunity barred Sossamon’s claims for monetary relief. See 713 F. Supp. 2d 657, 662-663 (WD Tex. 2007).
The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed. 560 F. 3d 316,329 (2009). Acknowledging that Congress enacted RLUIPA pursuant to the Spending Clause, the court determined that Texas had not waived its sovereign immunity by accepting federal funds. The Court of Appeals strictly construed the text of RLUIPA’s cause of action in favor of the State and concluded that the statutory phrase “appropriate relief against a government” did not “unambiguously notif[y]” Texas that its acceptance of funds was conditioned on a waiver of immunity from claims for money damages. Id., at 330-331. We granted certiorari to resolve a division of authority among the Courts of Appeals on this question. 560 U. S. 923 (2010).
II
“Dual sovereignty is a defining feature of our Nation’s constitutional blueprint.” Federal Maritime Comm’n v. South Carolina Ports Authority, 535 U. S. 743, 751 (2002). Upon ratification of the Constitution, the States entered the Union “with their sovereignty intact.” Ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted).
Immunity from private suits has long been considered “central to sovereign dignity.” Alden v. Maine, 527 U. S. 706, 715 (1999). As was widely understood at the time the Constitution was drafted:
“It is inherent in the nature of sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual without its consent. This is the general sense, and the general practice of mankind; and the exemption, as one of the attributes of sovereignty, is now enjoyed by the government of every State in the Union.” The Federalist No. 81, p. 511 (B. Wright ed. 1961) (A. Hamilton).
Indeed, when this Court threatened state immunity from private suits early in our Nation’s history, the people responded swiftly to reiterate that fundamental principle. See Hans v. Louisiana, 134 U. S. 1, 11 (1890) (discussing Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 419 (1793), and the Eleventh Amendment).
Sovereign immunity principles enforce an important constitutional limitation on the power of the federal courts. See Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 465 U. S. 89, 98 (1984). For over a century now, this Court has consistently made clear that “federal jurisdiction over suits against unconsenting States ‘was not contemplated by the Constitution when establishing the judicial power of the United States.’” Seminole Tribe of Fla. v. Florida, 517 U. S. 44, 54 (1996) (quoting Hans, supra, at 15); see Seminole Tribe, supra, at 54-55, n. 7 (collecting cases). A State, however, may choose to waive its immunity in federal court at its pleasure. Clark v. Barnard, 108 U. S. 436, 447-448 (1883).
Accordingly, “our test for determining whether a State has waived its immunity from federal-court jurisdiction is a stringent one.” College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U. S. 666, 675 (1999) (internal quotation marks omitted). A State’s consent to suit must be “unequivocally expressed” in the text of the relevant statute. Pennhurst State School and Hospital, supra, at 99; see Atascadero State Hospital v. Scanlon, 473 U. S. 234, 238, n. 1, 239-240 (1985). Only by requiring this “clear declaration” by the State can we be “certain that the State in fact consents to suit.” College Savings Bank, 527 U. S., at 680. Waiver may not be implied. Id., at 682.
For these reasons, a waiver of sovereign immunity “will be strictly construed, in terms of its scope, in favor of the sovereign.” Lane v. Peña, 518 U. S. 187, 192 (1996). So, for example, a State’s consent to suit in its own courts is not a waiver of its immunity from suit in federal court. College Savings Bank, supra, at 676. Similarly, a waiver of sovereign immunity to other types of relief does not waive immunity to damages: “[T]he waiver of sovereign immunity must extend unambiguously to such monetary claims.” Lane, supra, at 192; cf. United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U. S. 30, 34 (1992) (construing an ambiguous waiver of sovereign immunity to permit equitable but not monetary claims); Hoffman v. Connecticut Dept. of Income Maintenance, 492 U. S. 96, 101-102 (1989) (plurality opinion) (construing a statute to authorize injunctive relief but not “monetary recovery from the States” because intent to abrogate immunity to monetary recovery was not “ ‘unmistakably clear in the language of the statute’ ” (quoting Atascadero, supra, at 242)).
Ill
A
RLUIPA’s authorization of “appropriate relief against a government,” § 2000cc-2(a), is not the unequivocal expression of state consent that our precedents require. “[Appropriate relief” does not so clearly and unambiguously waive sovereign immunity to private suits for damages that we can “be certain that the State in fact consents” to such a suit. College Savings Bank, supra, at 680.
1
“ [Appropriate relief” is open-ended and ambiguous about what types of relief it includes, as many lower courts have recognized. See, e.g., 560 F. 3d, at 330-331. Far from clearly identifying money damages, the word “appropriate” is inherently context dependent. See Webster’s Third New International Dictionary 106 (1993) (defining “appropriate” as “specially suitable: fit, proper”). The context here— where the defendant is a sovereign — suggests, if anything, that monetary damages are not “suitable” or “proper.” See Federal Maritime Comm’n, 535 U. S., at 765 (“[S]tate sovereign immunity serves the important function of shielding state treasuries .. . ”).
Indeed, both the Court and dissent appeared to agree in West v. Gibson, 527 U. S. 212 (1999), that “appropriate” relief, by itself, does not unambiguously include damages against a sovereign. The question was whether the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, which has authority to enforce Title VII of the Civil Rights Act against the Federal Government “through appropriate remedies,” could require the Federal Government to pay damages. 42 U. S. C. §2000e-16(b). The dissent argued that the phrase “appropriate remedies” did not authorize damages “in express and unequivocal terms.” Gibson, 527 U. S., at 226 (opinion of Kennedy, J.). The Court apparently did not disagree but reasoned that “appropriate remedies” had a flexible meaning that had expanded to include money damages after a related statute was amended to explicitly allow damages in actions under Title VII. See id., at 217-218.
Further, where a statute is susceptible of multiple plausible interpretations, including one preserving immunity, we will not consider a State to have waived its sovereign immunity. See Dellmuth v. Muth, 491 U. S. 223, 232 (1989) (holding that “a permissible inference” is not the necessary “unequivocal declaration” that States were intended to be subject to damages actions); Nordic Village, swpra, at 37 (holding that the existence of “plausible” interpretations that would not permit recovery “is enough to establish that a reading imposing monetary liability on the Government is not ‘unambiguous’ and therefore should not be adopted”). That is the case here.
Sossamon argues that, because RLUIPA expressly limits the United States to “injunctive or declaratory relief” to enforce the statute, the phrase “appropriate relief” in the private cause of action necessarily must be broader. 42 U. S. C. § 2000cc-2(f). Texas responds that, because the State has no immunity defense to a suit brought by the Federal Government, Congress needed to exclude damages affirmatively in that context but not in the context of private suits. Further, the private cause of action provides that a person may assert a violation of the statute “as a claim or defense.” §2000ec-2(a) (emphasis added). Because an injunction or declaratory judgment is not “appropriate relief” for a successful defense, Texas explains, explicitly limiting the private cause of action to those forms of relief would make no sense.
Sossamon also emphasizes that the statute requires that it be “construed in favor of a broad protection of religious exercise.” § 2000ce-3(g). Texas responds that this provision is best read as addressing the substantive standards in the statute, not the scope of “appropriate relief.” Texas also highlights Congress’ choice of the word “relief,” which it argues primarily connotes equitable relief. See Black’s Law Dictionary 1293 (7th ed. 1999) (defining “relief” as “[t]he redress or benefit, esp. equitable in nature . . . , that a party asks of a court”).
These plausible arguments demonstrate that the phrase “appropriate relief” in RLUIPA is not so free from ambiguity that we may conclude that the States, by receiving federal funds, have unequivocally expressed intent to waive their sovereign immunity to suits for damages. Strictly construing that phrase in favor of the sovereign — as we must, see Lane, 518 U. S., at 192 — we conclude that it does not include suits for damages against a State.
2
The Court’s use of the phrase “appropriate relief” in Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U. S. 60 (1992), and Barnes v. Gorman, 536 U. S. 181 (2002), does not compel a contrary conclusion. In those cases, the Court addressed what remedies are available against municipal entities under the implied right of action to enforce Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, § 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990, and § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. With no statutory text to interpret, the Court “presume[d] the availability of all appropriate remedies unless Congress ha[d] expressly indicated otherwise.” Franklin, 503 U. S., at 66. The Court described the presumption as “[t]he general rule” that “the federal courts have the power to award any appropriate relief in a cognizable cause of action brought pursuant to a federal statute.” Id., at 70-71 (emphasis added); see Barnes, supra, at 185 (quoting Franklin, supra, at 73). Finding no express congressional intent to limit the remedies available under the implied right of action, the Court held that compensatory damages were available. Franklin, supra, at 73.
The presumption in Franklin and Barnes is irrelevant to construing the scope of an express waiver of sovereign immunity. See Lane, supra, at 196 (“[RJeliance on Franklin ... is misplaced” in determining whether damages are available against the Federal Government). The question here is not whether Congress has given clear direction that it intends to exclude a damages remedy, see Franklin, supra, at 70-71, but whether Congress has given clear direction that it intends to include a damages remedy. The text must “establish unambiguously that the waiver extends to monetary claims.” Nordic Village, 503 U. S., at 34. In Franklin and Barnes, congressional silence had an entirely different implication than it does here. Whatever “appropriate relief” might have meant in those cases does not translate to this context.
B
Sossamon contends that, because Congress enacted §3 of RLUIPA pursuant to the Spending Clause, the States were necessarily on notice that they would be liable for damages. He argues that Spending Clause legislation operates as a contract and damages are always available relief for a breach of contract, whether the contract explicitly includes a damages remedy or not. Relying on Barnes and Franklin, he asserts that all recipients of federal funding are “ ‘generally on notice that [they are] subject... to those remedies traditionally available in suits for breach of contract,’ ” including compensatory damages. Brief for Petitioner 27 (quoting Barnes, 536 U. S., at 187; emphasis deleted).
We have acknowledged the contract-law analogy, but we have been clear “not [to] imply... that suits under Spending Clause legislation are suits in contract, or that contract-law principles apply to all issues that they raise.” Id., at 189, n. 2. We have not relied on the Spending Clause contract analogy to expand liability beyond what would exist under nonspending statutes, much less to extend monetary liability against the States, as Sossamon would have us do. In fact, in Barnes and Franklin, the Court discussed the Spending Clause context only as a potential limitation on liability. See Barnes, supra, at 187-188; Franklin, supra, at 74-75.
In any event, applying ordinary contract principles here would make little sense because contracts with a sovereign are unique. They do not traditionally confer a right of action for damages to enforce compliance: “ ‘The contracts between a Nation and an individual are only binding on the conscience of the sovereign and have no pretensions to compulsive force. They confer no right of action independent of the sovereign will.’ ” Lynch v. United States, 292 U. S. 571, 580-581 (1984) (quoting The Federalist, No. 81, at 511 (A. Hamilton)).
More fundamentally, Sossamon’s implied-eontractremedies proposal cannot be squared with our longstanding rule that a waiver of sovereign immunity must be expressly and unequivocally stated in the text of the relevant statute. It would be bizarre to create an “unequivocal statement” rule and then find that every Spending Clause enactment, no matter what its text, satisfies that rule because it includes unexpressed, implied remedies against the States. The requirement of a clear statement in the text of the statute ensures that Congress has specifically considered state sovereign immunity and has intentionally legislated on the matter. Cf. Spector v. Norwegian Cruise Line Ltd., 545 U. S. 119, 139 (2005) (plurality opinion) (“[C]lear statement rules ensure Congress does not, by broad or general language, legislate on a sensitive topic inadvertently or without due deliberation”). Without such a clear statement from Congress and notice to the States, federal courts may not step in and abrogate state sovereign immunity.
IV
Sossamon also argues that § 1003 of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1986, 42 U. S. C. §2000d-7, independently put the State on notice that it could be sued for damages under RLUIPA. That provision expressly waives state sovereign immunity for violations of “section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, or the provisions of any other Federal statute prohibiting discrimination by recipients of Federal financial assistance.” §2000d-7(a)(1) (emphasis added). Section 1003 makes “remedies (including remedies both at law and in equity) . . . available for such a violation to the same extent as such remedies are available for such a violation in the suit against any public or private entity other than a State.” § 2000d-7(a)(2). Sossamon contends that § 3 of RLUIPA falls within the residual clause of § 1003 and therefore §1003 waives Texas’ sovereign immunity to RLUIPA suits for damages.
Even assuming that a residual clause like the one in § 1003 could constitute an unequivocal textual waiver, § 3 is not unequivocally a “statute prohibiting discrimination” within the meaning of § 1003. The text of § 3 does not prohibit “discrimination”; rather, it prohibits “substantial] burden[s]” on religious exercise. This distinction is especially conspicuous in light of § 2 of RLUIPA, in which Congress expressly prohibited “land use regulations] that discriminate] ... on the basis of religion.” § 2000ec(b)(2). A waiver of sovereign immunity must be “strictly construed, in terms of its scope, in favor of the sovereign.” Lane, 518 U. S., at 192. We cannot say that the residual clause clearly extends to § 3; a State might reasonably conclude that the clause covers only provisions using the term “discrimination.”
The statutory provisions specifically listed in § 1003 confirm that § 3 does not unequivocally come within the scope of the residual clause. “[G]eneral words,” such as the residual clause here, “are construed to embrace only objects similar in nature to those objects enumerated by the preceding specific words.” Washington State Dept. of Social and Health Sews. v. Guardianship Estate of Keffeler, 537 U. S. 371, 384 (2003) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Jarecki v. G. D. Searle & Co., 367 U. S. 303, 307 (1961) (noting that this maxim “is often wisely applied where a word is capable of many meanings in order to avoid the giving of unintended breadth to the Acts of Congress”). Unlike § 3, each of the statutes specifically enumerated in § 1003 explicitly prohibits “discrimination.” See 29 U. S. C. § 794(a); 20 U. S. C. § 1681(a); 42 U. S. C. §§ 6101, 6102, 2000d.
* * *
We conclude that States, in accepting federal funding, do not consent to waive their sovereign immunity to private suits for money damages under RLUIPA because no statute expressly and unequivocally includes such a waiver. The judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
Justice Kagan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
No party contends that the Commerce Clause permitted Congress to address the alleged burden on religious exercise at issue in this ease. See 42 U. S. C. § 2000ee~l(b)(2). Nor is Congress’ authority to enact RLUIPA under the Spending Clause challenged here. We therefore do not address those issues.
The District Court also denied injunctive relief. 713 F. Supp. 2d 657, 668 (WD Tex. 2007). The Court of Appeals subsequently held that Sossamon’s claim for injunctive relief with respect to the cell-restriction policy was moot because the State had abandoned that policy after Sossamon filed a prison grievance. 560 F. 3d 316, 326 (CA5 2009). The Court of Appeals reversed the District Court with respect to Sossamon’s chapel-use policy claim, id., at 331-335, although the Robertson Unit later amended that policy also and now permits inmates to attend scheduled worship services in the chapel subject to certain safety precautions.
Compare Madison v. Virginia, 474 F. 3d 118, 131 (CA4 2006); 560 F. 3d, at 331 (ease below); Cardinal v. Metrish, 564 F. 3d 794, 801 (CA6 2009); Nelson v. Miller, 570 F. 3d 868, 885 (CA7 2009); Van Wyhe v. Reisch, 581 F. 3d 639, 655 (CA8 2009); and Holley v. California Dept of Corrections, 599 F. 3d 1108, 1112 (CA9 2010), with Smith v. Allen, 502 F 3d 1255, 1276, n. 12 (CA11 2007) (citing Benning v. Georgia, 391 F. 3d 1299, 1305-1306 (CA11 2004)).
Although Lane concerned the Federal Government, the strict construction principle, which flows logically from the requirement that consent be “unequivocally expressed,” applies to the sovereign immunity of the States as well. Cf. United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U. S. 30, 37 (1992) (equating the “unequivocal expression” principle from “the Eleventh Amendment context” with the principle applicable to federal sovereign immunity); College Savings Bank v. Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Ed. Expense Bd., 527 U. S. 666, 682 (1999) (noting the “elos[e] analogy” between federal and state sovereign immunity); Belknap v. Schild, 161 U. S. 10, 18 (1896) (“[A] State ... is as exempt as the United States [is] from private suit”).
See also Holley, 599 F. 3d, at 1112; Nelson, 570 F. 3d, at 884; Van Wyhe, 581 F 3d, at 654; Cardinal, 564 F 3d, at 801; Madison, 474 F. 3d, at 131-132; cf. Webman v. Federal Bur. of Prisons, 441 F. 3d 1022, 1023 (CADC 2006) (interpreting the “appropriate relief” provision of RFRA).
Nor can it be said that this Court’s use of the phrase “appropriate relief” in Franklin and Barnes somehow put the States on notice that the same phrase in RLUIPA subjected them to suits for monetary relief. Those cases did not involve sovereign defendants, so the Court had no occasion to consider sovereign immunity. Liability against nonsovereigns could not put the States on notice that they would be liable in the same manner, absent an unequivocal textual waiver. Moreover, the same phrase in RFRA had been interpreted not to include damages relief against the Federal Government or the States and so could have signaled to the States that damages are not “appropriate relief” under RLUIPA. See, e. g., Tinsley v. Pittari, 952 F. Supp. 384, 389 (ND Tex. 1996); Commack Self-Service Kosher Meats Inc. v. New York, 954 F. Supp. 65, 69 (EDNY 1997).
Of course, the Federal Government has, by statute, waived its sovereign immunity to damages for breach of contract in certain contexts. See, e. g., 28 U. S. C. § 1491(a)(1).
The dissent finds our decision “difficult to understand,” post, at 298 (opinion of Sotomayor, J.), but it follows naturally from this Court’s precedents regarding waiver of sovereign immunity, which the dissent gives astonishingly short shrift. The dissent instead concerns itself primarily with “general remedies principles.” Post, at 293. The essence of sovereign immunity, however, is that remedies against the government differ from “general remedies principles” applicable to private litigants. See, e. g., Lane v. Peña, 518 U. S. 187, 196 (1996) (calling it a “crucial point that, when it comes to an award of money damages, sovereign immunity places the ... Government on an entirely different footing than private parties”).
Every Court of Appeals to consider the question has so held. See Holley, 599 F. 3d, at 1113-1114; Van Wyhe, 581 F. 3d, at 654-655; Madison, 474 F. 3d, at 132-133.
Sossamon argues that § 3 resembles § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, one of the statutes listed in § 1003, because both require special accommodations for particular people or activities. By Sossamon’s reasoning, every Spending Clause statute that arguably provides a benefit to a elass of people or activities would become a federal statute “prohibiting discrimination,” thereby waiving sovereign immunity. Such an interpretation cannot be squared with the foundational rule that waiver of sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed and strictly construed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted. In view of the representations of the Attorney General of Florida that these actions for habeas corpus have become moot by reason of the death of the petitioner, the judgments of the Supreme Court of Florida are vacated and the causes are remanded for such proceedings as that court may deem appropriate.
Mr. Justice Goldberg took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Bates v. State Bar of Arizona, 433 U. S. 350 (1977), this Court held that truthful advertising of “routine” legal services is protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments against blanket prohibition by a State. The Court expressly reserved the question of the permissible scope of regulation of “in-person solicitation of clients — at the hospital room or the accident site, or in any other situation that breeds undue influence — by attorneys or their agents or 'runners.’ ” Id., at 366. Today we answer part of the question so reserved, and hold that the State — or the Bar acting with state authorization- — constitutionally may discipline a lawyer for soliciting clients in person, for pecuniary gain, under circumstances likely to pose dangers that the State has a right to prevent.
I
Appellant, a member of the Ohio Bar, lives in Montville, Ohio. Until recently he practiced law in Montville and Cleveland. On February 13, 1974, while picking up his mail at the Montville Post Office, appellant learned from the postmaster’s brother about an automobile accident that had taken place on February 2 in which Carol McClintock, a young woman with whom appellant was casually acquainted, had been injured. Appellant made a telephone call to Ms. McClintock’s parents, who informed him that their daughter was in the hospital. Appellant suggested that he might visit Carol in the hospital. Mrs. McClintock assented to the idea, but requested that appellant first stop by at her home.
During appellant’s visit with the McClintocks, they explained that their daughter had been driving the family automobile on a local road when she was hit by an uninsured motorist. Both Carol and her passenger, Wanda Lou Holbert, were injured and hospitalized. In response to the McClintocks’ expression of apprehension that they might be sued by Holbert, appellant explained that Ohio’s guest statute would preclude such a suit. When appellant suggested to the McClintocks that they hire a lawyer, Mrs. McClintock retorted that such a decision would be up to Carol, who was 18 years old and would be the beneficiary of a successful claim.
Appellant proceeded to the hospital, where he found Carol lying in traction in her room. After a brief conversation about her condition, appellant told Carol he would represent her and asked her to sign an agreement. Carol said she would have to discuss the matter with her parents. She did not sign the agreement, but asked appellant to have her parents come to see her. Appellant also attempted to see Wanda Lou Holbert, but learned that she had just been released from the hospital. App. 98a. He then departed for another visit with the McClintocks.
On his way appellant detoured to the scene of the accident, where he took a set of photographs. He also picked up a tape recorder, which he concealed under his raincoat before arriving at the McClintocks’ residence. Once there, he re-examined their automobile insurance policy, discussed with them the law applicable to passengers, and explained the consequences of the fact that the driver who struck Carol’s car was an uninsured motorist. Appellant discovered that the McClintocks’ insurance policy would provide benefits of up to $12,500 each for Carol and Wanda Lou under an uninsured-motorist clause. Mrs. McClintock acknowledged that both Carol and Wanda Lou could sue for their injuries, but recounted to appellant that “Wanda swore up and down she would not do it.” Ibid. The McClintocks also told appellant that Carol had phoned to say that appellant could “go ahead” with her representation. Two days later appellant returned to Carol’s hospital room to have her sign a contract, which provided that he would receive one-third of her recovery.
In the meantime, appellant obtained Wanda Lou’s name and address from the McClintocks after telling them he wanted to ask her some questions about the accident. He then visited Wanda Lou at her home, without having been invited. He again concealed his tape recorder and recorded most of the conversation with Wanda Lou. After a brief, unproductive inquiry about the facts of the accident, appellant told Wanda Lou that he was representing Carol and that he had a "little tip” for Wanda Lou: the McClintocks’ insurance policy contained an uninsured-motorist clause which might provide her with a recovery of up to $12,500. The young woman, who was 18 years of age and not a high school graduate at the time, replied to appellant’s query about whether she was going to file a claim by stating that she really did not understand what was going on. Appellant offered to represent her, also, for a contingent fee of one-third of any recovery, and Wanda Lou stated "O. K”
Wanda’s mother attempted to repudiate her daughter’s oral assent the following day, when appellant called on the telephone to speak to Wanda. Mrs. Holbert informed appellant that she and her daughter did not want to sue anyone or to have appellant represent them, and that if they decided to sue they would consult their own lawyer. Appellant insisted that Wanda had entered into a binding agreement. A month later Wanda confirmed in writing that she wanted neither to sue nor to be represented by appellant. She requested that appellant notify the insurance company that he was not her lawyer, as the company would not release a check to her until he did so. Carol also eventually discharged appellant. Although another lawyer represented her in concluding a settlement with the insurance company, she paid appellant one-third of her recovery in settlement of his lawsuit against her for breach of contract.
Both Carol McClintock and Wanda Lou Holbert filed complaints against appellant with the Grievance Committee of the Geauga County Bar Association. The County Bar Association referred the grievance to appellee, which filed a formal complaint with the Board of Commissioners on Grievances and Discipline of the Supreme Court of Ohio. After a hearing, the Board found that appellant had violated Disciplinary Rules (DR) 2-103 (A) and 2-104 (A) of the Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility. The Board rejected appellant's defense that his conduct was protected under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court of Ohio adopted the findings of the Board, reiterated that appellant’s conduct was not constitutionally protected, and increased the sanction of a public reprimand recommended by the Board to indefinite suspension.
The decision in Bates was handed down after the conclusion of proceedings in the Ohio Supreme Court. We noted probable jurisdiction in this case to consider the scope of protection of a form of commercial speech, and an aspect of the State’s authority to regulate and discipline members of the bar, not considered in Bates. 434 U. S. 814 (1977). We now affirm the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio.
II
The solicitation of business by a lawyer through direct, in-person communication with the prospective client has long been viewed as inconsistent with the profession’s ideal of the attorney-client relationship and as posing a significant potential for harm to the prospective client. It has been proscribed by the organized Bar for many years. Last Term the Court ruled that the justifications for prohibiting truthful, “restrained” advertising concerning “the availability and terms of routine legal services” are insufficient to override society’s interest, safeguarded by the First and Fourteenth Amendments, in assuring the free flow of commercial information. Bates, 433 U. S., at 384; see Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U. S. 748 (1976). The balance struck in Bates does not predetermine the outcome in this case. The entitlement of in-person solicitation of clients to the protection of the First Amendment differs from that of the kind of advertising approved in Bates, as does the strength of the State's countervailing interest in prohibition.
A
Appellant contends that his solicitation of the two young women as clients is indistinguishable, for purposes of constitutional analysis, from the advertisement in Bates. Like that advertisement, his meetings with the prospective clients apprised them of their legal rights and of the availability of a lawyer to pursue their claims. According to appellant, such conduct is “presumptively an exercise of his free speech rights” which cannot be curtailed in the absence of proof that it actually caused a specific harm that the State has a compelling interest in preventing. Brief for Appellant 39. But in-person solicitation of professional employment by a lawyer does not stand on a par with truthful advertising about the availability and terms of routine legal services, let alone with forms of speech more traditionally within the concern of the First Amendment.
Expression concerning purely commercial transactions has come within the ambit of the Amendment’s protection only recently. In rejecting the notion that such speech “is wholly outside the protection of the First Amendment,” Virginia Pharmacy, supra, at 761, we were careful not to hold “that it is wholly undifferentiable from other forms” of speech. 425 U. S., at 771 n. 24. We have not discarded the “commonsense” distinction between speech proposing a commercial transaction, which occurs in an area traditionally subject to government regulation, and other varieties of speech. Ibid. To require a parity of constitutional protection for commercial and noncommercial speech alike could invite dilution, simply by a leveling process, of the force of the Amendment’s guarantee with respect to the latter kind of speech. Rather than subject the First Amendment to such a devitalization, we instead have afforded commercial speech a limited measure of protection, commensurate with its subordinate position in the scale of First Amendment values, while allowing modes of regulation that might be impermissible in the realm of noncommercial expression.
Moreover, “it has never been deemed an abridgment of freedom of speech or press to make a course of conduct illegal merely because the conduct was in part initiated, evidenced, or carried out by means of language, either spoken, written, or printed.” Giboney v. Empire Storage & Ice Co., 336 U. S. 490, 602 (1949). Numerous examples could be cited of communications that are regulated without offending the First Amendment, such as the exchange of information about securities, SEC v. Texas Gulf Sulphur Co., 401 F. 2d 833 (CA2 1968), cert. denied, 394 U. S. 976 (1969), corporate proxy statements, Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., 396 U. S. 375 (1970), the exchange of price and production information among competitors, American Column & Lumber Co. v. United States, 257 U. S. 377 (1921), and employers’ threats of retaliation for the labor activities of employees, NLRB v. Gissel Packing Co., 395 U. S. 575, 618 (1969). See Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton, 413 U. S. 49, 61-62 (1973). Each of these examples illustrates that the State does not lose its power to regulate commercial activity deemed harmful to the public whenever speech is a component of that activity. Neither Virginia Pharmacy nor Bates purported to cast doubt on the permissibility of these kinds of commercial regulation.
In-person solicitation by a lawyer of remunerative employment is a business transaction in which speech is an essential but subordinate component. While this does not remove the speech from the protection of the First Amendment, as was held in Bates and Virginia Pharmacy, it lowers the level of appropriate judicial scrutiny.
As applied in this case, the Disciplinary Rules are said to have limited the communication of two kinds of information. First, appellant’s solicitation imparted to Carol McClintock and Wanda Lou Holbert certain information about his availability and the terms of his proposed legal services. In this respect, in-person solicitation serves much the same function as the advertisement at issue in Bates. But there are significant differences as well. Unlike a public advertisement, which simply provides information and leaves the recipient free to act upon it or not, in-person solicitation may exert pressure and often demands an immediate response, without providing an opportunity for comparison or reflection. The aim and effect of in-person solicitation may be to provide a one-sided presentation and to encourage speedy and perhaps uninformed decisionmaking; there is no opportunity for intervention or counter-education by agencies of the Bar, supervisory authorities, or persons close to the solicited individual. The admonition that “the fitting remedy for evil counsels is good ones” is of little value when the circumstances provide no opportunity for any remedy at all. In-person solicitation is as likely as not to discourage persons needing counsel from engaging in a critical comparison of the “availability, nature, and prices” of legal services, cf. Bates, 433 U. S., at 364; it actually may disserve the individual and societal interest, identified in Bates, in facilitating “informed and reliable decisionmaking.” Ibid.
It also is argued that in-person solicitation may provide the solicited individual with information about his or her legal rights and remedies. In this case, appellant gave Wanda Lou a “tip” about the prospect of recovery based on the uninsured-motorist clause in the McClintocks’ insurance policy, and he explained that clause and Ohio’s guest statute to Carol McClintock’s parents. But neither of the Disciplinary Rules here at issue prohibited appellant from communicating information to these young women about their legal rights and the prospects of obtaining a monetary recovery, or from recommending that they obtain counsel. DR 2-104 (A) merely prohibited him from using the information as bait with which to obtain an agreement to represent them for a fee. The Rule does not prohibit a lawyer from giving unsolicited legal advice ; it proscribes the acceptance of employment resulting from such advice.
Appellant does not contend, and on the facts of this case could not contend, that his approaches to the two young women involved political expression or an exercise of associational freedom, “employ [ing] constitutionally privileged means of expression to secure constitutionally guaranteed civil rights.” NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 442 (1963); see In re Primus, ante, p. 412. Nor can he compare his solicitation to the mutual assistance in asserting legal rights that was at issue in United Transportation Union v. Michigan Bar, 401 U. S. 576 (1971); Mine Workers v. Illinois Bar Assn., 389 U. S. 217 (1967); and Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia Bar, 377 U. S. 1 (1964). A lawyer’s procurement of remunerative employment is a subject only marginally affected with First Amendment concerns. It falls within the State’s proper sphere of economic and professional regulation. See Button, supra, at 439-443. While entitled to some constitutional protection, appellant’s conduct is subject to regulation in furtherance of important state interests.
B
The state interests implicated in this case are particularly strong. In addition to its general interest in protecting consumers and regulating commercial transactions, the State bears a special responsibility for maintaining standards among members of the licensed professions. See Williamson v. Lee Optical Co., 348 U. S. 483 (1955); Semler v. Oregon State Bd. of Dental Examiners, 294 U. S. 608 (1935). “The interest of the States in regulating lawyers is especially great since lawyers are essential to the primary governmental function of administering justice, and have historically been ^officers of the courts.’ ” Goldfarb v. Virginia State Bar, 421 U. S. 773, 792 (1975). While lawyers act in part as “self-employed businessmen,” they also act “as trusted agents of their clients, and as assistants to the court in search of a just solution to disputes.” Cohen v. Hurley, 366 U. S. 117, 124 (1961).
As is true with respect to advertising, see Bates, supra, at 371, it appears that the ban on solicitation by lawyers originated as a rule of professional etiquette rather than as a strictly ethical rule. See H. Drinker, Legal Ethics 210-211, and n. 3 (1953). “[T]he rules are based in part on deeply ingrained feelings of tradition, honor and service. Lawyers have for centuries emphasized that the promotion of justice, rather than the earning of fees, is the goal of the profession.” Comment, A Critical Analysis of Rules Against Solicitation by Lawyers, 25 IT. Chi. L. Rev. 674 (1958) (footnote omitted). But the fact that the original motivation behind the ban on solicitation today might be considered an insufficient justification for its perpetuation does not detract from the force of the other interests the ban continues to serve. Cf. McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U. S. 420, 431, 433-435, 444 (1961). While the Court in Bates determined that truthful, restrained advertising of the prices of “routine” legal services would not have an adverse effect on the professionalism of lawyers, this was only because it found “the postulated connection between advertising and the erosion of true professionalism to be severely strained.” 433 U. S., at 368 (emphasis supplied). The Bates Court did not question a State’s interest in maintaining high standards among licensed professionals. Indeed, to the extent that the ethical standards of lawyers are linked to the service and protection of clients, they do further the goals of “true professionalism.”
The substantive evils of solicitation have been stated over the years in sweeping terms: stirring up litigation, assertion of fraudulent claims, debasing the legal profession, and potential harm to the solicited client in the form of overreaching, overcharging, underrepresentation, and misrepresentation. The American Bar Association, as amicus curiae, defends the rule against solicitation primarily on three broad grounds: It is said that the prohibitions embodied in DR 2-103 (A) and 2-104 (A) serve to reduce the likelihood of overreaching and the exertion of undue influence on lay persons, to protect the privacy of individuals, and to avoid situations where the lawyer’s exercise of judgment on behalf of the client will be clouded by his own pecuniary self-interest.
We need not discuss or evaluate each of these interests in detail as appellant has conceded that the State has a legitimate and indeed “compelling” interest in preventing those aspects of solicitation that involve fraud, undue influence, intimidation, overreaching, and other forms of “vexatious conduct.” Brief for Appellant 25. We agree that protection of the public from these aspects of solicitation is a legitimate and important state interest.
Ill
Appellant’s concession that strong state interests justify regulation to prevent the evils he enumerates would end this case but for his insistence that none of those evils was found to be present in his acts of solicitation. He challenges what he characterizes as the “indiscriminate application” of the Rules to him and thus attacks the validity of DR 2-103 (A) and DR 2-104 (A) not facially, but as applied to his acts of solicitation. And because no allegations or findings were made of the specific wrongs appellant concedes would justify disciplinary action, appellant terms his solicitation “pure,” meaning “soliciting and obtaining agreements from Carol McClintock and Wanda Lou Holbert to represent each of them,” without more. Appellant therefore argues that we must decide whether a State may discipline him for solicitation per se without offending the First and Fourteenth Amendments.
We agree that the appropriate focus is on appellant’s conduct. And, as appellant urges, we must undertake an independent review of the record to determine whether that conduct was constitutionally protected. Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229, 235 (1963). But appellant errs in assuming that the constitutional validity of the judgment below depends on proof that his conduct constituted actual overreaching or inflicted some specific injury on Wanda Holbert or Carol McClintock. His assumption flows from the premise that nothing less than actual proved harm to the solicited individual would be a sufficiently important state interest to justify disciplining the attorney who solicits employment in person for pecuniary gain.
Appellant’s argument misconceives the nature of the State’s interest. The Rules prohibiting solicitation are prophylactic measures whose objective is the prevention of harm before it occurs. The Rules were applied in this case to discipline a lawyer for soliciting employment for pecuniary gain under circumstances likely to result in the adverse consequences the State seeks to avert. In such a situation, which is inherently conducive to overreaching and other forms of misconduct, the State has a strong interest in adopting and enforcing rules of conduct designed to protect the public from harmful solicitation by lawyers whom it has licensed.
The State’s perception of the potential for harm in circumstances such as those presented in this case is well founded. The detrimental aspects of face-to-face selling even of ordinary consumer products have been recognized and addressed by the Federal Trade Commission, and it hardly need be said that the potential for overreaching is significantly greater when a lawyer, a professional trained in the art of persuasion, personally solicits an unsophisticated, injured, or distressed lay person. Such an individual may place his trust in a lawyer, regardless of the latter’s qualifications or the individual’s actual need for legal representation, simply in response to persuasion under circumstances conducive to uninformed acquiescence. Although it is argued that personal solicitation is valuable because it may apprise a victim of misfortune of his legal rights, the very plight of that person not only makes him more vulnerable to influence but also may make advice all the more intrusive. Thus, under these adverse conditions the overtures of an uninvited lawyer may distress the solicited individual simply because of their obtrusiveness and the invasion of the individual’s privacy, even when no other harm materializes; Under such circumstances, it is not unreasonable for the State to presume that in-person solicitation by-lawyers more often than not will be injurious to the person solicited.
The efficacy of the State’s effort to prevent such harm to prospective clients would be substantially diminished if, having proved a solicitation in circumstances like those of this case, the State were required in addition to prove actual injury. Unlike the advertising in Bates, in-person solicitation is not visible or otherwise open to public scrutiny. Often there is no witness other than the lawyer and the lay person whom he has solicited, rendering it difficult or impossible to obtain reliable proof of what actually took place. This would be especially true if the lay person were so distressed at the time of the solicitation that he could not recall specific details at a later date. If appellant’s view were sustained, in-person solicitation would be virtually immune to effective oversight and regulation by the State or by the legal profession, in contravention of the State’s strong interest in regulating members of the Bar in an effective, objective, and self-enforcing manner. It therefore is not unreasonable, or violative of the Constitution, for a State to respond with what in effect is a prophylactic rule.
On the basis of the undisputed facts of record, we conclude that the Disciplinary Rules constitutionally could be applied to appellant. He approached two young accident victims at a time when they were especially incapable of making informed judgments or of assessing and protecting their own interests. He solicited Carol McClintock in a hospital room where she lay in traction and sought out Wanda Lou Holbert on the day she came home from the hospital, knowing from his prior inquiries that she had just been released. Appellant urged his services upon the young women and used the information he had obtained from the McClintocks, and the fact of his agreement with Carol, to induce Wanda to say “O. K.” in response to his solicitation. He employed a concealed tape recorder, seemingly to insure that he would have evidence of Wanda’s oral assent to the representation. He emphasized that his fee would come out of the recovery, thereby tempting the young women with what sounded like a cost-free and therefore irresistible offer. He refused to withdraw when Mrs. Holbert requested him to do so only a day after the initial meeting between appellant and Wanda Lou and continued to represent himself to the insurance company as Wanda Holbert’s lawyer.
The court below did not hold that these or other facts were proof of actual harm to Wanda Holbert or Carol McClintock but rested on the conclusion that appellant had engaged in the general misconduct proscribed by the Disciplinary Rules. Under our view of the State’s interest in averting harm by prohibiting solicitation in circumstances where it is likely to occur, the absence of explicit proof or findings of harm or injury is immaterial. The facts in this case present a striking example of the potential for overreaching that is inherent in a lawyer’s in-person solicitation of professional employment. They also demonstrate the need for prophylactic regulation in furtherance of the State’s interest in protecting the lay public. We hold that the application of DR 2-103 (A) and 2-104 (A) to appellant does not offend the Constitution.
Accordingly, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Ohio is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Brennan took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Carol also mentioned that one of the hospital administrators was urging a lawyer upon her. According to his own testimony, appellant replied: “Yes, this certainly is a case that would entice a lawyer. That would interest him a great deal.” App. 53a.
Despite the fact that appellant maintains that he did not secure an agreement to represent Carol while he was at the hospital, he waited for an opportunity when no visitors were present and then took photographs of Carol in traction. Id., at 129a.
Appellant maintains that the tape is a complete reproduction of everything that was said at the Holbert home. Wanda Lou testified that the tape does not contain appellant’s introductory remarks to her about his identity as a lawyer, his agreement to represent Carol McClintock, and his availability and willingness to represent Wanda Lou as well. Id., at 19a-21a. Appellant disputed Wanda Lou’s testimony but agreed that he did not activate the recorder until he had been admitted to the Holbert home and was seated in the living room with Wanda Lou. Id., at 58a.
Appellant told Wanda that she should indicate assent by stating “O. K.,” which she did. Appellant later testified: “I would say that most of my clients have essentially that much of a communication.... I think most of my clients, that’s the way I practice law.” Id., at 81a.
In explaining the contingent-fee arrangement, appellant told Wanda Lou that his representation would not “cost [her] anything” because she would receive two-thirds of the recovery if appellant were successful in representing her but would not “have to pay [him] anything” otherwise. Id., at 120a, 125a.
The insurance company was willing to pay Wanda Lou for her injuries but would not release the check while appellant claimed, and Wanda Lou denied, that he represented her. Before appellant would “disavow further interest and claim” in Wanda Lou’s recovery, he insisted by letter that she first pay him the sum of $2,466.66, which represented one-third of his “conservative” estimate of the worth of her claim. Id., at 26a-27a.
Carol recovered the full $12,500 and paid appellant $4,166.66. She testified that she paid the second lawyer $900 as compensation for his services. Id., at 38a, 42a.
Appellant represented to the Board of Commissioners at the disciplinary hearing that he would abandon his claim against Wanda Lou Holbert because “the rules say that if a contract has its origin in a controversy, that an ethical question can arise.” Tr. 256. Yet in fact appellant filed suit against Wanda for $2,466.66 after the disciplinary hearing. Ohralik v. Holbert, Case No. 76-CV-F-66 (Chardon Mun. Ct., Geauga County, Ohio, filed Feb. 2, 1976). Appellant’s suit was dismissed with prejudice on January 27, 1977, after the decision of the Supreme Court of Ohio had been filed.
The Board of Commissioners is an agent of the Supreme Court of Ohio. Counsel for appellee stated at oral argument that the Board has “no connection with the Ohio State Bar Association whatsoever.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 24.
The Ohio Code of Professional Responsibility is promulgated by the Supreme Court of Ohio. The Rules under which appellant was disciplined are modeled on the same-numbered rules in the Code of Professional Responsibility of the American Bar Association. DR 2-103 (A) of the ABA Code has since been amended so as not to proscribe forms of public advertising that would be permitted, after Bates, under amended DR 2-101 (B).
DR 2-103 (A) of the Ohio Code (1970) provides:
“A lawyer shall not recommend employment, as a private practitioner, of himself, his partner, or associate to a non-lawyer who has not sought his advice regarding employment of a lawyer.”
DR 2-104 (A) (1970) provides in relevant part:
“A lawyer who has given unsolicited advice to a layman that he should obtain counsel or take legal action shall not accept employment resulting from that advice, except that:
“(1) A lawyer may accept employment by a close friend, relative, former client (if the advice is germane to the former employment), or one whom the lawyer reasonably believes to be a client.”
The Board found that Carol and Wanda Lou “were, if anything, casual acquaintances” of appellant; that appellant initiated the contact with Carol and obtained her consent to handle her claim; that he advised Wanda Lou that he represented Carol, had a “tip” for Wanda, and was prepared to represent her, too. The Board also found that appellant would not abide by Mrs. Holbert’s request to leave Wanda alone, that both young women attempted to discharge appellant, and that appellant sued Carol McClintock.
An informal ban on solicitation, like that on advertising, historically was linked to the goals of preventing barratry, champerty, and maintenance. See Note, Advertising, Solicitation and the Profession’s Duty to Make Legal Counsel Available, 81 Yale L. J. 1181, 1181-1182, and n. 6 (1972). “The first Code of Professional Ethics in the United States was that formulated and adopted by the Alabama State Bar Association in 1887.” H. Drinker, Legal Ethics 23 (1953). The “more stringent prohibitions which form the basis of the current rules” were adopted by the American Bar Association in 1908. Note, 81 Yale L. J., supra, at 1182; see Drinker, supra, at 215. The present Code of Professional Responsibility, containing DR 2-103 (A) and 2-104 (A), was adopted by the American Bar Association in 1969 after more than four years of study by a special committee of the Association. It is a complete revision of the 1908 Canons, although many of its provisions proscribe conduct traditionally deemed unprofessional and detrimental to the public.
See Valentine v. Chrestensen, 316 U. S. 52 (1942); Pittsburgh Press Co. v. Human Relations Comm’n, 413 U. S. 376 (1973); Bigelow v. Virginia, 421 U. S. 809 (1975); Virginia Pharmacy Board v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U. S. 748 (1976).
The immediacy of a particular communication and the imminence of harm are factors that have made certain communications less protected than others. Compare Cohen v. California, 403 U. S. 15 (1971), with Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942); see Brandenburg v. Ohio, 395 U. S. 444 (1969); Schenck v. United States, 249 U. S. 47 (1919).
Whitney v. California, 274 U. S. 357, 375 (1927) (Brandeis, J., concurring).
We do not minimize the importance of providing low- and middle-income individuals with adequate information about the availability of legal services. The Bar is aware of this need and innovative measures are being implemented, see Bates, 433 U. S., at 398-399 (opinion of Powell, J.). In addition, the advertising permitted under Bates will provide a further source of such information.
In Railroad Trainmen v. Virginia Bar, the Court highlighted, the difference between permissible regulation of lawyers and regulation that impinges on the associational rights of union members: “Here what Virginia has sought to halt is not a commercialization of the legal profession which might threaten the moral and ethical fabric of the administration of justice. It is not ‘ambulance chasing.’ ” 377 U. S., at 6. The Court implicitly approved of the State’s regulation of conduct characterized colloquially as “ambulance chasing.” See generally Cohen v. Hurley, 366 U. S. 117 (1961); Note, 30 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 182 (1955). Indeed, in ruling that the railroad workers had a constitutional right “to gather together for the lawful purpose of helping and advising one another” in asserting federal statutory rights, 377 U. S., at 5, the Court adverted to the kind of problem with which Ohio is concerned in prohibiting solicitation:
“Injured workers or their families often fell prey on the one hand to persuasive claims adjusters eager to gain a quick and cheap settlement for their railroad employers, or on the other to lawyers either not competent to try these lawsuits against the able and experienced railroad counsel or too willing to settle a case for a quick dollar.” Id., at 3-4.
In recognizing the importance of the State’s interest in regulating solicitation of paying clients by lawyers, we are not unmindful of the problem of the related practice, described in Railroad Trainmen, of the solicitation of releases of liability by claims agents or adjusters of prospective defendants or their insurers. Such solicitations frequently occur prior to the employment of counsel by the injured person and during circumstances posing many of the dangers of overreaching we address in this case. Where lay agents or adjusters are involved, these practices for the most part fall outside the scope of regulation by the organized Bar; but releases or settlements so obtained are viewed critically by the courts. See, e. g., Florkiewicz v. Gonzalez, 38 Ill. App. 3d 115, 347 N. E. 2d 401 (1976); Cady v. Mitchell, 208 Pa. Super. 16, 220 A. 2d 373 (1966).
In Virginia Pharmacy we stated that it is indisputable that the State has a “strong interest” in maintaining “a high degree of professionalism on the part of licensed pharmacists.” 425 U. S., at 766. See also National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States, 435 U. S. 679, 696 (1978).
See, e. g., Note, 81 Yale L. J., supra, n. 11, at 1184; Comment, A Critical Analysis of Rules Against Solicitation by Lawyers, 25 U. Chi. L. Rev. 674 (1958).
A lawyer who engages in personal solicitation of clients may be inclined to subordinate the best interests of the client to his own pecuniary interests. Even if unintentionally, the lawyer’s ability to evaluate the legal merit of his client’s claims may falter when the conclusion will affect the lawyer’s income. A valid claim might be settled too quickly, or a claim with little merit pursued beyond the point of reason. These lapses of judgment can occur in any legal representation, but we cannot say that the pecuniary motivation of the lawyer who solicits a particular representation does not create special problems of conflict of interest.
To the extent that appellant charges that the Rules prohibit solicitation that is constitutionally protected — as he contends his is — as well as solicitation that is unprotected, his
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Attorney General of Illinois asserts a statutory right of access to transcripts, documents, and other materials gathered or generated by two federal grand juries during their investigations of alleged violations of the federal antitrust laws. He contends that § 4F(b) of the Clayton Act, 90 Stat. 1395, 15 U. S. C. § 15f(b), enacted as part of Title III of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976 (Act), makes it unnecessary for him to meet the “particularized need” standard generally required under Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure in order to obtain access to grand jury materials. Disagreeing with two other Courts of Appeals, the Seventh Circuit rejected this contention. We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict, 455 U. S. 1015 (1982), and now affirm.
I
On January 31, 1980, the State of Illinois filed a petition in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois seeking disclosure of transcripts and documents generated during two federal grand jury investigations of alleged bid-rigging in the construction trades in Illinois. These investigations had resulted in the return of three separate indictments naming 59 defendants. At the time the State filed its petition, most of the defendants had entered pleas of nolo contendere to the federal charges and one had been found guilty by a jury, but eight defendants were still awaiting trial. The Justice Department had refused the State’s request for the grand jury materials, explaining that they could not be disclosed without a court order under Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
The State advised the District Court that it had already initiated civil class actions against 86 defendants, charged in the indictments or identified as unindicted co-conspirators, to recover damages based on federal antitrust violations. The State’s petition invoked § 4F(b) and Rule 6(e) in support of disclosure. It further stated that “the materials requested are extremely relevant and material to Plaintiff’s causes; their disclosure will insure and promote efficient and economical utilization of scarce judicial and taxpayers resources, and will also obviate the need for duplicative and redundant discovery . . . App. 13. The Department of Justice supported the State’s petition. Certain defendants in the civil suits and others who had testified before the grand juries intervened to oppose disclosure.
The District Court first considered the State’s claim that it had a statutory right of access under § 4F(b) without making any showing of compelling or particularized need. The court concluded that, in response to a § 4F(b) request, the Justice Department was free to disclose documents that were independently acquired by the Executive Branch and voluntarily presented to the grand jury. But it held that transcripts of grand jury testimony and other materials acquired by the grand jury through the use of its subpoena power were not part of the “investigative files” of the Attorney General of the United States within the meaning of the Act. Moreover, the court found nothing in the legislative history of the Act to suggest that Congress intended either to authorize “unmonitored disclosure of purely grand jury materials” without a court order under Rule 6(e), or to modify the standard traditionally applied under Rule 6(e) itself.
The District Court then explained why the record as then developed would not justify disclosure under Rule 6(e) without reference to §4F(b). Noting the absence of any special showing of need for access to the grand jury materials, the scope of the material otherwise available to the plaintiffs, and the interests in grand jury secrecy that survived the termination of criminal proceedings, the District Court denied all of the petitions for disclosure. The denial, however, was without prejudice to renewed requests under Rule 6(e) after discovery efforts created a basis for more narrowly focused requests showing “particularized needs.”
The State of Illinois filed a timely appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit. On appeal the State did not contend that its petition had satisfied the showing of particularized need normally required under Rule 6(e). Instead, it presented the issue that had been finally resolved by the District Court’s order: whether § 4F(b) gives the state attorney general a special right of access to grand jury materials that is independent of or that modifies the limitations that were imposed by Rule 6(e) in 1976 when the Act became law. Noting that the plain language of the Act authorizes disclosure only “to the extent permitted by law,” and that the legislative history affirmatively indicates Congress’ intent to preserve then-existing limitations on access to grand jury materials, the Court of Appeals affirmed. In re Illinois Petition to Inspect and Copy Grand Jury Materials, 659 F. 2d 800 (1981).
II
Section 4F(a) of the Clayton Act, 15 U. S. C. § 15f(a), provides that, whenever the Attorney General of the United States has brought an action under the antitrust laws, and he has reason to believe that any state attorney general would be entitled to bring a federal action based substantially on the same alleged violation, he shall promptly give written notification to that official. Under §4F(b), 15 U. S. C. § 15f(b), in order to assist a state attorney general in evaluating this notice or in bringing an action, the Attorney General of the United States “shall, upon request by such State attorney general, make available to him, to the extent permitted by law, any investigative files or other materials which are or may be relevant or material to the actual or potential cause of action under this Act.”
The plain language of §4F(b) requires us to evaluate the legal context in which Congress legislated in 1976. The statute expressly mandates disclosure of investigative files and other materials only “to the extent permitted by law.” It is therefore appropriate to examine the extent to which, at the time the Act was passed, federal law permitted the Attorney General of the United States to disclose matters occurring before a federal grand jury to a state attorney general.
Since 1946 the disclosure of grand jury minutes has been governed by Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. In so many words, the Rule establishes a “General Rule of Secrecy,” a knowing violation of which “may be punished as a contempt of court.” The Rule provides that grand jury transcripts shall remain in the custody of the attorney for the Government “unless otherwise ordered by the court in a particular case.” There is only one exception to the general prohibition against disclosure without prior court approval, but that exception is limited to Federal Government personnel performing a specified federal law enforcement function. Plainly Rule 6(e) does not permit the Attorney General of the United States to disclose any grand jury proceedings to a state attorney general unless he is directed to do so by a court.
The court, however, is authorized by Rule 6(e)(3)(C) to permit certain disclosures that are otherwise prohibited by the “General Rule of Secrecy.” The scope of that authority has been delineated in a series of cases setting forth the standard of “particularized need.” We need not delineate the precise contours of that standard in this case, because the State made no attempt to make any such showing in the District Court, see n. 8, swpra, and has consistently maintained that it need not shoulder that burden.
Thus, under the law as it existed in 1976, two propositions were clear: (1) a state attorney general could not obtain access to federal grand jury proceedings without federal court approval; and (2) the State could not secure such approval merely by alleging that the materials were relevant to an actual or potential civil antitrust action. At the time the Act was passed in 1976, a blanket disclosure request comparable to the one at issue in this case would have been denied because it was not permitted by law. The State does not suggest that there has been any change in the law since 1976 that affects its right to disclosure. It therefore follows from the plain language of the Act that the State Attorney General is not entitled to the disclosure he seeks in this case.
I — I HH h — i
If the text of §4F(b) left any doubt concerning its recognition of the “General Rule of Secrecy” for grand jury mater i-als, that doubt would be removed by its legislative history. First, Congress considered and rejected a proposed section that would have specifically granted civil antitrust plaintiffs a right of access to grand jury materials after completion of federal civil or criminal proceedings. As reported by the Senate Judiciary Committee, the provision eliminated the particularized-need requirement and permitted disclosure, subject to court-imposed conditions, upon payment of reasonable costs. The proposed sweeping invasion of grand jury secrecy drew substantial criticism from a number of Senators. A floor amendment limited the section’s scope, and as amended it was adopted by the Senate, but at the informal House-Senate conference the House conferees objected and the Senate’s provision was dropped. The net effect of these deliberations was to leave the law applicable to grand jury-materials unchanged.
Second, a specific explanation of §4F(b) by Senator Ab-ourezk, the floor manager of the legislation, confirms the conclusion that Congress did not intend to change existing law concerning grand jury materials. The section was included in the compromise bill accepted by an informal House-Senate conference. After Senator Hruska expressed his concern that § 4F(b) might require the Department of Justice to act as “a massive document distribution center for the benefit of State officials,” Senator Abourezk explained:
“The section specifically limits the Attorney General’s power to release documents to whatever his powers are under existing law. Under existing law, he cannot turn over materials given in response to a grand jury demand or to a civil investigative demand. Therefore, the section is limited by existing law to cases where materials were turned over voluntarily.” 122 Cong. Rec. 29160 (1976).
Senator Abourezk’s interpretation of this provision was not questioned.
Third, the Act’s treatment of material obtained by the Government in response to Civil Investigative Demands (CID’s) supports our interpretation of §4F(b). The Act increases the Attorney General’s CID powers, but mandates that materials obtained in this manner be kept strictly confidential. CID materials may not be disclosed to persons outside the Federal Government without the consent of the provider. 15 U. S. C. § 1313 (1976 ed. and Supp. V). This requirement was imposed to safeguard the rights of individuals under investigation and to protect witnesses from retaliation. Since those reasons also underlie the traditional secrecy accorded to the grand jury, it would be anomalous for the same Congress that placed stringent limits on CID materials silently to have abrogated grand jury secrecy by permitting wholesale disclosure.
HH C
Finally, the State argues that the Act implements a general policy of encouraging federal/state cooperation and giving state attorneys general an important role in the enforcement of the antitrust laws. According to the State, this broad legislative goal would be served by facilitating the State’s access to grand jury materials. The State contends that virtually all of the Federal Government’s investigations of core Sherman Act violations — such as price fixing and bid rigging — are conducted from the outset by means of grand juries. Therefore, as in this case, a narrow reading of § 4F(b) would severely limit the amount of additional disclosure to state attorneys general. Further, the State asserts, a “particularized need” standard would be difficult to satisfy before a State has filed a civil action and attempted civil discovery — a stage when §4F(b) is intended to provide assistance to the State.
However correct these assertions may be, they do not authorize us to add specific language that Congress did not include in a carefully considered statute. Congress, of course, has the power to modify the rule of secrecy by changing the showing of need required for particular categories of litigants. But the rule is so important, and so deeply rooted in our traditions, that we will not infer that Congress has exercised such a power without affirmatively expressing its intent to do so. The general goals of enhancing federal-state cooperation in antitrust enforcement, and encouraging more state lawsuits against price fixers, are not sufficient. The statute as enacted by Congress simply does not authorize the Attorney General to turn over the entire investigative record of a federal antitrust grand jury to a state attorney general who has not complied with the judicially developed standards implementing Rule 6(e). Because the disclosure requested by the State in this case is not permitted by Rule 6(e) on the basis of the showing it made to the District Court, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
United States v. Colonial Chevrolet Corp., 629 F. 2d 948 (CA4 1980) (placing the burden of justifying nondisclosure on the opposing party), cert, denied, 450 U. S. 913 (1981); and United States v. B. F. Goodrich Co., 619 F. 2d 798 (CA9 1980) (allowing disclosure on a showing of “relevance”). Contra, In re Grand Jury Investigation of Cuisinarts, Inc., 665 F. 2d 24 (CA2 1981) (§ 4F(b) did not change the standard of “particularized need” for state attorneys general), cert, pending, No. 81-1595.
In June 1978, 18 corporations, 13 individuals, and a labor union were charged with conspiring to rig bids on public sheet metal projects in the Chicago area. United States v. Climatemp, Inc., 78 CR 388 (ND Ill.) On January 31, 1979, 21 corporations and 6 individuals were indicted for conspiring to rig bids on piping construction projects in the same area. United States v. Borg, Inc., 79 CR 67 (ND Ill.) (felony); United States v. S. J. Reynolds Co., Inc., 79 CR 66 (ND Ill.) (misdemeanor).
The State’s memorandum in support of its petition, filed on January 31, 1980, advised the court that eight defendants were scheduled to begin trial on February 4,1980. Four of these were subsequently acquitted. On request of the Justice Department, the State held its petition in abeyance pending completion of the trial.
App. 4 (Justice Department notice to the Attorney General of Illinois that indictments had been returned); id., at 5, 7 (state requests for investigative materials relating to the indictments). In response, the Justice Department furnished 19 pages of staff memoranda. It advised the State that, with respect to other materials within the scope of the State’s request, the Department would support the State’s request for court-ordered disclosure. Id., at 9-10.
Rule 6(e) provides, in part:
“Rule 6. The Grand Jury
“(e) Recording and Disclosure of Proceedings.
“(1) Recording of proceedings. . . . The recording or reporter’s notes or any transcript prepared therefrom shall remain in the custody or control of the attorney for the government unless otherwise ordered by the court in a particular case.
“(2) General rule of secrecy. A grand juror, an interpreter, a stenographer, an operator of a recording device, a typist who transcribes recorded testimony, an attorney for the government, or any person to whom disclosure is made under paragraph (3)(A)(ii) of this subdivision shall not disclose matters occurring before the grand jury, except as otherwise provided for in these rules. ... A knowing violation of Rule 6 may be punished as a contempt of court.
“(3) Exceptions.
“(C) Disclosure otherwise prohibited by this rule of matters occurring before the grand jury may also be made—
“(i) when so directed by a court preliminarily to or in connection with a judicial proceeding; or
“(ii) when permitted by a court at the request of the defendant, upon a showing that grounds may exist for a motion to dismiss the indictment because of matters occurring before the grand jury.
“If the court orders disclosure of matters occurring before the grand jury, the disclosure shall be made in such manner, at such time, and under such conditions as the court may direct.”
Section 4F of the Clayton Act, as added, 90 Stat. 1395, 15 U. S. C. § 15f, provides:
“(a) Whenever the Attorney General of the United States has brought an action under the antitrust laws, and he has reason to believe that any State attorney general would be entitled to bring an action under this Act based substantially on the same alleged violation of the antitrust laws, he shall promptly give written notification thereof to such State attorney general.
“(b) To assist a State attorney general in evaluating the notice or in bringing any action under this Act, the Attorney General of the United States shall, upon request by such State attorney general, make available to him, to the extent permitted by law, any investigative files or other materials which are or may be relevant or material to the actual or potential cause of action under this Act.”
Similar petitions were filed on behalf of other parties, including local governmental entities and private persons, who had also filed treble-damages actions against the defendants. The Justice Department took no position with regard to these petitions. The District Court consolidated the various petitions for purposes of argument and decision.
“Petitioners have simply requested the release to them of all of the grand jury material. In their quest for information grand juries often acquire reams of documents and hours of testimony later to be found irrelevant to the investigation or the final charge. Its wholesale disclosure could be embarrassing, if not destructive of third parties or of unindicted individuals and corporations concerned when witnesses are called upon to testify or furnish evidence which involves them. This is one of the principal reasons why grand jurors are sworn to secrecy. It is the duty of the court in following 6(e) to protect from public scrutiny and injury such individuals and corporations. Petitioners after having done little more than filing a suit, seek an all-encompassing, unparticularized general type of full disclosure which by the very nature of the request would defeat the spirit and rule of Procter & Gamble and Douglas Oil [United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U. S. 677 (1958); Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, 441 U. S. 211 (1979)]. Their request offends the common-law concern for the traditional protection of the innocent that has been built into our grand jury system from its earliest conception.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 37a-38a.
These comments carry special weight because they were made by the Chief Judge of a large metropolitan District, who had acquired a unique familiarity with the problems associated with the supervision of the conduct of grand juries.
Because the District Court’s order finally disposed of the State Attorney General’s claim of a statutory right of access to grand jury materials without a showing of particularized need, we are satisfied that the order was appealable under 28 U. S. C. § 1291. The court’s acknowledgment that the State might subsequently seek disclosure of particular materials under a “particularized need” standard does not deprive the order of finality. The ruling at issue in this case was made by the Chief Judge of the Northern District of Illinois in a separately docketed proceeding, see App. to Pet. for Cert. 40a; the opinion contemplates that further disclosure requests would be filed with the District Judges presiding over the State’s civil antitrust actions, id., at 39a. See Illinois v. Sarbaugh, 552 F. 2d 768, 773-774 (CA7 1977); cf. Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, supra, at 231-233 (Rehnquist, J., concurring) (the District Court’s order granting access to grand jury minutes “disposes of all of the contentions of the parties and terminates a separate proceeding pending before the grand jury court” and is therefore appealable as a “final decisio[n]” under 28 U. S. C. § 1291).
The parties have briefed and argued, as a separate question, whether grand jury files are included in the “investigative files or other materials” covered by § 4F(b). Respondents suggest that, because the section imposes upon the Attorney General an automatic and mandatory obligation to disclose the materials to which it does apply, it simply does not apply to grand jury materials — which can be disclosed only if authorized by a court. Given our reading of the statute’s proviso that disclosure shall be made “to the extent permitted by law,” we do not need to address this question separately.
See Rule 6(e)(2), quoted in n. 5, supra. The General Rule of Secrecy codifies a longstanding rule of common law which we have recognized as “an integral part of our criminal justice system.” Douglas Oil Co. v. Petrol Stops Northwest, supra, at 218, n. 9. Several distinct interests are served by safeguarding the confidentiality of grand jury proceedings. See 441U. S., at 219, and n. 10. Even after the conclusion of a particular grand jury’s investigation, continued secrecy protects the reputations of the innocent and safeguards witnesses from possible retaliation. In addition, stringent protection of the secrecy of completed grand jury investigations may be necessary to encourage persons to testify fully and freely before future grand juries. Id., at 222. More generally, grand jury secrecy has traditionally been invoked to justify the limited procedural safeguards available to witnesses and persons under investigation.
Rule 6(e)(1).
Rule 6(e)(3)(A)-(B).
See Douglas Oil Co., 441 U. S., at 221-224. “Parties seeking grand jury transcripts under Rule 6(e) must show that the material they seek is needed to avoid a possible injustice in another judicial proceeding, that the need for disclosure is greater than the need for continued secrecy, and that their request is structured to cover only material so needed.” Id., at 222 (footnote omitted); see also United States v. Procter & Gamble Co., 356 U. S., at 682; Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. United States, 360 U. S. 395, 398-399 (1959); cf. Dennis v. United States, 384 U. S. 855 (1966).
The State’s petition sought all materials gathered or generated by the grand jury investigations. In this Court, the State concedes that the district court may properly exercise its discretion to determine whether to disclose the requested materials, but it proposes “a standard less restrictive than particularized need.” See Brief for Petitioner 30-33, 42-43. Under this standard the district court would determine whether disclosure would undermine an ongoing or potential federal enforcement proceeding and whether countervailing interests require secrecy, and it could impose appropriate protective limitations upon disclosure. Ibid. The United States, as respondent under this Court’s Rule 19.6, in support of petitioner proposes a similar test. See Brief for United States 24-28. However such a standard might be formulated, it differs from the “particularized need” standard, which is expressly preserved by § 4F(b). But in rejecting such a rule, we stress that under the particularized-need standard, the district court may weigh the public interest, if any, served by disclosure to a governmental body — along with the requisite particularized need — in determining whether “the need for disclosure is greater than the need for continued secrecy.” Douglas Oil Co., supra, at 222.
The State does not directly argue that, apart from § 4F(b), the law permits it to obtain grand jury materials without a showing of particularized need. At oral argument the Assistant Attorney General expressed uncertainty regarding the legal standard that would apply in the absence of § 4F(b). Tr. of Oral Arg. 10. Cf. Brief for United States 15, n. 10 (expressing no opinion on the standard applicable to State requests for grand jury materials in the absence of § 4F(b)).
Although we examine the law in 1976 as an aid to interpreting the intent of the Congress that enacted § 4F(b), the terms of the Act would, of course, be satisfied if a requested disclosure is “permitted by law” at the time the request is made.
See S. Rep. No. 94-803, pp. 4, 33-35, 128, 152 (1976) (§202(0 of S. 1284). The Senate Judiciary Committee bill also authorized the Attorney General to give the Federal Trade Commission access to these grand jury materials. Id., at 31-32 (§202(k)).
See, e. g., id., at 203-204 (minority views of five members of Judiciary Committee); 122 Cong. Rec. 15318 (1976) (Sen. Thurmond); id., at 15835 (Sen. Allen); id., at 17428-17431 (Sen. Tower). The proposal was also opposed by the administration. Id., at 17038.
One of the leading opponents of § 212(1), Senator Allen, introduced a substitute amendment, defeated by the Senate, which was virtually identical in wording to the section in the House bill that was later enacted into law as § 4F(b). See id., at 15852-15853,16824-16825,17194. Senator Allen’s support of this provision, coupled with his strong opposition to § 212(1), indicates that § 4F(b) was not intended to abrogate traditional protections of grand jury secrecy.
The amendment limited disclosure to cases in which a defendant had entered a plea of guilty or nolo contendere, and permitted only the disclosure of material provided by that defendant, not by third parties. Id., at 15917-15918, 16922-16923. Amended § 202(1) was part of the bill adopted by the Senate on June 10, 1976. Id., at 17572.
Id., at 29147. After the conference, Senator Abourezk, the Senate floor manager of the bill, prepared a chart comparing the Senate and House versions. The chart showed that S. 1284 gave private plaintiffs and the FTC access to grand jury materials, and that the House version had no comparable provisions. In another section it stated that the House bill provided that state attorneys general may obtain investigative files or other materials from the United States Attorney General “to the extent permitted by law,” and noted that the Senate bill had no such provision. See id,., at 29151-29152. The chart’s structure and wording strongly suggest that § 4F(b) did not contemplate disclosure of grand jury materials to state attorneys general.
Id., at 29144.
This statement in floor debate is consistent with language in a House Committee Report on an earlier version of the statute, which explains that the Justice Department’s investigative files “are to be made available except where specifically prohibited.” H. R. Rep. No. 94-499, p. 17 (1975). This language merely paraphrases the plain language of the statute; Rule 6(e) quite specifically prohibits disclosure of grand jury documents save under specified conditions.
Limited CID authority was conferred upon the Attorney General by the Antitrust Civil Process Act of 1962, Pub. L. 87-664, 76 Stat. 548. The Attorney General’s powers were considerably expanded by Title I of the Hart-Scott-Rodino Antitrust Improvements Act of 1976, codified at 15 U. S. C. § 1311 et seq. (1976 ed. and Supp. V).
See H. R. Rep. No. 94-1343, pp. 3, 8, 18 (1976); S. Rep. No. 94-803, supra n. 18, at 30-31; 122 Cong. Rec. 29341 (1976) (explanation of House-Senate compromise bill by Sen. Hart).
Indeed, the House Report explains the Justice Department’s need for increased CID powers by canvassing the inadequacy of each alternative, including grand jury investigations, for civil enforcement purposes.
“The Division might try to empanel a grand jury, as it currently does in criminal antitrust investigations, and use the sweeping, compulsory powers of that investigative body to unearth evidence of civil violations. But the U. S. Supreme Court has virtually eliminated the Antitrust Division’s power to utilize the grand jury as a civil investigative tool. In United States v. Procter & Gamble, 356 U. S. 677 (1958), Justice Douglas concluded that ‘if the prosecution were using . . . criminal procedures to elicit evidence in a civil case, it would be flouting the policy of the law.’ That is because such a use of the grand jury would subvert the Division’s policy of proceeding criminally only against flagrant, willful offenses, and would debase the law ‘by tarring respectable citizens with the brush of crime when their deeds involve no criminality.’ ” H. R. Rep. No. 94-1343, supra, at 5.
Brief for Petitioner 14-15.
Although the State cites passages from hearings to show that Congress was aware of the Justice Department’s use of the grand jury, id., at 16, n. 4, these passages stressed that grand jury investigations were of limited usefulness in civil enforcement and urged the adoption of strengthened CID powers.
Congress has, on occasion, done precisely that. In 1966 it approved amendments to Rule 16 that gave defendants a right to obtain copies of their prior statements before grand juries; Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 16(a)(1)(A). In 1977, it amended Rule 6(e) to permit disclosure of grand jury materials to personnel assisting United States Government attorneys in the enforcement of federal criminal law. Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 6(e)(3)(A). See also 18 U. S. C. § 3500(e)(3) (Jencks Act).
The 1976 legislation was designed to enhance the effectiveness of antitrust enforcement on behalf of small consumers. The availability of information to antitrust plaintiffs, however, was not at the forefront of legislative deliberations. Congress focused on the difficulty of achieving class certification of consumer actions under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the complexity of measuring and distributing damages in such cases. See generally H. R. Rep. No. 94-499, supra n. 23, at 3-8; S. Rep. No. 94-803, supra n. 18, at 6-7, 39-40. To remedy these problems, the 1976 statute permits state attorneys general the right to institute parens patriae suits on behalf of state residents, 15 U. S. C. § 15c; exempts such suits from the class-action requirements of Rule 23, § 15c(a); and allows damages in these suits to be computed through aggregation techniques, § 15d. Therefore the State exaggerates when it asserts that the 1976 Act’s purposes would be frustrated if Rule 6(e) continued to be applied to state requests for access to grand jury materials.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Section 3 of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA or Act), 114 Stat. 804, 42 U. S. C. § 2000cc-l(a)(l)-(2), provides in part: “No government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution,” unless the burden furthers “a compelling governmental interest,” and does so by “the least restrictive means.” Plaintiffs below, petitioners here, are current and former inmates of institutions operated by the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction and assert that they are adherents of “nonmainstream” religions: the Satanist, Wicca, and Asatru religions, and the Church of Jesus Christ Christian. They complain that Ohio prison officials (respondents here), in violation of RLUIPA, have failed to accommodate their religious exercise
“in a variety of different ways, including retaliating and discriminating against them for exercising their nontraditional faiths, denying them access to religious literature, denying them the same opportunities for group worship that are granted to adherents of mainstream religions, forbidding them to adhere to the dress and appearance mandates of their religions, withholding religious ceremonial items that are substantially identical to those that the adherents of mainstream religions are permitted, and failing to provide a chaplain trained in their faith.” Brief for United States 5.
For purposes of this litigation at its current stage, respondents have stipulated that petitioners are members of bona fide religions and that they are sincere in their beliefs. Gerhardt v. Lazaroff, 221 F. Supp. 2d 827, 833 (SD Ohio 2002).
In response to petitioners’ complaints, respondent prison officials have mounted a facial challenge to the institutionalized-persons provision of RLUIPA; respondents contend, inter alia, that the Act improperly advances religion in violation of the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause. The District Court denied respondents’ motion to dismiss petitioners’ complaints, but the Court of Appeals reversed that determination. The appeals court held, as the prison officials urged, that the portion of RLUIPA applicable to institutionalized persons, 42 U. S. C. § 2000cc-l, violates the Establishment Clause. We reverse the Court of Appeals’ judgment.
“This Court has long recognized that the government may .. . accommodate religious practices ... without violating the Establishment Clause.” Hobbie v. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n of Fla., 480 U. S. 136, 144-145 (1987). Just last Term, in Locke v. Davey, 540 U. S. 712 (2004), the Court reaffirmed that “there is room for play in the joints between” the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, allowing the government to accommodate religion beyond free exercise requirements, without offense to the Establishment Clause. Id., at 718 (quoting Walz v. Tax Comm’n of City of New York, 397 U. S. 664, 669 (1970)). “At some point, accommodation may devolve into ‘an unlawful fostering of religion.’ ” Corporation of Presiding Bishop of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints v. Amos, 483 U. S. 327, 334-335 (1987) (quoting Hobbie, 480 U. S., at 145). But § 3 of RLUIPA, we hold, does not, on its face, exceed the limits of permissible government accommodation of religious practices.
I
A
RLUIPA is the latest of long-running congressional efforts to accord religious exercise heightened protection from government-imposed burdens, consistent with this Court’s precedents. Ten years before RLUIPA’s enactment, the Court held, in Employment Div., Dept. of Human Resources of Ore. v. Smith, 494 U. S. 872, 878-882 (1990), that the First Amendment’s Free Exercise Clause does not inhibit enforcement of otherwise valid laws of general application that incidentally burden religious conduct. In particular, we ruled that the Free Exercise Clause did not bar Oregon from enforcing its blanket ban on peyote possession with no allowance for sacramental use of the drug. Accordingly, the State could deny unemployment benefits to persons dismissed from their jobs because of their religiously inspired peyote use. Id., at 874, 890. The Court recognized, however, that the political branches could shield religious exercise through legislative accommodation, for example, by making an exception to proscriptive drug laws for sacramental peyote use. Id., at 890.
Responding to Smith, Congress enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA), 107 Stat. 1488, 42 U. S. C. §2000bb et seq. RFRA “prohibits ‘[government’ from ‘substantially burden[ing]’ a person’s exercise of religion even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability unless the government can demonstrate the burden ‘(1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.’ ” City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 515-516 (1997) (quoting §2000bb-1; brackets in original). “[Universal” in its coverage, RFRA “applie[d] to all Federal and State law,” id., at 516 (quoting former § 2000bb-3(a)), but notably lacked a Commerce Clause underpinning or a Spending Clause limitation to recipients of federal funds. In City of Boerne, this Court invalidated RFRA as applied to States and their subdivisions, holding that the Act exceeded Congress’ remedial powers under the Fourteenth Amendment. Id., at 532-536.
Congress again responded, this time by enacting RLUIPA. Less sweeping than RFRA, and invoking federal authority under the Spending and Commerce Clauses, RLUIPA targets two areas: Section 2 of the Act concerns land-use regulation, 42 U. S. C. §2000cc; §3 relates to religious exercise by institutionalized persons, § 2000cc-1. Section 3, at issue here, provides that “[n]o [state or local] government shall impose a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person residing in or confined to an institution,” unless the government shows that the burden furthers “a compelling governmental interest” and does so by “the least restrictive means.” § 2000cc-1(a)(1)-(2). The Act defines “religious exercise” to include “any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.” § 2000cc-5(7)(A). Section 3 applies when “the substantial burden [on religious exercise] is imposed in a program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance,” or “the substantial burden affects, or removal of that substantial burden would affect, commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, or with Indian tribes.” ' § 2000cc-l(b)(l)-(2). “A person may assert a violation of [RLUIPA] as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and obtain appropriate relief against a government.” § 2000ce-2(a).
Before enacting §3, Congress documented, in hearings spanning three years, that “frivolous or arbitrary” barriers impeded institutionalized persons’ religious exercise. See 146 Cong. Rec. 16698, 16699 (2000) (joint statement of Sen. Hatch and Sen. Kennedy on RLUIPA) (hereinafter Joint Statement) (“Whether from indifference, ignorance, bigotry, or lack of resources, some institutions restrict religious liberty in egregious and unnecessary ways.”). To secure redress for inmates who encountered undue barriers to their religious observances, Congress carried over from RFRA the “compelling governmental interest”/“least restrictive means” standard. See id., at 16698. Lawmakers anticipated, however, that courts entertaining complaints under § 3 would accord “due deference to the experience and expertise of prison and jail administrators.” Id., at 16699 (quoting S. Rep. No. 103-111, p. 10 (1993)).
B
Petitioners initially filed suit against respondents asserting claims under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. After RLUIPA’s enactment, petitioners amended their complaints to include claims under §3. Respondents moved to dismiss the statutory claims, arguing, inter alia, that § 3 violates the Establishment Clause. 221 F. Supp. 2d, at 846. Pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2403(a), the United States intervened in the District Court to defend RLUIPA’s constitutionality. 349 F. 3d 257, 261 (CA6 2003).
Adopting the report and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, the District Court rejected the argument that §3 conflicts with the Establishment Clause. 221 F. Supp. 2d, at 846-848. As to the Act’s impact on a prison’s staff and general inmate population, the court stated that RLUIPA “permits safety and security — which are undisputedly compelling state interests — to outweigh an inmate’s claim to a religious accommodation.” Id., at 848. On the thin record before it, the court declined to find, as respondents had urged, that enforcement of RLUIPA, inevitably, would compromise prison security. Ibid.
On interlocutory appeal pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1292(b), the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed. Citing Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U. S. 602 (1971), the Court of Appeals held that § 3 of RLUIPA “impermissibly advances] religion by giving greater protection to religious rights than to other constitutionally protected rights.” 349 F. 3d, at 264. Affording “religious prisoners rights superior to those of nonreligious prisoners,” the court suggested, might “encour-ag[e] prisoners to become religious in order to enjoy greater rights.” Id., at 266.
We granted certiorari to resolve the conflict among Courts of Appeals on the question whether RLUIPA’s institutionalized-persons provision, § 3 of the Act, is consistent with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. 543 U. S. 924 (2004). Compare 349 F. 3d 257 with Madison v. Riter, 355 F. 3d 310, 313 (CA4 2003) (§3 of RLUIPA does not violate the Establishment Clause); Charles v. Verhagen, 348 F. 3d 601, 610-611 (CA7 2003) (same); Mayweathers v. Newland, 314 F. 3d 1062, 1068-1069 (CA9 2002) (same). We now reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit.
II
A
The Religion Clauses of the First Amendment provide: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The first of the two Clauses, commonly called the Establishment Clause, commands a separation of church and state. The second, the Free Exercise Clause, requires government respect for, and noninterference with, the religious beliefs and practices of our Nation’s people. While the two Clauses express complementary values, they often exert conflicting pressures. See Locke, 540 U. S., at 718 (“These two Clauses . . . are frequently in tension.”); Walz, 397 U. S., at 668-669 (“The Court has struggled to find a neutral course between the two Religion Clauses, both of which are cast in absolute terms, and either of which, if expanded to a logical extreme, would tend to clash with the other.”).
Our decisions recognize that “there is room for play in the joints” between the Clauses, id., at 669, some space for legislative action neither compelled by the Free Exercise Clause nor prohibited by the Establishment Clause. See, e. g., Smith, 494 U. S., at 890 (“[A] society that believes in the negative protection accorded to religious belief can be expected to be solicitous of that value in its legislation . . . .”); Amos, 483 U. S., at 329-330 (Federal Government may exempt secular nonprofit activities of religious organizations from Title VII’s prohibition on religious discrimination in employment); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U. S. 398, 422 (1963) (Harlan, J., dissenting) (“The constitutional obligation of ‘neutrality’ is not so narrow a channel that the slightest deviation from an absolutely straight course leads to condemnation.” (citation omitted)). In accord with the majority of Courts of Appeals that have ruled on the question, see supra, at 718 and this page, we hold that §3 of RLUIPA fits within the corridor between the Religion Clauses: On its face, the Act qualifies as a permissible legislative accommodation of religion that is not barred by the Establishment Clause.
Foremost, we find RLUIPA’s institutionalized-persons provision compatible with the Establishment Clause because it alleviates exceptional government-created burdens on private religious exercise. See Board of Ed. of Kiryas Joel Village School Dist. v. Grumet, 512 U. S. 687, 705 (1994) (government need not “be oblivious to impositions that legitimate exercises of state power may place on religious belief and practice”); Amos, 483 U. S., at 349 (O’Connor, J., concurring in judgment) (removal of government-imposed burdens on religious exercise is more likely to be perceived “as an accommodation of the exercise of religion rather than as a Government endorsement of religion”). Furthermore, the Act on its face does not founder on shoals our prior decisions have identified: Properly applying RLUIPA, courts must take adequate account of the burdens a requested accommodation may impose on nonbeneficiaries, see Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc., 472 U. S. 703 (1985); and they must be satisfied that the Act’s prescriptions are and will be administered neutrally among different faiths, see Kiryas Joel, 512 U. S. 687.
“[T]he ‘exercise of religion’ often involves not only belief and profession but the performance of... physical acts [such as] assembling with others for a worship service [or] participating in sacramental use of bread and wine . . . .” Smith, 494 U. S., at 877. Section 3 covers state-run institutions— mental hospitals, prisons, and the like — in which the government exerts a degree of control unparalleled in civilian society and severely disabling to private religious exercise. 42 U. S. C. § 2000cc-l(a); § 1997; see Joint Statement 16699 (“Institutional residents’ right to practice their faith is at the mercy of those running the institution.”). RLUIPA thus protects institutionalized persons who are unable freely to attend to their religious needs and are therefore dependent on the government’s permission and accommodation for exercise of their religion.
We note in this regard the Federal Government’s accommodation of religious practice by members of the military. See, e. g., 10 U. S. C. § 3073 (referring to Army chaplains); Katcoff v. Marsh, 755 F. 2d 223, 225-229 (CA2 1985) (describing the Army chaplaincy program). In Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U. S. 503 (1986), we held that the Free Exercise Clause did not require the Air Force to exempt an Orthodox Jewish officer from uniform dress regulations so that he could wear a yarmulke indoors. In a military community, the Court observed, “there is simply not the same [individual] autonomy as there is in the larger civilian community.” Id., at 507 (brackets in original; internal quotation marks omitted). Congress responded to Goldman by prescribing that “a member of the armed forces may wear an item of religious apparel while wearing the uniform,” unless “the wearing of the item would interfere with the performance [of] military duties [or] the item of apparel is not neat and conservative.” 10 U. S, C. § 774(a)-(b).
We do not read RLUIPA to elevate accommodation of religious observances over an institution’s need to maintain order and safety. Our decisions indicate that an accommodation must be measured so that it does not override other significant interests. In Caldor, the Court struck down a Connecticut law that “arm[ed] Sabbath observers with an absolute and unqualified right not to work on whatever day they designate^] as their Sabbath.” 472 U. S., at 709. We held the law invalid under the Establishment Clause because it “unyieldingly] weighted]” the interests of Sabbatarians “over all other interests.” Id., at 710.
We have no cause to believe that RLUIPA would not be applied.in an appropriately balanced way, with particular sensitivity to security concerns. While the Act adopts a “compelling governmental interest” standard, see supra, at 715, “[c]ontext matters” in the application of that standard. See Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U. S. 306, 327 (2003). Lawmakers supporting RLUIPA were mindful of the urgency of discipline, order, safety, and security in penal institutions. See, e.g., 139 Cong. Rec. 26190 (1993) (remarks of Sen. Hatch). They anticipated that courts would apply the Act’s standard with “due deference to the experience and expertise of prison and jail administrators in establishing necessary regulations and procedures to maintain good order, security and discipline, consistent with consideration of costs and limited resources.” Joint Statement 16699 (quoting S. Rep. No. 103-111, at 10).
Finally, RLUIPA does not differentiate among bona fide faiths. In Kiryas Joel, we invalidated a state law that carved out a separate school district to serve exclusively a community of highly religious Jews, the Satmar Hasidim. We held that the law violated the Establishment Clause, 512 U. S., at 690, in part because it “single[d] out a particular religious sect for special treatment,” id,., at 706 (footnote omitted). RLUIPA presents no such defect. It confers no privileged status on any particular religious sect, and singles out no bona fide faith for disadvantageous treatment.
B
The Sixth Circuit misread our precedents to require invalidation of RLUIPA as “impermissibly advancing religion by giving greater protection to religious rights than to other constitutionally protected rights.” 349 F. 3d, at 264. Our decision in Amos counsels otherwise. There, we upheld against an Establishment Clause challenge a provision exempting “religious organizations from Title VIPs prohibition against discrimination in employment on the basis of religion.” 483 U. S., at 329. The District Court in Amos, reasoning in part that the exemption improperly “single[d] out religious entities for a benefit,” id., at 338, had “declared the statute unconstitutional as applied to secular activity,” id., at 333. Religious accommodations, we held, need not “come packaged with benefits to secular entities.” Id., at 338; see Madison, 355 F. 3d, at 318 (“There is no requirement that legislative protections for fundamental rights march in lockstep.”).
Were the Court of Appeals’ view the correct reading of our decisions, all manner of religious accommodations would fall. Congressional permission for members of the military to wear religious apparel while in uniform would fail, see 10 U. S. C. § 774, as would accommodations Ohio itself makes. Ohio could not, as it now does, accommodate “traditionally recognized” religions, 221 F. Supp. 2d, at 832: The State provides inmates with chaplains “but not with publicists or political consultants,” and allows “prisoners to assemble for worship, but not for political rallies,” Reply Brief for United States 5.
In upholding RLUIPA’s institutionalized-persons provision, we emphasize that respondents “have raised a facial challenge to [the Act’s] constitutionality, and have not contended that under the facts of any of [petitioners’] specific cases . . . [that] applying RLUIPA would produce unconstitutional results.” 221 F. Supp. 2d, at 831. The District Court, noting the underdeveloped state of the record, concluded: A finding “that it is factually impossible to provide the kind of accommodations that RLUIPA will require without significantly compromising prison security or the levels of service provided to other inmates” cannot be made at this juncture. Id., at 848 (emphasis added). We agree.
“For more than a decade, the federal Bureau of Prisons has managed the largest correctional system in the Nation under the same heightened scrutiny standard as RLUIPA without compromising prison security, public safety, or the constitutional rights of other prisoners.” Brief for United States 24 (citation omitted). The Congress that enacted RLUIPA was aware of the Bureau’s experience. See Joint Statement 16700 (letter from Dept, of Justice to Sen. Hatch) (“[W]e do not believe [RLUIPA] would have an unreasonable impact on prison operations. RFRA has been in effect in the Federal prison system for six years and compliance with that statute has not been an unreasonable burden to the Federal prison system.”). We see no reason to anticipate that abusive prisoner litigation will overburden the operations of state and local institutions. The procedures mandated by the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995, we note, are designed to inhibit frivolous filings.
Should inmate requests for religious accommodations become excessive, impose unjustified burdens on other institutionalized persons, or jeopardize the effective functioning of an institution, the facility would be free to resist the imposition. In that event, adjudication in as-applied challenges would be in order.
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed, arid the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Petitioners Cutter and Gerhardt are no longer in the custody of the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction. Brief for Petitioners 2, n. 1. No party has suggested that this case has become moot, nor has it: Without doubt, a live controversy remains among the still-incarcerated petitioners, the United States, and respondents. We do not reach the question whether the claims of Cutter and Gerhardt continue to present an actual controversy. See Steffel v. Thompson, 415 U. S. 452, 459-460, and n. 10 (1974).
RFRA, Courts of Appeals have held, remains operative as to the Federal Government and federal territories and possessions. See O’Bryan v. Bureau of Prisons, 349 F. 3d 399, 400-401 (CA7 2003); Guam v. Guerrero, 290 F. 3d 1210, 1220-1222 (CA9 2002); Kikumura v. Hurley, 242 F. 3d 950, 958-960 (CA10 2001); In re Young, 141 F. 3d 854, 858-863 (CA8 1998). This Court, however, has not had occasion to rule on the matter.
Section 2 of RLUIPA is not at issue here. We therefore express no view on the validity of that part of the Act.
Every State, including Ohio, accepts federal funding for its prisons. Brief for United States 28, n. 16 (citing FY 2003 Office of Justice Programs & Office of Community Oriented Policing Services Grants by State).
The hearings held by Congress revealed, for a typical example, that “[a] state prison in Ohio refused to provide Moslems with Hallal food, even though it provided Kosher food.” Hearing on Protecting Religious Freedom After Boerne v. Flores before the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the House Committee on the Judiciary, 105th Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 3, p. 11, n. 1 (1998) (hereinafter Protecting Religious Freedom) (prepared statement of Marc D. Stern, Legal Director, American Jewish Congress). Across the country, Jewish inmates complained that prison officials refused to provide sack lunches, which would enable inmates to break their fasts after nightfall. Id., at 39 (statement of Isaac M. Jaroslawicz, Director of Legal Affairs for the Aleph Institute). The “Michigan Department of Corrections . . . prohibited] the lighting of Chanukah candles at all state prisons” even though “smoking” and “votive candles” were permitted. Id., at 41 (same). A priest responsible for communications between Roman Catholic dioceses and corrections facilities in Oklahoma stated that there “was [a] nearly yearly battle over the Catholic use of Sacramental Wine ... for the celebration of the Mass,” and that prisoners’ religious possessions, “such as the Bible, the Koran, the Talmud or items needed by Native Americans[,].. . were frequently treated with contempt and were confiscated, damaged or discarded” by prison officials. Id., pt. 2, at 58-59 (prepared statement of Donald W. Brooks, Reverend, Diocese of Tulsa, Oklahoma).
Lemon stated a three-part test: “First, the statute must have a secular legislative purpose; second, its principal or primary effect must be one that neither advances nor inhibits religion; finally, the statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion.” 403 U. S., at 612-613 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). We resolve this case on other grounds.
Respondents argued below that RLUIPA exceeds Congress’ legislative powers under the Spending and Commerce Clauses and violates the Tenth Amendment. The District Court rejected respondents’ challenges under the Spending Clause, Gerhardt v. Lazaroff, 221 F. Supp. 2d 827, 839-849 (SD Ohio 2002), and the Tenth Amendment, id., at 850-851, and declined to reach the Commerce Clause question, id., at 838-839. The Sixth Circuit, having determined that RLUIPA violates the Establishment Clause, did not rule on respondents’ further arguments. See 349 F. 3d 257, 259-260, 269 (2003). Respondents renew those arguments in this Court. They also augment their federalism-based or residual-powers contentions by asserting that, in the space between the Free Exercise and Establishment Clauses, the States’ choices are not subject to congressional oversight. See Brief for Respondents 9, 25-33; cf. Madison v. Riter, 355 F. 3d 310, 322 (CA4 2003). Because these defensive pleas were not addressed by the Court of Appeals, and mindful that we are a court of review, not of first view, we do not consider them here. See F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v. Empagran S. A., 542 U. S. 155, 175 (2004); United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, 532 U. S. 483, 494 (2001). But cf. post, at 727, n. 2 (Thomas, J., concurring).
Directed at obstructions institutional arrangements place on religious observances, RLUIPA does not require a State to pay for an inmate’s devotional accessories. See, e. g., Charles v. Verhagen, 348 F. 3d 601, 605 (CA7 2003) (overturning prohibition on possession of Islamic prayer oil but leaving inmate-plaintiff with responsibility for purchasing the oil).
See, e. g., ibid. (prison’s regulation prohibited Muslim prisoner from possessing ritual cleansing oil); Young v. Lane, 922 F. 2d 370, 375-376 (CA7 1991) (prison’s regulation restricted wearing of yarmulkes); Hunafa v. Murphy, 907 F. 2d 46, 47-48 (CA7 1990) (noting instances in which Jewish and Muslim prisoners were served pork, with no substitute available).
Respondents argue, in line with the Sixth Circuit, that RLUIPA goes beyond permissible reduction of impediments to free exercise. The Act, they project, advances religion by encouraging prisoners to “get religion,” and thereby gain accommodations afforded under RLUIPA. Brief for Respondents 15-17; see 349 F. 3d, at 266 (“One effect of RLUIPA is to induce prisoners to adopt or feign religious belief in order to receive the statute’s benefits.”). While some accommodations of religious observance, notably the opportunity to assemble in worship services, might attract joiners seeking a break in their closely guarded day, we doubt that all accommodations would be perceived as “benefits.” For example, congressional hearings on RLUIPA revealed that one state corrections system served as its kosher diet “a fruit, a vegetable, a granola bar, and a liquid nutritional supplement — each and every meal.” Protecting Religious Freedom, pt. 3, at 38 (statement of Jaroslawicz).
The argument, in any event, founders on the fact that Ohio already facilitates religious services for mainstream faiths. The State provides chaplains, ¿Hows inmates to possess religious items, and permits assembly for worship. See App. 199 (affidavit of David Schwarz, Religious Services Administrator for the South Region of the Ohio Dept, of Rehabilitation and Correction (Oct. 19,2000)) (job duties include “facilitating the delivery of religious services in 14 correctional institutions of various security levels throughout . . . Ohio”); Ohio Dept, of Rehabilitation and Correction, Table of Organization (Apr. 2005), available at http://www.drc.state.oh.us/ web/DRCORGl.pdf (as visited May 27, 2005, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file) (department includes “Religious Services” division); Brief for United States 20, and n. 8 (citing, inter alia, Gawloski v. Dallman, 803 F. Supp. 103, 113 (SD Ohio 1992) (inmate in protective custody allowed to attend a congregational religious service, possess a Bible and other religious materials, and receive chaplain visits); Taylor v. Perini, 413 F. Supp. 189, 238 (ND Ohio 1976) (institutional chaplains had free access to correctional area)).
The Sixth Circuit posited that an irreligious prisoner and member of the Aryan Nation who challenges prison officials’ confiscation of his white supremacist literature as a violation of his free association and expression rights would have his claims evaluated under the deferential rational-relationship standard described in Turner v. Safley, 482 U. S. 78 (1987). A member of the Church of Jesus Christ Christian challenging a similar withholding, the Sixth Circuit assumed, would have a stronger prospect of success because a court would review his claim under RLUIPA’s compelling-interest standard. 349 F. 3d, at 266 (citing Madison v. Riter, 240 F. Supp. 2d 566, 576 (WD Va. 2003)). Courts, however, may be expected to recognize the government’s countervailing compelling interest in not facilitating inflammatory racist activity that could imperil prison security and order. Cf. Reimann v. Murphy, 897 F. Supp. 398, 402-403 (ED Wis. 1995) (concluding, under RFRA, that excluding racist literature advocating violence was the least restrictive means of furthering the compelling state interest in preventing prison violence); George v. Sullivan, 896 F. Supp. 895, 898 (WD Wis. 1995) (same).
State prison officials make the first judgment about whether to provide a particular accommodation, for a prisoner may not sue under RLUIPA without first exhausting all available administrative remedies. See 42 U. S. C. §2000cc-2(e) (nothing in RLUIPA “shall be construed to amend or repeal the Prison Litigation Reform Act of 1995”); §1997e(a) (requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies).
Respondents argue that prison gangs use religious activity to cloak their illicit and often violent conduct. The instant case was considered below on a motion to dismiss. Thus, the parties’ conflicting assertions on this matter are not before us. It bears repetition, however, that prison security is a compelling state interest, and that deference is due to institutional officials’ expertise in this area. See supra, at 722-723. Further, prison officials may appropriately question whether a prisoner’s religiosity, asserted as the basis for a requested accommodation, is authentic. Although RLUIPA bars inquiry into whether a particular belief or practice is “central” to a prisoner’s religion, see 42 U. S. C. §2000cc-5(7)(A), the Act does not preclude inquiry into the sincerity of a prisoner’s professed religiosity. Cf. Gillette v. United States, 401 U. S. 437, 457 (1971) (“ ‘[T]he “truth” of a belief is not open to question’; rather, the question is whether the objector’s beliefs are ‘truly held.’” (quoting United States v. Seeger, 380 U. S. 163, 185 (1965))).
See supra, at 723, n. 12.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In our system of justice, fair trial for persons charged with criminal offenses is secured by the Sixth Amendment, which guarantees to defendants the right to counsel, compulsory-process to obtain defense witnesses, and the opportunity to cross-examine witnesses for the prosecution. Those safeguards apart, admission of evidence in state trials is ordinarily governed by state law, and the reliability of relevant testimony typically falls within the province of the jury to determine. This Court has recognized, in addition, a due process check on the admission of eyewitness identification, applicable when the police have arranged suggestive circumstances leading the witness to identify a particular person as the perpetrator of a crime.
An identification infected by improper police influence, our case law holds, is not automatically excluded. Instead, the trial judge must screen the evidence for reliability pretrial. If there is “a very substantial likelihood of irreparable mis-identification,” Simmons v. United States, 390 U. S. 377, 384 (1968), the judge must disallow presentation of the evidence at trial. But if the indicia of reliability are strong enough to outweigh the corrupting effect of the police-arranged suggestive circumstances, the identification evidence ordinarily will be admitted, and the jury will ultimately determine its worth.
We have not extended pretrial screening for reliability to cases in which the suggestive circumstances were not arranged by law enforcement officers. Petitioner requests that we do so because of the grave risk that mistaken identification will yield a miscarriage of justice. Our decisions, however, turn on the presence of state action and aim to deter police from rigging identification procedures, for example, at a lineup, showup, or photograph array. When no improper law enforcement activity is involved, we hold, it suffices to test reliability through the rights and opportunities generally designed for that purpose, notably, the presence of counsel at postindictment lineups, vigorous cross-examination, protective rules of evidence, and jury instructions on both the fallibility of eyewitness identification and the requirement that guilt be proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
I
A
Around 3 a.m. on August 15, 2008, Joffre Ullon called the Nashua, New Hampshire, Police Department and reported that an African-American male was trying to break into cars parked in the lot of Ullon’s apartment building. Officer Nicole Clay responded to the call. Upon arriving at the parking lot, Clay heard what “sounded like a metal bat hitting the ground.” App. 37a-38a. She then saw petitioner Ba-rion Perry standing between two cars. Perry walked toward Clay, holding two car-stereo amplifiers in his hands. A metal bat lay on the ground behind him. Clay asked Perry where the amplifiers came from. “[I] found them on the ground,” Perry responded. Id., at 39a.
Meanwhile, Ullon’s wife, Nubia Blandón, woke her neighbor, Alex Clavijo, and told him she had just seen someone break into his car. Clavijo immediately went downstairs to the parking lot to inspect the car. He first observed that one of the rear windows had been shattered. On further inspection, he discovered that the speakers and amplifiers from his car stereo were missing, as were his bat and wrench. Clavijo then approached Clay and told her about Blandon’s alert and his own subsequent observations.
By this time, another officer had arrived at the scene. Clay asked Perry to stay in the parking lot with that officer, while she and Clavijo went to talk to Blandón. Clay and Clavijo then entered the apartment building and took the stairs to the fourth floor, where Blandon’s and Clavijo’s apartments were located. They met Blandón in the hallway just outside the open door to her apartment.
Asked to describe what she had seen, Blandón stated that, around 2:30 a.m., she saw from her kitchen window a tall, African-American man roaming the parking lot and looking into cars. Eventually, the man circled Clavijo’s car, opened the trunk, and removed a large box.
Clay asked Blandón for a more specific description of the man. Blandón pointed to her kitchen window and said the person she saw breaking into Clavijo’s car was standing in the parking lot, next to the police officer. Perry’s arrest followed this identification.
About a month later, the police showed Blandón a photographic array that included a picture of Perry and asked her to point out the man who had broken into Clavijo’s ear. Blandón was unable to identify Perry.
B
Perry was charged in New Hampshire state court with one count of theft by unauthorized taking and one count of criminal mischief. Before trial, he moved to suppress Blandon’s identification on the ground that admitting it at trial would violate due process. Blandón witnessed what amounted to a one-person showup in the parking lot, Perry asserted, which all but guaranteed that she would identify him as the culprit. Id., at 15a-16a.
The New Hampshire Superior Court denied the motion. Id., at 82a-88a. To determine whether due process prohibits the introduction of an out-of-court identification at trial, the Superior Court said, this Court’s decisions instruct a two-step inquiry. First, the trial court must decide whether the police used an unnecessarily suggestive identification procedure. Id., at 85a. If they did, the court must next consider whether the improper identification procedure so tainted the resulting identification as to render it unreliable and therefore inadmissible. Ibid, (citing Neil v. Biggers, 409 U. S. 188 (1972), and Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U. S. 98 (1977)).
Perry’s challenge, the Superior Court concluded, failed at step one: Blandon’s identification of Perry on the night of the crime did not result from an unnecessarily suggestive procedure “manufaeture[d]... by the police.” App. 86a-87a. Blandón pointed to Perry “spontaneously,” the court noted, “without any inducement from the police.” Id., at 85a-86a. Clay did not ask Blandón whether the man standing in the parking lot was the man Blandón had seen breaking into Clavijo’s car. Ibid. Nor did Clay ask Blandón to move to the window from which she had observed the break-in. Id., at 86a.
The Superior Court recognized that there were reasons to question the accuracy of Blandon’s identification: The parking lot was dark in some locations; Perry was standing next to a police officer; Perry was the only African-American man in the vicinity; and Blandón was unable, later, to pick Perry out of a photographic array. Id., at 86a-87a. But “[because the police procedures were not unnecessarily suggestive,” the court ruled that the reliability of Blandon’s testimony was for the jury to consider. Id., at 87a.
At the ensuing trial, Blandón and Clay testified to Bland-on’s out-of-court identification. The jury found Perry guilty of theft and not guilty of criminal mischief.
On appeal, Perry repeated his challenge to the admissibility of Blandon’s out-of-court identification. The trial court erred, Perry contended, in requiring an initial showing that the police arranged the suggestive identification procedure. Suggestive circumstances alone, Perry argued, suffice to trigger the court’s duty to evaluate the reliability of the resulting identification before allowing presentation of the evidence to the jury.
The New Hampshire Supreme Court rejected Perry’s argument and affirmed his conviction. Id., at 9a-lla. Only where the police employ suggestive identification techniques, that court held, does the Due Process Clause require a trial court to assess the reliability of identification evidence before permitting a jury to consider it. Id., at 10a-lla.
We granted certiorari to resolve a division of opinion on the question whether the Due Process Clause requires a trial judge to conduct a preliminary assessment of the reliability of an eyewitness identification made under suggestive circumstances not arranged by the police. 563 U. S. 1020 (2011).
I — {
A
The Constitution, our decisions indicate, protects a defendant against a conviction based on evidence of questionable reliability, not by prohibiting introduction of the evidence, but by affording the defendant means to persuade the jury that the evidence should be discounted as unworthy of credit. Constitutional safeguards available to defendants to counter the State’s evidence include the Sixth Amendment rights to counsel, Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335,343-345 (1963); compulsory process, Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U. S. 400, 408-409 (1988); and confrontation plus cross-examination of witnesses, Delaware v. Fensterer, 474 U. S. 15,18-20 (1985) (per curiam). Apart from these guarantees, we have recognized, state and federal statutes and rules ordinarily govern the admissibility of evidence, and juries are assigned the task of determining the reliability of the evidence presented at trial. See Kansas v. Ventris, 556 U. S. 586, 594, n. (2009) (“Our legal system... is built on the premise that it is the province of the jury to weigh the credibility of competing witnesses.”). Only when evidence “is so extremely unfair that its admission violates fundamental conceptions of justice,” Dowling v. United States, 493 U. S. 342, 352 (1990) (internal quotation marks omitted), have we imposed a constraint tied to the Due Process Clause. See, e. g., Napue v. Illinois, 360 U. S. 264, 269 (1959) (Due process prohibits the State’s “knowin[g] use [of] false evidence,” because such use violates “any concept of ordered liberty.”).
Contending that the Due Process Clause is implicated here, Perry relies on a series of decisions involving police-arranged identification procedures. In Stovall v. Denno, 388 U. S. 293 (1967), first of those decisions, a witness identified the defendant as her assailant after police officers brought the defendant to the witness’ hospital room. Id., at 295. At the time the witness made the identification, the defendant— the only African-American in the room — was handcuffed and surrounded by police officers. Ibid. Although the police-arranged showup was undeniably suggestive, the Court held that no due process violation occurred. Id., at 302. Crucial to the Court’s decision was the procedure’s necessity: The witness was the only person who could identify or exonerate the defendant; the witness could not leave her hospital room; and it was uncertain whether she would live to identify the defendant in more neutral circumstances. Ibid.
A year later, in Simmons v. United States, 390 U. S. 377 (1968), the Court addressed a due process challenge to police use of a photographic array. When a witness identifies the defendant in a police-organized photo lineup, the Court ruled, the identification should be suppressed only where “the photographic identification procedure was so [unnecessarily] suggestive as to give rise to a very substantial likelihood of irreparable misidentification.” Id., at 384-385. Satisfied that the photo array used by Federal Bureau of Investigation agents in Simmons was both necessary and unlikely to have led to a mistaken identification, the Court rejected the defendant’s due process challenge to admission of the identification. Id., at 385-386. In contrast, the Court held in Foster v. California, 394 U. S. 440 (1969), that due process required the exclusion of an eyewitness identification obtained through police-arranged procedures that “made it all but inevitable that [the witness] would identify [the defendant].” Id., at 443.
Synthesizing previous decisions, we set forth in Neil v. Biggers, 409 U. S. 188 (1972), and reiterated in Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U. S. 98 (1977), the approach appropriately used to determine whether the Due Process Clause requires suppression of an eyewitness identification tainted by police arrangement. The Court emphasized, first, that due process concerns arise only when law enforcement officers use an identification procedure that is both suggestive and unnecessary. Id., at 107,109; Biggers, 409 U. S., at 198. Even when the police use such a procedure, the Court next said, suppression of the resulting identification is not the inevitable consequence. Brathwaite, 432 U. S., at 112-113; Biggers, 409 U. S., at 198-199.
A rule requiring automatic exclusion, the Court reasoned, would “g[o] too far,” for it would “kee[p] evidence from the jury that is reliable and relevant,” and “may result, on occasion, in the guilty going free.” Brathwaite, 432 U. S., at 112; see id., at 113 (when an “identification is reliable despite an unnecessarily suggestive [police] identification procedure,” automatic exclusion “is a Draconian sanction,” one “that may frustrate rather than promote justice”).
Instead of mandating a per se exclusionary rule, the Court held that the Due Process Clause requires courts to assess, on a case-by-case basis, whether improper police conduct created a “substantial likelihood of misidentification.” Biggers, 409 U. S., at 201; see Brathwaite, 432 U. S., at 116. “[R]elia-bility [of the eyewitness identification] is the linchpin” of that evaluation, the Court stated in Brathwaite. Id., at 114. Where the “indicators of [a witness’] ability to make an accurate identification” are “outweighed by the corrupting effect” of law enforcement suggestion, the identification should be suppressed. Id., at 114, 116. Otherwise, the evidence (if admissible in all other respects) should be submitted to the jury.
Applying this “totality of the circumstances” approach, id., at 110, the Court held in Biggers that law enforcement’s use of an unnecessarily suggestive showup did not require suppression of the victim’s identification of her assailant. 409 U. S., at 199-200. Notwithstanding the improper procedure, the victim’s identification was reliable: She saw her assailant for a considerable period of time under adequate light, provided police with a detailed description of her attacker long before the showup, and had “no doubt” that the defendant was the person she had seen. Id., at 200 (internal quotation marks omitted). Similarly, the Court concluded in Brath-waite that police use of an unnecessarily suggestive photo array did not require exclusion of the resulting identification. 432 U. S., at 114-117. The witness, an undercover police officer, viewed the defendant in good light for several minutes, provided a thorough description of the suspect, and was certain of his identification. Id., at 115. Hence, the “indicators of [the witness’] ability to make an accurate identification [were] hardly outweighed by the corrupting effect of the challenged identification.” Id., at 116.
B
Perry concedes that, in contrast to every case in the Sto-vall line, law enforcement officials did not arrange the suggestive circumstances surrounding Blandon’s identification. See Brief for Petitioner 34; Tr. of Oral Arg. 5 (counsel for Perry) (“[W]e do not allege any manipulation or intentional orchestration by the police.”). He contends, however, that it was mere happenstance that each of the Stovall cases involved improper police action. The rationale underlying our decisions, Perry asserts, supports a rule requiring trial judges to prescreen eyewitness evidence for reliability any time an identification is made under suggestive circumstances. We disagree.
Perry’s argument depends, in large part, on the Court’s statement in Brathwaite that “reliability is the linchpin in determining the admissibility of identification testimony.” 432 U. S., at 114. If reliability is the linchpin of admissibility under the Due Process Clause, Perry maintains, it should make no difference whether law enforcement was responsible for creating the suggestive circumstances that marred the identification.
Perry has removed our statement in Brathwaite from its mooring, and thereby attributes to the statement a meaning a fair reading of our opinion does not bear. As just explained, supra, at 238-239, the Brathwaite Court’s reference to reliability appears in a portion of the opinion concerning the appropriate remedy when the police use an unnecessarily suggestive identification procedure. The Court adopted a judicial screen for reliability as a course preferable to a per se rule requiring exclusion of identification evidence whenever law enforcement officers employ an improper procedure. The due process check for reliability, Brathwaite made plain, comes into play only after the defendant establishes improper police conduct. The very purpose of the check, the Court noted, was to avoid depriving the jury of identification evidence that is reliable, notwithstanding improper police conduct. 432 U. S., at 112-113.
Perry’s contention that improper police action was not essential to the reliability check Brathwaite required is echoed by the dissent. Post, at 252. Both ignore a key premise of the Brathwaite decision: A primary aim of excluding identification evidence obtained under unnecessarily suggestive circumstances, the Court said, is to deter law enforcement use of improper lineups, showups, and photo arrays in the first place. See 432 U. S., at 112. Alerted to the prospect that identification evidence improperly obtained may be excluded, the Court reasoned, police officers will “guard against unnecessarily suggestive procedures.” Ibid. This deterrence rationale is inapposite in cases, like Perry’s, in which the police engaged in no improper conduct.
Coleman v. Alabama, 399 U. S. 1 (1970), another decision in the Stovall line, similarly shows that the Court has linked the due process check, not to suspicion of eyewitness testimony generally, but only to improper police arrangement of the circumstances surrounding an identification. The defendants in Coleman contended that a witness’ in-court identifications violated due process, because a pretrial station-house lineup was “so unduly prejudicial and conducive to irreparable misidentification as fatally to taint [the later identifications].” 399 U. S., at 3 (plurality opinion). The Court rejected this argument. Id., at 5-6 (plurality opinion), 13-14 (Black, J., concurring), 22, n. 2 (Burger, C. J., dissenting), 28, n. 2 (Stewart, J., dissenting). No due process violation occurred, the plurality explained, because nothing “the police said or did prompted [the witness’] virtually spontaneous identification of [the defendants].” Id., at 6. True, Coleman was the only person in the lineup wearing a hat, the plurality noted, but “nothing in the record show[ed] that he was required to do so.” Ibid. See also Colorado v. Con-nelly, 479 U. S. 157, 163, 167 (1986) (Where the “crucial element of police overreaching” is missing, the admissibility of an allegedly unreliable confession is “a matter to be governed by the evidentiary laws of the forum,... and not by the Due Process Clause.”).
Perry and the dissent place significant weight on United States v. Wade, 388 U. S. 218 (1967), describing it as a decision not anchored to improper police conduct. See Brief for Petitioner 12,15,21-22,28; post, at 250-253,256-258. In fact, the risk of police rigging was the very danger to which the Court responded in Wade when it recognized a defendant’s right to counsel at postindictment, police-organized identification procedures. 388 U. S., at 233, 235-236. “[T]he confrontation compelled by the State between the accused and the victim or witnesses,” the Court began, “is peculiarly riddled with innumerable dangers and variable factors which might seriously, even crucially, derogate from a fair trial.” Id., at 228 (emphasis added). “A major factor contributing to the high incidence of miscarriage of justice from mistaken identification,” the Court continued, “has been the degree of suggestion inherent in the manner in which the prosecution presents the suspect to witnesses for pretrial identification.” Ibid, (emphasis added). To illustrate the improper suggestion it was concerned about, the Court pointed to police-designed lineups where “all in the lineup but the suspect were known to the identifying witness,... the other participants in [the] lineup were grossly dissimilar in appearance to the suspect,... only the suspect was required to wear distinctive clothing which the culprit allegedly wore,... the witness is told by the police that they have caught the culprit after which the defendant is brought before the witness alone or is viewed in jail,... the suspect is pointed out before or during a lineup,... the participants in the lineup are asked to try on an article of clothing which fits only the suspect.” Id., at 233. Beyond genuine debate, then, prevention of unfair police practices prompted the Court to extend a defendant’s right to counsel to cover postindictment lineups and showups. Id., at 235.
Perry’s argument, reiterated by the dissent, thus lacks support in the case law he cites. Moreover, his position would open the door to judicial preview, under the banner of due process, of most, if not all, eyewitness identifications. External suggestion is hardly the only factor that casts doubt on the trustworthiness of an eyewitness’ testimony. As one of Perry’s amici points out, many other factors bear on “the likelihood of misidentification,” posi, at 258 — for example, the passage of time between exposure to and identification of the defendant, whether the witness was under stress when he first encountered the suspect, how much time the witness had to observe the suspect, how far the witness was from the suspect, whether the suspect carried a weapon, and the race of the suspect and the witness. Brief for American Psychological Association as Amicus Curiae 9-12. There is no reason why an identification made by an eyewitness with poor vision, for example, or one who harbors a grudge against the defendant, should be regarded as inherently more reliable, less of a “threat to the fairness of trial,” post, at 262, than the identification Blandón made in this case. To embrace Perry’s view would thus entail a vast enlargement of the reach of due process as a constraint on the admission of evidence.
Perry maintains that the Court can limit the due process check he proposes to identifications made under “suggestive circumstances.” Tr. of Oral Arg. 11-14. Even if we could rationally distinguish suggestiveness from other factors bearing on the reliability of eyewitness evidence, Perry’s limitation would still involve trial courts, routinely, in preliminary examinations. Most eyewitness identifications involve some element of suggestion. Indeed, all in-court identifications do. Out-of-court identifications volunteered by witnesses are also likely to involve suggestive circumstances. For example, suppose a witness identifies the defendant to police officers after seeing a photograph of the defendant in the press captioned “theft suspect,” or hearing a radio report implicating the defendant in the crime. Or suppose the witness knew that the defendant ran with the wrong crowd and saw him on the day and in the vicinity of the crime. Any of these circumstances might have “suggested” to the witness that the defendant was the person the witness observed committing the crime.
C
In urging a broadly applicable due process check on eyewitness identifications, Perry maintains that eyewitness identifications are a uniquely unreliable form of evidence. See Brief for Petitioner 17-22 (citing studies showing that eyewitness misidentifications are the leading cause of wrongful convictions); Brief for American Psychological Association as Amicus Curiae 14-17 (describing research indicating that as many as one in three eyewitness identifications is inaccurate). See also post, at 262-265. We do not doubt either the importance or the fallibility of eyewitness identifications. Indeed, in recognizing that defendants have a constitutional right to counsel at postindictment police lineups, we observed that “the annals of criminal law are rife with instances of mistaken identification.” Wade, 388 U. S., at 228.
We have concluded in other contexts, however, that the potential unreliability of a type of evidence does not alone render its introduction at the defendant’s trial fundamentally unfair. See, e. g., Ventris, 556 U. S., at 594, n. (declining to “craft a broa[d] exclusionary rule for uncorroborated statements obtained [from jailhouse snitches],” even though “rewarded informant testimony” may be inherently untrustworthy); Dowling, 493 U. S., at 353 (rejecting argument that the introduction of evidence concerning acquitted conduct is fundamentally unfair because such evidence is “inherently unreliable”). We reach a similar conclusion here: The fallibility of eyewitness evidence does not, without the taint of improper state conduct, warrant a due process rule requiring a trial court to screen such evidence for reliability before allowing the jury to assess its creditworthiness.
Our unwillingness to enlarge the domain of due process as Perry and the dissent urge rests, in large part, on our recognition that the jury, not the judge, traditionally determines the reliability of evidence. See supra, at 237. We also take account of other safeguards built into our adversary system that caution juries against placing undue weight on eyewitness testimony of questionable reliability. These protections include the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to confront the eyewitness. See Maryland v. Craig, 497 U. S. 836, 845 (1990) (“The central concern of the Confrontation Clause is to ensure the reliability of the evidence against a criminal defendant.”)- Another is the defendant’s right to the effective assistance of an attorney, who can expose the flaws in the eyewitness’ testimony during cross-examination and focus the jury’s attention on the fallibility of such testimony during opening and closing arguments. Eyewitness-specific jury instructions, which many federal and state courts have adopted, likewise warn the jury to take care in appraising identification evidence. See, e. g., United States v. Telfaire, 469 F. 2d 652, 558-559 (CADC 1972) (per curiam) (D. C. Circuit Model Jury Instructions) (“If the identification by the witness may have been influenced by the circumstances under which the defendant was presented to him for identification, you should scrutinize the identification with great care.”). See also Ventris, 556 U. S., at 594, n. (citing jury instructions that informed jurors about the unreliability of uncorroborated jailhouse-informant testimony as a reason to resist a ban on such testimony); Dowling, 493 U. S., at 352-353. The constitutional requirement that the government prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt also impedes convictions based on dubious identification evidence.
State and Federal Rules of Evidence, moreover, permit trial judges to exclude relevant evidence if its probative value is substantially outweighed by its prejudicial impact or potential for misleading the jury. See, e. g., Fed. Rule Evid. 403; N. H. Rule Evid. 403 (2011). See also Tr. of Oral Arg. 19-22 (inquiring whether the standard Perry seeks differs materially from the one set out in Rule 403). In appropriate cases, some States also permit defendants to present expert testimony on the hazards of eyewitness identification evidence. See, e. g., State v. Clopten, 2009 UT 84, ¶33, 223 P. 3d 1103,1113 (“We expect... that in cases involving eyewitness identification of strangers or near-strangers, trial courts will routinely admit expert testimony [on the dangers of such evidence].”).
Many of the safeguards just noted were at work at Perry’s trial. During her opening statement, Perry’s court-appointed attorney cautioned the jury about the vulnerability of Blandon’s identification. App. 115a (Blandón, “the eyewitness that the State needs you to believe[,] can’t pick [Perry] out of a photo array. How carefully did she really see what was going on?... How well could she really see him?”). While cross-examining Blandón and Officer Clay, Perry’s attorney constantly brought up the weaknesses of Blandon’s identification. She highlighted: (1) the significant distance between Blandon’s window and the parking lot, id., at 226a; (2) the lateness of the hour, id., at 225a; (3) the van that partly obstructed Blandon’s view, id., at 226a; (4) Bland-on’s concession that she was “so scared [she] really didn’t pay attention” to what Perry was wearing, id., at 233a; (5) Blandon’s inability to describe Perry’s facial features or other identifying marks, id., at 205a, 233a-235a; (6) Blandon’s failure to pick Perry out of a photo array, id., at 235a; and (7) Perry’s position next to a uniformed, gun-bearing police officer at the moment Blandón made her identification, id., at 202a-205a. Perry’s counsel reminded the jury of these frailties during her summation. Id., at 374a-375a (Blandón “wasn’t able to tell you much about who she saw.... She couldn’t pick [Perry] out of a lineup, out of a photo array [Blandón said] [t]hat guy that was with the police officer, that’s who was circling. Again, think about the context with the guns, the uniforms. Powerful, powerful context clues.”).
After closing arguments, the trial court read the jury a lengthy instruction on identification testimony and the factors the jury should consider when evaluating it. Id., at 399a-401a. The court also instructed the jury that the defendant’s guilt must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt, id., at 390a, 392a, 395a-396a, and specifically cautioned that “one of the things the State must prove [beyond a reasonable doubt] is the identification of the defendant as the person who committed the offense,” id., at 398a-399a.
Given the safeguards generally applicable in criminal trials, protections availed of by the defense in Perry’s case, we hold that the introduction of Blandon's eyewitness testimony, without a preliminary judicial assessment of its reliability, did not render Perry’s trial fundamentally unfair.
* ⅜ *
• For the foregoing reasons, we agree with the New Hampshire courts’ appraisal of our decisions. See supra, at 235-236. Finding no convincing reason to alter our precedent, we hold that the Due Process Clause does not require a preliminary judicial inquiry into the reliability of an eyewitness identification when the identification was not procured under unnecessarily suggestive circumstances arranged by law enforcement. Accordingly, the judgment of the New Hampshire Supreme Court is
Affirmed.
The dissent, too, appears to urge that all suggestive circumstances raise due process concerns warranting a pretrial ruling. See post, at 254, 257, 262-265. Neither Perry nor the dissent, however, points to a single case in which we have required pretrial screening absent a police-arranged identification procedure. Understandably so, for there are no such cases. Instead, the dissent surveys our decisions, heedless of the police arrangement that underlies every one of them, and inventing a “longstanding rule,” post, at 254, that never existed. Nor are we, as the dissent suggests, imposing a mens rea requirement, post, at 250, 255, or otherwise altering our precedent in any way. As our case law makes clear, what triggers due process concerns is police use of an unnecessarily suggestive identification procedure, whether or not they intended the arranged procedure to be suggestive.
The box, which Clay found on the ground near where she first encountered Perry, contained ear-stereo speakers. App. 177a-178a.
The theft charge was based on the taking of items from Clavijo’s car, while the criminal mischief count was founded on the shattering of Clavi-jo’s ear window.
Compare United States v. Bouthot, 878 F. 2d 1506, 1516 (CA1 1989) (Due process requires federal courts to “scrutinize all suggestive identification procedures, not just those orchestrated by the police.”); Dunnigan v. Keane, 137 F. 3d 117, 128 (CA2 1998) (same); Thigpen v. Cory, 804 F. 2d 893, 895 (CA6 1986) (same), with United States v. Kimberlin, 805 F. 2d 210, 233 (CA7 1986) (Due process check is required only in cases involving improper state action.); United States v. Zeiler, 470 F. 2d 717, 720 (CA3 1972) (same); State v. Addison, 160 N. H. 792, 801, 8 A. 3d 118, 125 (2010) (same); State v. Reid, 91 S. W. 3d 247, 272 (Tenn. 2002) (same); State v. Nordstrom, 200 Ariz. 229, 241, 25 P. 3d 717, 729 (2001) (same); Semple v. State, 271 Ga. 416, 417-418, 519 S. E. 2d 912, 913-914 (1999) (same); Harris v. State, 619 N. E. 2d 577, 581 (Ind. 1993) (same); State v. Pailón, 590 A. 2d 858, 862-863 (R. I. 1991) (same); Commonwealth v. Colon-Cruz, 408 Mass. 533, 541-542, 562 N. E. 2d 797,805 (1990) (same); State v. Brown, 38 Ohio St. 3d 305, 310-311, 528 N. E. 2d 523, 533 (1988) (same); Wilson v. Commonwealth, 695 S. W. 2d 854, 857 (Ky. 1985) (same).
Among “factors to be considered” in evaluating a witness’ “ability to make an accurate identification,” the Court listed: “the opportunity of the witness to view the criminal at the time of the crime, the witness’ degree of attention, the accuracy of his prior description of the criminal, the level of certainty demonstrated at the confrontation, and the time between the crime and the confrontation.” Manson v. Brathwaite, 432 U. S. 98, 114 (1977) (citing Neil v. Biggers, 409 U. S. 188, 199-200 (1972)).
The Court’s description of the question presented in Brathwaite assumes that improper state action occurred: “[Does] the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment compe[l] the exclusion, in a state criminal trial, apart from any consideration of reliability, of pretrial identification evidence obtained by a police procedure that was both suggestive and unnecessary.” 432 U. S., at 99.
See Model Crim. Jury Instr. No. 4.15 (CA3 2009); United States v. Holley, 502 F. 2d 273,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case, involving questions under the so-called Jencks Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3500, is before the Court for the second time. When it was first here, we held inadequate the procedure employed by the trial court for ascertaining whether notes takén by Federal Agent John F. Toomey, Jr., at his interview with Dominic Staula — a key government witness at petitioners’ trial for bank robbery — or the Interview Report compiled by Toomey from his notes, were producible statements within the meaning of §3500 (e)(1) or (e)(2). 365 U. S. 85. We declined to order petitioners’ convictions vacated, but remanded “to the trial court with direction to hold a new inquiry consistent with this opinion . . . [and] supplement the record with new findings . . . .” 365 U. S., at 98-99.' On remand the trial judge held a hearing at which Toomey but not Staula testified. Toomey gave the following testimony: On the day following the robbery he interviewed Staula privately. Staula was a depositor of the bank and had been an eyewitness to' the crime. ' Toomey took longhand notes of the interview, which were “complete . . . with respect to the pertinent information” given by Staula, although not a complete, word-for-word transcription of what he had said. Toomey then recited back to Staula the substance of his account, referring to his notes, and Staula said that Toomey had got it straight. Staula did not read or sign the notes. About seven hours later Toomey, after rearranging his notes to accord with the chronology of Staula’s account, dictated the Interview Report, relying primarily on his notes but also on memory. After checking the transcribed report against the notes and finding it accurate, he destroyed the notes.
On the basis of this testimony and the record of Sfatila’s testimony at petitioners’ trial, the trial judge held that neither the notes nor the Intérview Report was producible under the Jencks Act. 206 F. Supp. 213. On appeal, the Court of Appeals expressed dissatisfaction with the judge’s conduct of the hearing but accepted his ruling that the Interview Report was not producible. 296 F. 2d 527. However, the court held that the status of the. notes could not be adequately determined without fresh testimony from Staula. Accordingly the court, while retaining jurisdiction of the' appeal generally, ordered a further hearing before a district judge other than the trial judge, with both Staula and Toomey to testify, for a determination “whether Staula signed or otherwise adopted or approved the notes.” Id., at 534.
At this hearing Staula testified that he had not read or signed Toomey’s notes but had told Toomey that what the latter had repeated back to him was, to the best of his knowledge, what had happened. Toomey amplified his earlier testimony. On this record the second district judge concluded, 199 F. Supp. 905, that Toomey’s oral presentation to Staula had “not merely adhered to the substance [of the notes] ■ but so far as practical to the precise words,” id., at 906; that Staula had adopted this presentation; that the Interview Report was “almost in ipsissima verba the narrative . . . [Toomey] had just checked with Staula,” id., at 907; and that therefore the report was producible as “a written statement made by said witness and .' . . adopted ... by him.” 18 U. S. C. 13500 (e)(1).
The Court of Appeals then filed a supplemental opinion in which it accepted the second district judge’s findings but held that the report was neither a written statement approved by Staula nor a copy of such a statement, and hence did not come within § 3500 (e)(1). 303 F. 2d 747. We granted certiorari .and leave to proceed in forma pauperis.. 371 U. S. 919. We reverse. We agree with the second district judge that the Interview Report was producible under § 350.0 (e)(1); consequently, we do not reach the other issues tendered by petitioners.
In Campbell I, we posed the following questions to frame the hearing on remand:
“Did Toomey write down what Staula told him at the interview? If so, did Toomey give Staula the paper ‘to read over, to make sure that, it was right/ [as Staula had testified at the trial]- and did Staula sign it?
“Was the Interview Report the paper Staula described, or a copy of that paper? In either case, as the trial judge ruled, the Interview Report would be a producible ‘statement’ under subsection (e)(1).” 365 U. S., at 93.
We now know that the “paper Staula described” was Toomey’s interview notes, and that Staula adopted Toomey’s oral presentation based on the notes. Plainly, if Toomey in making the oral presentation was in fact reading the notes back to Staula, the latter’s adoption of the oral presentation would constitute adoption of a written statement made by him, namely,- the notes. See United States v. Annunziato, 293 F. 2d 373, 382 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1961); United States v. Aviles, 197 F. Supp. 536, 556 (D. C. S. D. N. Y. 1961). The producibility of the Interview Report under §3500 (e)(1) would therefore seem to depend upon, the answers to two questions: whether Toomey’s oral version of the notes may fairly be deemed a reading back of the notes to Staula; and whether the Interview Report may fairly be deemed a copy of the notes.
We think these questions properly are ones of fact, the determination of which by the district judge may not be disturbed unless clearly erroneous. “Final decision as to production must rest, as it does so very often in procedural and evidentiary matters, within the good sense and experience of the district judge guided by the standards we have outlined, and subject to the appropriately limited review of appellate courts.” Palermo v. United States, 360 U. S. 343, 353. Cf. id., at 360 (concurring opinion); Hance v. United States, 299 F. 2d 389, 397 (C. A. 8th Cir. 1962); United States v. Thomas, 282 F. 2d 191 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1960). “The inquiry . . . [is] a proceeding necessary to aid the judge to discharge the responsibility laid upon him to enforce the. statute. . . . The statute . . . implies the duty in the trial judge affirmatively to administer the statute in such way as can best secure relevant and available evidence . . . .” 365 U. S., at 95. To determine the accuracy with which Toomey’s oral presentation and Interview Report reproduced his notes was preeminently a task for a nisi prius, not an appellate, court. It required the ad hoc appraisal of one of the “myriad” “possible permutations of fact and circumstance,” Palermo v. United States, supra, at 353, present in such cases; it may well have depended upon .nuances of testimony and demeanor of witnesses; and it concerned a subject, rulings on evidence, which is peculiarly the province of trial courts.
For the purpose of applying the clearly-erroneous standard in the instant case, we deem controlling the findings of the second district judge. As the Court of Appeals correctly held, the first hearing did not conform to our mandate in Campbell I because Staula was not called to testify; and the hearing was unsatisfactory in other respects. • Mpreover, while Toomey's testimony at. the second hearing did not contradict his earlier testimony, it was considerably more detailed. Also, we perceive no basic inconsistency betweten the fact-findings made at the first hearing and those made at the second, although the later findings were more elaborate. Finally, we read the supplemental opinion of the Court of Appeals as having accepted the later findings as controlling and based, its decision upon them.
In so doing, the Court of Appeals implicitly .concluded that the later finding's were hot clearly erroneous. That conclusion was surely sound. Although there may well be small differences as among the notes, oral presentation, and Interview Report, it is not seriously suggested that there was a material variance or inconsistency among them. And the district judge was entitled to infer that' ■an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation of some 15 years’ experience would record a potential witness’ statement with sufficient accuracy as to obviate any need for "the courts to consider whether it would be “grossly unfair to állow the defense to use statements to impeach a witness which could not fairly be said to be the witness’ own.” Palermo v. United States, supra, at 350. We cannot say, therefore, that the second district judge’s finding that the Interview Report was a copy of a written statement made and adopted by Staula was clearly erroneous.
Our holding today only gives effect to the “command of the statute [which] is . . . designed to further the fair and just administration of criminal justice . . . .” Campbell I, 365 U. S., at 92. Petitioners — Alvin R. Campbell and Arnold S. Campbell, brothers, and Donald Lester — were convicted of a serious crime and sentenced to long prison terms. At their trial, held four months after the bank robbery, Staula testified that there had been three robbers. One, who had worn “a white shirt with short sleeves,” Record, Campbell I, No. 53, October Term 1960, p. 141, he said resembled Lester. Another, who “had on a blue suit,” id., p. 142, he said resembled Arnold Campbell. The third he had glimpsed “[a]t the vault,” id., p. 170, but could not describe'. ■ The Interview-Report, however, states that Staula “did not observe a third man in the bank.” Of the two he did observe, one is described as wearing a “[d]ark blue suit” and “[w]hite shirt”; but at the trial, when asked whether he remembered “what kind of a shirt,, if any, the man in the blue suit was wearing,” Record, supra, p. 148, Staula answered: “No, because I saw him from the side. I didn’t see the front of him. I didn’t see his. shirt.” Ibid. And in the description in the report of the second man Staula observed, there is no mention of his wearing “a white shirt with short sleeves”; he is only described as “wearing gray chino pants,” and the report adds that Staula “only observed the man ... for an instant and could give no further description of him.” Surely fairness in federal criminal procedure, which the Jencks Act was enacted to secure, Campbell I, 365 U. S., at 92, demands that this Interview Report, reasonably found to be an accurate copy of a written statement made the day after the robbery by Staula and adopted by him as his own, be producible for impeachment purposes.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals and the judgments of conviction are vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The Act provides in part:
“(b) After a witness called by the United States has testified on direct examination, the court shall, on motion of the defendant, order the United States to produce any statement (as hereinafter defined) of the witness in the possession of the United States which relates to the subject matter as to which the witness has testified. If the entire contents of any such statement relate to the subject matter of the testimony of the witness, the court shall order it to be delivered directly to the defendant for his examination and use.
“(d) If the United States elects not to comply with an order of the court under paragraph (b) or (c) hereof to deliver to the defendant any such statement, or such' portion thereof as the court may direct, the .court shall strike from the record the testimony of the witness, and ’the trial shall proceed,unless the court in its discretion shall determine that the interests of justice require that a mistrial be declared.
“(e) The term ‘statement’, as used in subsections ■ (b), (c), and (d) of this section, in relation to any witness called by the United States, means—
“(1) a written statement made by said witness and signed or otherwise adopted or approved by him; or
“(2) a stenographic, mechanical, electrical, or other recording, Or a transcription thereof, which is a substantially verbatim recital of an oral statement made by said witness to an agent of the Government and recorded contemporaneously with the making of such oral statement.”
Specifically, we held that the district judge was required to hold a nonadversary hearing on the producibility of the notes and Interview Report. We also directed that attention be given the question what sanctions, if any, would be appropriate if it developed that the notes were producible but had been destroyed and that no copy had survived. See 365 U. S., at 98, 18 U. S. C; § 3500 (d).
The Interview Report was released by the Court of Appeals and was included in the record before this Court in Campbell I. The .full text of the report is reproduced-in 365 U. S., at 90 and 91, n. 3.
Although Toomey testified at the hearing that Staula had not signed or read the notes, Staula had testified at petitioners’.trial: “I +hink they wrote down what I said, and then I think they gave it back to me to read over, to make sure that it was right. And I think I had to sign it. Now, I am not sure. I couldn’t remember before.” 365 U. S., at 89, n. 2. Staula was referring to his interview with Toomey.
These issues, basically, are whether the Interview Report is producible under § 3500 (e) (2) of the Jencks Act and whether, if the notes are producible under the Act, their destruction gives rise to sanctions under subsection (d), or permits secondary evidence of their contents to be produced. The second district judge found that the Interview Report was a substantially verbatim recording of Staula’s oral statement to Toomey and hence producible under § 3500 (e) (2). The Court of Appeals disagreed. Moreover, in denying rehearing, the Court of Appeals rendered an opinion holding that no sanctions could- attach to Toomey’s destruction of his notes because such destruction had not been in bad faith. 303 F. 2d, at 751. Our holding that the Interview Report is producible under § 3500 (e) (1) makes it unnecessary for us to consider any of the other issues, and we intimate no view on the- correctness of the Court of Appeals’ rulings on them.
It is settled, of course, that a written statement, to be producible under §3500 (e)(1), need not be signed by the witness, Campbell I, at 93-94; Bergman v. United States, 253 F. 2d 933, 935, n. 1 (C. A. 6th Cir. 1958); cf. United States v. Allegrucci, 299 F. 2d 811, 813 and n. 3 (C. A. 3d Cir. 1962), or written by him, Campbell I, at 93; United States v. Thomas, 282 F. 2d 191, 194 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1960) ; H. R. Rep. No. 700, 85th Cong., 1st Sess. 5-6 (1957); Note, The Supreme Court, 1960 Term, 75 Harv. L. Rev. 40, 181-182 (1961), or be a substantially verbatim recording of a prior oral statement, see United States v. McCarthy, 301 F. 2d 796 (C. A. 3d Cir. 1962); United States v. Berry, 277 F. 2d 826 (C. A. 7th Cir. 1960).
The producibility of statements under the Jencks Act and their admissibility under the rules of evidence are separate questions, United States v. Berry, 277 F. 2d 826, 830 (C. A. 7th Cir. 1960), but obviously closely related.
“While technically the court called Tpomey itself and permitted the defendants- to Cross-examine, the restrictions imposed upon counsel were such that it was cross-examination in name only. In spite of the fact that the witness was a special agent of long standing who had discussed his testimony with the Assistant U. S. Attorney immediately before the hearing, the court hovered constantly over him like an over-anxious mother. With respect to correlation between the notes, Staula’s statements, and the eventual report, the Supreme Court’s directions for a non-adversary proceeding to assist the court in performing its duty, with the defendants permitted to •cross-examine, were honored largely in the breach:” 296 F. 2d, at 529.
The first district judge’s findings, so far as pertinent to the issue of producibility under §3500-(e)(1), read as follows;.
“3. . . . Agent Toomey • repeated to Mr. Staula, from memory and using’the notes-which he had taken only to refresh his recollection, the substance of the story which Mr. Staula had related to him. •. . .
' “4.' Agent Toomey did not transcribe the story related to him by Mr. Staula word for word.” 206 F. Supp., at 214. We do not read these_ as findings that Toómey’s oral presentation was not an accurate reproduction of the contents of the notes. Apparently, the judge based his conclusion of nonprodueibility under § 3500 (e) (1) on the legally erroneous supposition that adoption of an- oral presentation of a written statement did not constitute a permissible mode of adopting • the written statement.
One judge, concurring in the Court of Appeals, questioned the correctnéss of the Distict Court’s finding that the Interview Report recorded Staula’s statement “almost in ipsissima .verba.” 303 F. 2d, at 751. But he did not suggest, nor, we think; could he on this record, that there were material differences between the statement and ■ the report. It is not suggested, for example, that the descriptions of the robbers in the report or the statement in the report ■ that Staula had not observed a' third robber — the crucial' portions of the report for impeachment purposes — differed in the slightest relevant' particular from the notes or oral presentation. The only variances, apparently, are grammatical, and syntactical changes, rearrangement into chronological order, and omissions and additions of information immaterial for impeachment purposes.
As a copy, we consider, the report admissible as independent evidence for impeachment purposes, and not merely as secondary evidence of. the notes which have been destroyed: See generally United States v. Annunziato, supra, at 382; United States v. Thomas, supra, at 194-195.
“Every experienced trial judge and trial lawyer knows the value for impeaching purposes of statements of the witness recording the events before time dulls treacherous memory. Flat contradiction between the witness’ testimony and the version of the events given in. his reports is not the only test of inconsistency. The omission from the reports pf facts related at the trial, or a contrast in emphasis upon the same facts, even a different order of treatment, are also relevant to the cross-examining process of testing the credibility of a witness’ trial testimony.” Jencks v. United States, 353 U. S. 657, 667. The Jencks Act, of course, “reaffirms” our holding in Jencks v. United States, supra. Campbell I, at 92.
We intimate no view on the probative weight to be accorded the Interview Report as impeaching Staula’s trial testimony; that is a matter for the triers of facts. And of course nothing we say is intended to suggest that a showing of inconsistency is a prerequisite to the production of documents under the Jencks Act. Jencks v. United States, supra, at 667-668; 18 U. S. C. §3500 (b).
Understandably, no contention has been made that the refusal to produce the Interview Report can be deemed harmless error under the principles laid down in Rosenberg v. United States, 360 U. S. 367. Cf. Gordon v. United States, 344 U. S. 414.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kagan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U. S. 356 (2010), this Court held that the Sixth Amendment requires an attorney for a criminal defendant to provide advice about the risk of deportation arising from a guilty plea. We consider here whether that ruling applies retroactively, so that a person whose conviction became final before we decided Padilla can benefit from it. We conclude that, under the principles set out in Teague v. Lane, 489 U. S. 288 (1989), Padilla does not have retroactive effect.
I
Petitioner Roselva Chaidez hails from Mexico, but became a lawful permanent resident of the United States in 1977. About 20 years later, she helped to defraud an automobile insurance company out of $26,000. After federal agents uncovered the scheme, Chaidez pleaded guilty to two counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1341. The District Court sentenced her to four years of probation and ordered her to pay restitution. Chaidez’s conviction became final in 2004.
Under federal immigration law, the offenses to which Chaidez pleaded guilty are “aggravated felonies,” subjecting her to mandatory removal from this country. See 8 U. S. C. §§ 1101(a)(43)(M)(i), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii). But according to Chaidez, her attorney never advised her of that fact, and at the time of her plea she remained ignorant of it.
Immigration officials initiated removal proceedings against Chaidez in 2009, after an application she made for citizenship alerted them to her prior conviction. To avoid removal, Chaidez sought to overturn that conviction by filing a petition for a writ of coram nobis in Federal District Court. She argued that her former attorney’s failure to advise her of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty constituted ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment.
While Chaidez’s petition was pending, this Court decided Padilla. Our ruling vindicated Chaidez’s view of the Sixth Amendment: We held that criminal defense attorneys must inform non-citizen clients of the risks of deportation arising from guilty pleas. See 559 U. S., at 374. But the Government argued that Chaidez could not benefit from Padilla because it announced a “new rule” and, under Teague, such rules do not apply in collateral challenges to already-finál convictions.
The District Court determined that Padilla “did not announce a new rule for Teague purposes,” and therefore should apply to Chaidez’s case. 730 F. Supp. 2d 896, 904 (ND Ill. 2010). It then found that Chaidez’s counsel had performed deficiently under Padilla and that Chaidez suffered prejudice as a result. Accordingly, the court vacated Chaidez’s conviction. See No. 03 CR 636-6, 2010 WL 3979664 (ND Ill., Oct. 6, 2010).
The United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed, holding that Padilla had declared a new rule and so should not apply in a challenge to a final conviction. “Before Padilla,” the Seventh Circuit reasoned, “the [Supreme] Court had never held that the Sixth Amendment requires a criminal defense attorney to provide advice about matters not directly related to [a] client’s criminal prosecution,” including the risks of deportation. 655 F. 3d 684, 693 (2011). And state and lower federal courts had uniformly concluded that an attorney need not give “advice concerning [such a] collateral (as opposed to direct) consequenc[e] of a guilty plea.” Id., at 690. According to the Seventh Circuit, Padilla’s holding was new because it ran counter to that widely accepted “distinction between direct and collateral consequences.” 655 F. 3d, at 691. Judge Williams dissented. Agreeing with the Third Circuit’s view, she argued that Padilla “broke no new ground” because it merely applied established law about a lawyer’s “duty to consult” with a client. 655 F. 3d, at 695 (quoting United States v. Orocio, 645 F. 3d 630, 638-639 (CA3 2011); internal quotation marks omitted).
We granted certiorari, 566 U. S. 974 (2012), to resolve a split among federal and state courts on whether Padilla applies retroactively. Holding that it does not, we affirm the Seventh Circuit.
II
Teague makes the retroactivity of our criminal procedure decisions turn on whether they are novel. When we announce a “new rule,” a person whose conviction is already final may not benefit from the decision in a habeas or similar proceeding. Only when we apply a settled rule may a person avail herself of the decision on collateral review. Here, Chaidez filed her coram nobis petition five years after her guilty plea became final. Her challenge therefore fails if Padilla declared a new rule.
“[A] case announces a new rule,” Teague explained, “when it breaks new ground or imposes a new obligation” on the government. 489 U. S., at 301. “To put it differently,” we continued, “a case announces a new rule if the result was not dictated by precedent existing at the time the defendant’s conviction became final.” Ibid. And a holding is not so dictated, we later stated, unless it would have been “apparent to all reasonable jurists.” Lambrix v. Singletary, 520 U. S. 518, 527-528 (1997).
But that account has a flipside. Teague also made clear that a case does not “announce a new rule [when] it '[is] merely an application of the principle that governed’ ” a prior decision to a different set of facts. 489 U. S., at 307 (quoting Yates v. Aiken, 484 U. S. 211, 217 (1988)). As Justice Kennedy has explained, “[w]here the beginning point” of our analysis is a rule of “general application, a rule designed for the specific purpose of evaluating a myriad of factual contexts, it will be the infrequent case that yields a result so novel that it forges a new rule, one not dictated by precedent.” Wright v. West, 505 U. S. 277, 309 (1992) (concurring in judgment); see also Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, 391 (2000). Otherwise said, when all we do is apply a general standard to the kind of factual circumstances it was meant to address, we will rarely state a new rule for Teague purposes.
Because that is so, garden-variety applications of the test in Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984), for assessing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel do not produce new rules. In Strickland, we held that legal representation violates the Sixth Amendment if it falls “below an objective standard of reasonableness,” as indicated by “prevailing professional norms,” and the defendant suffers prejudice as a result. Id., at 687-688. That standard, we later concluded, “provides sufficient guidance for resolving virtually all” claims of ineffective assistance, even though their particular circumstances will differ. Williams, 529 U. S., at 391. And so we have granted relief under Strickland in diverse contexts without ever suggesting that doing so required a new rule. See, e. g., ibid.) Rompilla v. Beard, 545 U. S. 374 (2005); Wiggins v. Smith, 539 U. S. 510 (2003). In like manner, Padilla would not have created a new rule had it only applied Strickland’s general standard to yet another factual situation—that is, had Padilla merely made clear that a lawyer who neglects to inform a client about the risk of deportation is professionally incompetent.
But Padilla did something more. Before deciding if failing to provide such advice “fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” Padilla considered a threshold question: Was advice about deportation “categorically removed” from the scope of the Sixth Amendment right to counsel because it involved only a “collateral consequence” of a conviction, rather than a component of the criminal sentence? 559 U. S., at 365-366. In other words, prior to asking how the Strickland test applied (“Did this attorney act unreasonably?”), Padilla asked whether the Strickland test applied (“Should we even evaluate if this attorney acted unreasonably?”). And as we will describe, that preliminary question about Strickland’s ambit came to the Padilla Court unsettled—so that the Court’s answer (“Yes, Strickland governs here”) required a new rule.
The relevant background begins with our decision in Hill v. Lockhart, 474 U. S. 52 (1985), which explicitly left open whether advice concerning a collateral consequence must satisfy Sixth Amendment requirements. Hill pleaded guilty to first-degree murder after his attorney misinformed him about his parole eligibility. In addressing his claim of ineffective assistance, we first held that the Strickland standard extends generally to the plea process. See Hill, 474 U. S., at 57. We then determined, however, that Hill had failed to allege prejudice from the lawyer’s error and so could not prevail under that standard. See id., at 60. That conclusion allowed us to avoid another, more categorical question: whether advice about parole (however inadequate and prejudicial) could possibly violate the Sixth Amendment. The Court of Appeals, we noted, had held “that parole eligibility is a collateral rather than a direct consequence of a guilty plea, of which a defendant need not be informed.” Id., at 55. But our ruling on prejudice made “it unnecessary to determine whether there may be circumstances under which” advice about a matter deemed collateral violates the Sixth Amendment. Id., at 60.
That non-decision left the state and lower federal courts to deal with the issue; and they almost unanimously concluded that the Sixth Amendment does not require attorneys to inform their clients of a conviction’s collateral consequences, including deportation. All 10 federal appellate courts to consider the question decided, in the words of one, that “counsel’s failure to inform a defendant of the collateral consequences of a guilty plea is never” a violation of the Sixth Amendment. Santos-Sanchez v. United States, 548 F. 3d 327, 334 (CA5 2008). That constitutional guarantee, another typical decision expounded, “assures an accused of effective assistance of counsel in ‘criminal ’prosecutions’ accordingly, advice about matters like deportation, which are “not a part of or enmeshed in the criminal proceeding,” does not fall within the Amendment’s scope. United States v. George, 869 F. 2d 333, 337 (CA7 1989). Appellate courts in almost 30 States agreed. By contrast, only two state courts held that an attorney could violate the Sixth Amendment by failing to inform a client about deportation risks or other collateral consequences of a guilty plea. That imbalance led the authors of the principal scholarly article on the subject to call the exclusion of advice about collateral consequences from the Sixth Amendment’s scope one of “the most widely recognized rules of American law.” Chin & Holmes, Effective Assistance of Counsel and the Consequences of Guilty Pleas, 87 Cornell L. Rev. 697, 706 (2002).
So when we decided Padilla, we answered a question about the Sixth Amendment’s reach that we had left open, in a way that altered the law of most jurisdictions—and our reasoning reflected that we were doing as much. In the normal Strickland case, a court begins by evaluating the reasonableness of an attorney’s conduct in light of professional norms, and then assesses prejudice. But as earlier indicated, see supra, at 349, Padilla had a different starting point. Before asking whether the performance of Padilla’s attorney was deficient under Strickland, we considered (in a separately numbered part of the opinion) whether Strickland applied at all. See 559 U. S., at 364-366. Many courts, we acknowledged, had excluded advice about collateral matters from the Sixth Amendment’s ambit; and deportation, because the consequence of a distinct civil proceeding, could well be viewed as such a matter. See id., at 365, and n. 9. But, we continued, no decision of our own committed us to “appl[y] a distinction between direct and collateral consequences to define the scope” of the right to counsel. Id., at 365. And however apt that distinction might be in other contexts, it should not exempt from Sixth Amendment scrutiny a lawyer’s advice (or non-advice) about a plea’s deportation risk. Deportation, we stated, is “unique.” Ibid. It is a “particularly severe” penalty, and one “intimately related to the criminal process”; indeed, immigration statutes make it “nearly an automatic result” of some convictions. Id., at 365-366. We thus resolved the threshold question before us by breaching the previously chink-free wall between direct and collateral consequences: Notwithstanding the then-dominant view, “Strickland applies to Padilla’s claim.” Id., at 366.
If that does not count as “breaking] new ground” or “imposing] a new obligation,” we are hard pressed to know what would. Teague, 489 U. S., at 301. Before Padilla, we had declined to decide whether the Sixth Amendment had any relevance to a lawyer’s advice about matters not part of a criminal proceeding. Perhaps some advice of that kind would have to meet Strickland’s reasonableness standard— but then again, perhaps not: No precedent of our own “dictated” the answer. Teague, 489 U. S., at 301. And as the lower courts filled the vacuum, they almost uniformly insisted on what Padilla called the “categorica[l] removfal]” of advice about a conviction’s non-criminal consequences— including deportation—from the Sixth Amendment’s scope. 559 U. S., at 366. It was Padilla that first rejected that categorical approach—and so made the Strickland test operative—when a criminal lawyer gives (or fails to give) advice about immigration consequences. In acknowledging that fact, we do not cast doubt on, or at all denigrate, Padilla. Courts often need to, and do, break new ground; it is the very premise of Teague that a decision can be right and also be novel. All we say here is that Padilla’s, holding that the failure to advise about a non-criminal consequence could violate the Sixth Amendment would not have been—in fact, was not—“apparent to all reasonable jurists” prior to our decision. Lambrix, 520 U. S., at 527-528. Padilla thus announced a “new rule.”
Ill
Chaidez offers, and the dissent largely adopts, a different account of Padilla, in which we did no more than apply Strickland to a new set of facts. On Chaidez’s view, Strickland insisted “[f]rom its inception” that all aspects of a criminal lawyer’s performance pass a test of “‘reasonableness under prevailing professional norms’”: The decision thus foreclosed any “categorical distinction between direct and collateral consequences.” Brief for Petitioner 21-22 (quoting Strickland, 466 U. S., at 688; emphasis deleted). Indeed, Chaidez contends, courts prior to Padilla recognized Strickland’s all-encompassing scope and so applied its reasonableness standard to advice concerning deportation. See Brief for Petitioner 25-26; Reply Brief 10-12. She here points to caselaw in three federal appeals courts allowing ineffective assistance claims when attorneys affirmatively misled their clients about the deportation consequences of guilty pleas. The only question left for Padilla to resolve, Chaidez claims, was whether professional norms also require criminal lawyers to volunteer advice about the risk of deportation. In addressing that issue, she continues, Padilla did a run-of-the-mill Strickland analysis. And more: It did an especially easy Strickland analysis. We had earlier noted in INS v. St. Cyr, 533 U. S. 289 (2001)—a case raising an issue of immigration law unrelated to the Sixth Amendment—that a “competent defense counsel” would inform his client about a guilty plea’s deportation consequences. Id., at 323, n. 50. All Padilla had to do, Chaidez -concludes, was recite that prior finding.
But Chaidez’s (and the dissent’s) story line is wrong, for reasons we have mostly already noted: Padilla had to develop new law, establishing that the Sixth Amendment applied at all, before it could assess the performance of Padilla’s lawyer under Strickland. See supra, at 349, 352. Our first order of business was thus to consider whether the widely accepted distinction between direct and collateral consequences categorically foreclosed Padilla’s claim, whatever the level of his attorney’s performance. We did not think, as Chaidez argues, that Strickland barred resort to that distinction. Far from it: Even in Padilla we did not eschew the direct-collateral divide across the board. See 559 U. S., at 365 (“Whether that distinction is [generally] appropriate is a question we need not consider in this case”). Rather, we relied on the special “nature of deportation”—the severity of the penalty and the “automatic” way it follows from conviction—to show that “[t]he collateral versus direct distinction [was] ill-suited” to dispose of Padilla’s claim. Id., at 365-366. All that reasoning came before we conducted a Strickland análysis (by examining professional norms and so forth), and none of it followed ineluctably from prior law.
Predictably, then, the caselaw Chaidez and the dissent cite fails to support their claim that lower courts “accepted that Strickland applied to deportation advice.” Brief for Petitioner 25; see post, at 366-369. True enough, three federal circuits (and a handful of state courts) held before Padilla that misstatements about deportation could support an ineffective assistance claim. But those decisions reasoned only that a lawyer may not affirmatively misrepresent his expertise or otherwise actively mislead his client on any important matter, however related to a criminal prosecution. See, e. g., United States v. Kwan, 407 F. 3d 1005, 1015-1017 (CA9 2005). They co-existed happily with precedent, from the same jurisdictions (and almost all others), holding that deportation is not “so unique as to warrant an exception to the general rule that a defendant need not be advised of the [collateral] consequences of a guilty plea.” United States v. Campbell, 778 F. 2d 764, 769 (CA11 1985). So at most, Chaidez has shown that a minority of courts recognized a separate rule for material misrepresentations, regardless whether they concerned deportation or another collateral matter. That limited rule does not apply to Chaidez’s case. And because it lived in harmony with the exclusion of claims like hers from the Sixth Amendment, it does not establish what she needs to—that all reasonable judges, prior to Padilla, thought they were living in a Padilla-like world.
Nor, finally, does St. Cyr have any relevance here. That decision stated what is common sense (and what we again recognized in Padilla): A reasonably competent lawyer will tell a non-citizen client about a guilty plea’s deportation consequences because “ ‘[preserving the client’s right to remain in the United States may be more important to the client than any potential jail sentence.’ ” Padilla, 559 U. S., at 368 (quoting St. Cyr, 538 U. S., at 322). But in saying that much, St Cyr did not determine that the Sixth Amendment requires a lawyer to provide such information. Courts had held to the contrary not because advice about deportation was insignificant to a client—really, who could think that, whether before or after St Cyrl—but because it concerned a matter collateral to the criminal prosecution. On those courts’ view, the Sixth Amendment no more demanded competent advice about a plea’s deportation consequences than it demanded competent representation in the deportation process itself. Padilla decided that view was wrong. But to repeat: It was Padilla that did so. In the years following St Cyr, not a single state or lower federal court considering a lawyer’s failure to provide deportation advice abandoned the distinction between direct and collateral consequences, and several courts reaffirmed that divide. See, e. g., Santos- Sanchez, 548 F. 3d, at 335-336; Broomes v. Ashcroft, 358 F. 3d 1251, 1256-1257 (CA10 2004); United States v. Fry, 322 F. 3d 1198, 1200-1201 (CA9 2003). It took Padilla to decide that in assessing such a lawyer’s performance, the Sixth Amendment sets the standard.
{—1 C
This Court announced a new rule in Padilla. Under Teague, defendants whose convictions became final prior to Padilla therefore cannot benefit from its holding. We accordingly affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit.
It is so ordered.
A petition for a writ of coram nobis provides a way to collaterally attack a criminal conviction for a person, like Chaidez, who is no longer “in custody” and therefore cannot seek collateral relief under 28 U. S. C. §2255 or habeas relief under §2241. See United States v. Morgan, 346 U. S. 502, 507, 510-511 (1954). Chaidez and the Government agree that nothing in this case turns on the difference between a corara nobis petition and a habeas petition, and we assume without deciding that they are correct.
Compare 655 F. 3d 684 (CA7 2011) (case below) (not retroactive); United States v. Amer, 681 F. 3d 211 (CA5 2012) (same); United States v. Chang Hong, 671 F. 3d 1147 (CA10 2011) (same); State v. Gaitan, 209 N. J. 339, 37 A. 3d 1089 (2012) (same), with United States v. Orocio, 645 F. 3d 630 (CA3 2011) (retroactive); Commonwealth v. Clarke, 460 Mass. 30, 949 N. E. 2d 892 (2011) (same).
Teague stated two exceptions: “[W]atershed rules of criminal procedure” and rules placing “conduct beyond the power of the [government] to proscribe” apply on collateral review, even if novel. 489 U. S., at 311 (internal quotation marks omitted). Chaidez does not argue that either of those exceptions is relevant here.
We did not consider Teague in Williams, Rompilla, and Wiggins, but we granted habeas relief pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1) because state courts had unreasonably applied “clearly established” law. And, as we have explained, “clearly established” law is not “new” within the meaning of Teague. See Williams, 529 U. S., at 412.
We have never attempted to delineate the world of “collateral consequences,” see Padilla, 559 U. S., at 364, n. 8, nor do we do so here. But other effects of a conviction commonly viewed as collateral include civil commitment, civil forfeiture, sex offender registration, disqualification from public benefits, and disfranchisement. See id., at 376 (Alito, J., concurring in judgment) (listing other examples).
In saying that much, we declined to rule not only on whether advice about a conviction’s collateral consequences falls outside the Sixth Amendment’s scope, but also on whether parole eligibility should be considered such a consequence, as the Court of Appeals held.
See Broomes v. Ashcroft, 358 F. 3d 1251, 1256 (CA10 2004); United States v. Fry, 322 F. 3d 1198, 1200-1201 (CA9 2003); United States v. Gonzalez, 202 F. 3d 20, 25 (CA1 2000); Russo v. United States, 1999 WL 164951, *2 (CA2, Mar. 22, 1999); Ogunbase v. United States, 1991 WL 11619, *1 (CA6, Feb. 5, 1991); United States v. Del Rosario, 902 F. 2d 55, 58-59 (CADC 1990); United States v. George, 869 F. 2d 333, 337 (CA7 1989); United States v. Yearwood, 863 F. 2d 6, 7-8 (CA4 1988); United States v. Campbell, 778 F. 2d 764, 768-769 (CA11 1985).
Rumpel v. State, 847 So. 2d 399, 402-405 (Ala. Crim. App. 2002); Tafoya v. State, 500 P. 2d 247, 252 (Alaska 1972); State v. Rosas, 183 Ariz. 421, 423, 904 P. 2d 1245, 1247 (App. 1995); Niver v. Commissioner of Correction, 101 Conn. App. 1, 3-5, 919 A. 2d 1073, 1075-1076 (2007) (per curiam); State v. Christie, 655 A. 2d 836, 841 (Del. Super. 1994); Matos v. United States, 631 A. 2d 28, 31-32 (D. C. 1993); Major v. State, 814 So. 2d 424, 431 (Fla. 2002); People v. Huante, 143 Ill. 2d 61, 68-71, 571 N. E. 2d 736, 740-741 (1991); State v. Ramirez, 636 N. W. 2d 740, 743-746 (Iowa 2001); State v. Muriithi, 273 Kan. 952, 961, 46 P. 3d 1145, 1152 (2002); Commonwealth v. Fuartado, 170 S. W. 3d 384, 385-386 (Ky. 2005); State v. Montalban, 2000-2739, p. 4 (La. 2/26/02), 810 So. 2d 1106, 1110; Commonwealth v. Fraire, 55 Mass. App. 916, 917, 774 N. E. 2d 677, 678-679 (2002); People v. Davidovich, 463 Mich. 446, 452, 618 N. W. 2d 579, 582 (2000) (per curiam); State ex rel. Nixon v. Clark, 926 S. W. 2d 22, 25 (Mo. App. 1996); State v. Zarate, 264 Neb. 690, 693-696, 651 N. W. 2d 215, 221-223 (2002); Barajas v. State, 115 Nev. 440, 441-442, 991 P. 2d 474, 475-476 (1999) (per curiam); State v. Chung, 210 N. J. Super. 427, 434, 510 A. 2d 72, 76 (App. Div. 1986); People v. Ford, 86 N. Y. 2d 397, 403-404, 657 N. E. 2d 265, 268-269 (1995); State v. Dalman, 520 N. W. 2d 860, 863-864 (N. D. 1994); Commonwealth v. Frometa, 520 Pa. 552, 555-557, 555 A. 2d 92, 93-94 (1989); State v. Alejo, 655 A. 2d 692, 692-693 (R. I. 1995); Nikolaev v. Weber, 2005 S. D. 100, ¶¶11-12, 705 N. W. 2d 72, 75-77 (per curiam); Bautista v. State, 160 S. W. 3d 917, 922 (Tenn. Crim. App. 2004); Perez v. State, 31 S. W. 3d 365, 367-368 (Tex. App. 2000); State v. Rojas-Martinez, 2005 UT 86, ¶¶ 15-20, 125 P. 3d 930, 934-935; State v. Martinez-Lazo, 100 Wash. App. 869, 876-878, 999 P. 2d 1275, 1279-1280 (2000); State v. Santos, 136 Wis. 2d 528, 531, 401 N. W. 2d 856, 858 (App. 1987).
People v. Pozo, 746 P. 2d 523, 527-529 (Colo. 1987); State v. Paredez, 2004-NMSC-036, ¶¶17-19, 136 N. M. 533, 539, 101 P. 3d 799, 805.
The dissent is therefore wrong to claim that we emphasize “the absence of lower court authority” holding that an attorney’s failure to advise about deportation violated the Sixth Amendment. Post, at 368 (opinion of Sotomayor, J.). We instead point to the presence of lower court authority—in case after case and jurisdiction after jurisdiction—holding that such a failure, because relating to a collateral matter, could not do so.
The separate opinions in Padilla objected to just this aspect of the Court’s ruling. Dissents have been known to exaggerate the novelty of majority opinions; and “the mere existence of a dissent,” like the existence of conflicting authority in state or lower federal courts, does not establish that a rule is new. Beard v. Banks, 542 U. S. 406, 416, n. 5 (2004); see Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, 410 (2000). But the concurring and dissenting opinions in Padilla were on to something when they described the line the Court was crossing. “Until today,” Justice Alito wrote, “the longstanding and unanimous position of the federal courts was that reasonable defense counsel generally need only advise a client about the direct consequences of a criminal conviction.” 559 U. S., at 375-376 (opinion concurring in judgment). Or again, this time from Justice Scalia: “[Ujntil today,” the Sixth Amendment guaranteed only “legal advice directly related to defense against prosecution” of a criminal charge. Id., at 389 (dissenting opinion). One need not agree with any of the separate opinions’ criticisms of Padilla to concur with their view that it modified governing law.
See United States v. Kwan, 407 F. 3d 1005, 1015-1017 (CA9 2005); United States v. Couto, 311 F. 3d 179, 188 (CA2 2002); Downs-Morgan v. United States, 765 F. 2d 1534, 1540-1541 (CA11 1985).
The dissent’s entire analysis founders on this most basic point. In its lengthy description of Padilla, the dissent picks up in the middle—after the Court concluded that the direct-collateral distinction did not preclude finding that Padilla’s lawyer provided ineffective assistance under the Sixth Amendment. See post, at 361-363. The dissent justifies ignoring that threshold conclusion on the ground that “Padilla declined to embrace the... distinction between collateral and direct consequences” and “stated very clearly that it found the distinction irrelevant” to the case. Post, at 364. But it is exactly in refusing to apply the direct-collateral distinction that the Padilla Court did something novel. Before then, as the Court forthrightly acknowledged, that distinction would have doomed Padilla’s claim in well nigh every court in the United States. See 559 U. S., at 364-365, and n. 9; supra, at 352.
See also Resendiz v. Kovensky, 416 F. 3d 952, 957 (CA9 2005) (“[B]e-cause immigration consequences remain collateral, the failure of counsel to advise his client of the potential immigration consequences of a conviction does not violate the Sixth Amendment”); Russo v. United, States, 1999 WL 164951, *2 (“[C]ounsel cannot be found ineffective for the mere failure to inform a defendant of the collateral consequences of a plea, such as deportation” (relying on United States v. Santelises, 509 F. 2d 703, 704 (CA2 1975) (per curiam))).
The dissent claims the opposite, averring that lower court “decisions show nothing more than that the underlying professional norms had not yet evolved to require attorneys to provide advice about deportation consequences.” Post, at 365-366. But the dissent cannot point to a single decision stating that a lawyer’s failure to offer advice about deportation met professional norms; all the decisions instead held that a lawyer’s breach of those norms was constitutionally irrelevant because deportation was a collateral consequence. See supra, at 350. Had courts in fact considered professional standards in the slew of cases before Padilla that presented Padilla-like claims, they would have discovered as early as 1968 that the American Bar Association instructed criminal lawyers to advise their non-citizen clients about the risks of deportation. See 3 ABA Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Standards Relating to Pleas of Guilty § 3.2(b), Commentary, p. 71 (App. Draft 1968). The difficulty in upholding such claims prior to Padilla had nothing to do with courts’ view of professional norms and everything to do with their use of the direct-collateral divide.
Chaidez makes two back-up arguments in her merits briefs—that Teague’s, bar on retroactivity does not apply when a petitioner challenges a federal conviction, or at least does not do so when she makes a claim of ineffective assistance. Brief for Petitioner 27-39. But Chaidez did not include those issues in her petition for certiorari. Nor, still more critically, did she adequately raise them in the lower courts. Only
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
CONSOLIDATED DECREE
On January 19, 1953, the Court granted the State of Arizona leave to file a bill of complaint against the State of California and seven of its public agencies, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley County Water District, Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego. 344 U. S. 919. The United States and the State of Nevada intervened. 344 U. S. 919 (1953) (intervention by the United States); 347 U. S. 985 (1954) (intervention by Nevada). The State of New Mexico and the State of Utah were joined as parties. 350 U. S. 114, 115 (1955). The Court referred the case to George I. Haight, Esquire, and upon his death to Simon H. Rif kind, Esquire, as Special Master. 347 U. S. 986 (1954); 350 U. S. 812 (1955). On January 16, 1961, the Court received and ordered filed the report of Special Master Rifkind. 364 U. S. 940. On June 3,1963, the Court filed an opinion in the case, 373 U. S. 546, and on March 9, 1964, the Court entered a decree in the case. 376 U. S. 340.
On February 28,1966, the Court granted the joint motion of the parties to amend Article VI of the decree, and so amended Article VI to extend the time for submission of lists of present perfected rights. 383 U. S. 268.
On January 9,1979, the Court filed an opinion granting the joint motion for entry of a supplemental decree, entered a supplemental decree, denied in part the motion to intervene of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, and otherwise referred the case and the motions to intervene of the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe and the Colorado River Indian Tribes, et al., to Judge Elbert Tuttle as Special Master. 439 U. S. 419, 437. On April 5,1982, the Court received and ordered filed the report of Special Master Tuttle. 456 U. S. 912. On March 30, 1983, the Court filed an opinion rendering a decision on the several exceptions to the report of the Special Master, approving the recommendation that the Fort Mojave Indian Tribe, the Chemehuevi Indian Tribe, the Colorado River Indian Tribes, the Quechan Tribe, and the Cocopah Indian Tribe be permitted to intervene, and approving some of his further recommendations and disapproving others, 460 U. S. 605, 609, 615. On April 16, 1984, the Court entered a second supplemental decree implementing that decision. 466 U. S. 144.
On October 10, 1989, the Court granted the motion of the state parties to reopen the decree to determine the disputed boundary claims with respect to the Fort Mojave, Colorado River, and Fort Yuma Indian Reservations. 493 U. S. 886. The case was referred to Robert B. McKay, Esquire, and upon his death to Frank McGarr, Esquire, as Special Master. 493 U. S. 971 (1989); 498 U. S. 964 (1990). On October 4, 1999, the Court received and ordered filed the report of Special Master McGarr. 528 U. S. 803. On June 19, 2000, the Court filed an opinion rendering a decision on the several exceptions to the report of the Special Master, approving the settlements of the parties with respect to the Fort Mojave and Colorado River Indian Reservations and remanding the case to the Special Master with respect to the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation. 530 U. S. 392, 418, 419-420. On October 10, 2000, the Court entered a supplemental decree. 531 U. S. 1.
On June 14, 2005, Special Master McGarr submitted his report recommending approval of the settlements of the federal reserved water rights claim with respect to the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation and a proposed supplemental decree to implement those settlements.
The State of Arizona, the State of California, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, Coachella Valley Water District, the United States, and the Quechan Tribe, at the direction of the Court, have filed a joint motion to enter a consolidated decree.
This decree consolidates the substantive provisions of the decrees previously entered in this action at 376 U. S. 340 (1964), 383 U. S. 268 (1966), 439 U. S. 419 (1979), 466 U. S. 144 (1984), and 531 U. S. 1 (2000), implements the settlements of the federal reserved water rights claim for the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, which the Court has approved this date, and reflects changes in the names of certain parties and Indian reservations. This decree is entered in order to provide a single convenient reference to ascertain the rights and obligations of the parties adjudicated in this original proceeding, and reflects only the incremental changes in the original 1964 decree by subsequent decrees and the settlements of the federal reserved water rights claim for the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation.
Accordingly,
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED
Except where the text of this decree differs from the previous decrees, this decree does not vacate the previous decrees nor alter any of their substantive provisions, and all mandates, injunctions, obligations, privileges, and requirements of this decree are deemed to remain effective as of the date of their respective entry in the prior decrees. Entry of this decree shall not affect the validity or effect of, nor affect any right or obligation under, any existing statute, regulation, policy, administrative order, contract, or judicial decision or judgment in other actions that references any of the previous decrees, and any such reference shall be construed as a reference to the congruent provisions of this decree.
I. For purposes of this decree:
(A) “Consumptive use” means diversions from the stream less such return flow thereto as is available for consumptive use in the United States or in satisfaction of the Mexican Treaty obligation;
(B) “Mainstream” means the mainstream of the Colorado River downstream from Lee Ferry within the United States, including the reservoirs thereon;
(C) Consumptive use from the mainstream within a State shall include all consumptive uses of water of the mainstream, including water drawn from the mainstream by underground pumping, and including, but not limited to, consumptive uses made by persons, by agencies of that State, and by the United States for the benefit of Indian reservations and other federal establishments within the State;
(D) “Regulatory structures controlled by the United States” refers to Hoover Dam, Davis Dam, Parker Dam, Headgate Rock Dam, Palo Verde Dam, Imperial Dam, Laguna Dam, and all other dams and works on the mainstream now or hereafter controlled or operated by the United States which regulate the flow of water in the mainstream or the diversion of water from the mainstream;
(E) “Water controlled by the United States” refers to the water in Lake Mead, Lake Mohave, Lake Havasu, and all other water in the mainstream below Lee Ferry and within the United States;
(F) “Tributaries” means all stream systems the waters of which naturally drain into the mainstream of the Colorado River below Lee Ferry;
(G) “Perfected right” means a water right acquired in accordance with state law, which right has been exercised by the actual diversion of a specific quantity of water that has been applied to a defined area of land or to definite municipal or industrial works, and in addition shall include water rights created by the reservation of mainstream water for the use of federal establishments under federal law whether or not the water has been applied to beneficial use;
(H) “Present perfected rights” means perfected rights, as here defined, existing as of June 25, 1929, the effective date of the Boulder Canyon Project Act;
(I) “Domestic use” shall include the use of water for household, stock, municipal, mining, milling, industrial, and other like purposes, but shall exclude the generation of electrical power;
(J) “Annual” and “Year,” except where the context may otherwise require, refer to calendar years;
(K) Consumptive use of water diverted in one State for consumptive use in another State shall be treated as if diverted in the State for whose benefit it is consumed.
II. The United States, its officers, attorneys, agents and employees be and they are hereby severally enjoined:
(A) From operating regulatory structures controlled by the United States and from releasing water controlled by the United States other than in accordance with the following order of priority:
(1) For river regulation, improvement of navigation, and flood control;
(2) For irrigation and domestic uses, including the satisfaction of present perfected rights; and
(3) For power;
Provided, however, that the United States may release water in satisfaction of its obligations to the United States of Mexico under the Treaty dated February 3, 1944, without regard to the priorities specified in this subdivision (A);
(B) From releasing water controlled by the United States for irrigation and domestic use in the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada, except as follows:
(1) If sufficient mainstream water is available for release, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, to satisfy 7,500,000 acre-feet of annual consumptive use in the aforesaid three States, then of such 7,500,000 acre-feet of consumptive use, there shall be apportioned 2,800,000 acre-feet for use in Arizona, 4,400,000 acre-feet for use in California, and 300,000 acre-feet for use in Nevada;
(2) If sufficient mainstream water is available for release, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, to satisfy annual consumptive use in the aforesaid States in excess of 7,500,000 acre-feet, such excess consumptive use is surplus, and 50% thereof shall be apportioned for use in Arizona and 50% for use in California; provided, however, that if the United States so contracts with Nevada, then 46% of such surplus shall be apportioned for use in Arizona and 4% for use in Nevada;
(3) If insufficient mainstream water is available for release, as determined by the Secretary of the Interior, to satisfy annual consumptive use of 7,500,000 acre-feet in the aforesaid three States, then the Secretary of the Interior, after providing for satisfaction of present perfected rights in the order of their priority dates without regard to state lines and after consultation with the parties to major delivery contracts and such representatives as the respective States may designate, may apportion the amount remaining available for consumptive use in such manner as is consistent with the Boulder Canyon Project Act as interpreted by the opinion of this Court herein, and with other applicable federal statutes, but in no event shall more than 4,400,000 acre-feet be apportioned for use in California including all present perfected rights;
(4) Any mainstream water consumptively used within a State shall be charged to its apportionment, regardless of the purpose for which it was released;
(5) Notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraphs (1) through (4) of this subdivision (B), mainstream water shall be released or delivered to water users (including but not limited to public and municipal corporations and other public agencies) in Arizona, California, and Nevada only pursuant to valid contracts therefor made with such users by the Secretary of the Interior, pursuant to Section 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act or any other applicable federal statute;
(6) If, in any one year, water apportioned for consumptive use in a State will not be consumed in that State, whether for the reason that delivery contracts for the full amount of the State’s apportionment are not in effect or that users cannot apply all of such water to beneficial uses, or for any other reason, nothing in this decree shall be construed as prohibiting the Secretary of the Interior from releasing such apportioned but unused water during such year for consumptive use in the other States. No rights to the recurrent use of such water shall accrue by reason of the use thereof;
(C) From applying the provisions of Article 7(d) of the Arizona water delivery contract dated February 9, 1944, and the provisions of Article 5(a) of the Nevada water delivery contract dated March 30, 1942, as amended by the contract dated January 3,1944, to reduce the apportionment or delivery of mainstream water to users within the States of Arizona and Nevada by reason of any uses in such States from the tributaries flowing therein;
(D) From releasing water controlled by the United States for use in the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada for the benefit of any federal establishment named in this subdivision (D) except in accordance with the allocations made herein; provided, however, that such release may be made notwithstanding the provisions of Paragraph (5) of subdivision (B) of this Article; and provided further that nothing herein shall prohibit the United States from making future additional reservations of mainstream water for use in any of such States as may be authorized by law and subject to present perfected rights and rights under contracts theretofore made with water users in such State under Section 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act or any other applicable federal statute:
(1) The Chemehuevi Indian Reservation in annual quantities not to exceed (i) 11,340 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of 1,900 acres and for the satisfaction of related uses, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with a priority date of February 2, 1907;
(2) The Cocopah Indian Reservation in annual quantities not to exceed (i) 9,707 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of 1,524 acres and for the satisfaction of related uses, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with priority dates of September 27, 1917, for lands reserved by the Executive Order of said date; June 24, 1974, for lands reserved by the Act of June 24,1974 (88 Stat. 266, 269);
(3) The Fort Yuma Indian Reservation in annual quantities not to exceed (i) 77,966 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of 11,694 acres and for the satisfaction of related uses, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with a priority date of January 9, 1884;
(4) The Colorado River Indian Reservation in annual quantities not to exceed (i) 719,248 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of 107,903 acres and for the satisfaction of related uses, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with priority dates of March 3, 1865, for lands reserved by the Act of March 3,1865 (13 Stat. 541, 559); November 22,1873, for lands reserved by the Executive Order of said date; November 16, 1874, for lands reserved by the Executive Order of said date, except as later modified; May 15, 1876, for lands reserved by the Executive Order of said date; November 22, 1915, for lands reserved by the Executive Order of said date;
(5) The Fort Mojave Indian Reservation in annual quantities not to exceed (i) 132,789 acre-feet of diversions from the mainstream or (ii) the quantity of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of 20,544 acres and for the satisfaction of related uses, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with priority dates of September 19, 1890, for lands transferred by the Executive Order of said date; February 2, 1911, for lands reserved by the Executive Order of said date;
(6) The Lake Mead National Recreation Area in annual quantities reasonably necessary to fulfill the purposes of the Recreation Area, with priority dates of May 3, 1929, for lands reserved by the Executive Order of said date (No. 5105), and April 25, 1930, for lands reserved by the Executive Order of said date (No. 5339);
(7) The Havasu Lake National Wildlife Refuge in annual quantities reasonably necessary to fulfill the purposes of the Refuge, not to exceed (i) 41,839 acre-feet of water diverted from the mainstream or (ii) 37,339 acre-feet of consumptive use of mainstream water, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with a priority date of January 22, 1941, for lands reserved by the Executive Order of said date (No. 8647), and a priority date of February 11,1949, for land reserved by the Public Land Order of said date (No. 559);
(8) The Imperial National Wildlife Refuge in annual quantities reasonably necessary to fulfill the purposes of the Refuge not to exceed (i) 28,000 acre-feet of water diverted from the mainstream or (ii) 23,000 acre-feet of consumptive use of mainstream water, whichever of (i) or (ii) is less, with a priority date of February 14, 1941;
(9) Boulder City, Nevada, as authorized by the Act of September 2,1958, 72 Stat. 1726, with a priority date of May 15, 1931;
Provided, further, that consumptive uses from the mainstream for the benefit of the above-named federal establishments shall, except as necessary to satisfy present perfected rights in the order of their priority dates without regard to state lines, be satisfied only out of water available, as provided in subdivision (B) of this Article, to each State wherein such uses occur and subject to, in the case of each reservation, such rights as have been created prior to the establishment of such reservation by contracts executed under Section 5 of the Boulder Canyon Project Act or any other applicable federal statute.
III. The States of Arizona, California, and Nevada, Palo Verde Irrigation District, Imperial Irrigation District, Coachella Valley Water District, the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California, City of Los Angeles, City of San Diego, and County of San Diego, and all other users of water from the mainstream in said States, their officers, attorneys, agents, and employees, be and they are hereby severally enjoined:
(A) From interfering with the management and operation, in conformity with Article II of this decree, of regulatory structures controlled by the United States;
(B) From interfering with or purporting to authorize the interference with releases and deliveries, in conformity with Article II of this decree, of water controlled by the United States;
(C) From diverting or purporting to authorize the diversion of water from the mainstream the diversion of which has not been authorized by the United States for use in the respective States; provided, however, that no party named in this Article and no other user of water in said States shall divert or purport to authorize the diversion of water from the mainstream the diversion of which has not been authorized by the United States for its particular use;
(D) From consuming or purporting to authorize the consumptive use of water from the mainstream in excess of the quantities permitted under Article II of this decree.
IV. The State of New Mexico, its officers, attorneys, agents, and employees, be and they are after March 9, 1968, hereby severally enjoined:
(A) From diverting or permitting the diversion of water from San Simon Creek, its tributaries, and underground water sources for the irrigation of more than a total of 2,900 acres during any one year, and from exceeding a total consumptive use of such water, for whatever purpose, of 72,000 acre-feet during any period of ten consecutive years; and from exceeding a total consumptive use of such water, for whatever purpose, of 8,220 acre-feet during any one year;
(B) From diverting or permitting the diversion of water from the San Francisco River, its tributaries, and underground water sources for the irrigation within each of the following areas of more than the following number of acres during any one year:
Lima Area....................................................................... 225
Apache Creek-Aragon Area........................................ 316
Reserve Area................................................................. 725
Glenwood Area...............................................................1,003
and from exceeding a total consumptive use of such water for whatever purpose, of 31,870 acre-feet during any period of ten consecutive years; and from exceeding a total consumptive use of such water, for whatever purpose, of 4,112 acre-feet during any one year;
(C) From diverting or permitting the diversion of water from the Gila River, its tributaries (exclusive of the San Francisco River and San Simon Creek and their tributaries), and underground water sources for the irrigation within each of the following areas of more than the following number of acres during any one year:
Upper Gila Area............................................................ 287
Cliff-Gila and Buckhorn-Duck Creek Area..............5,314
Red Rock Area...............................................................1,456
and from exceeding a total consumptive use of such water (exclusive of uses in Virden Valley, New Mexico), for whatever purpose, of 136,620 acre-feet during any period of ten consecutive years; and from exceeding a total consumptive use of such water (exclusive of uses in Virden Valley, New Mexico), for whatever purpose, of 15,895 acre-feet during any one year;
(D) From diverting or permitting the diversion of water from the Gila River and its underground water sources in the Virden Valley, New Mexico, except for use on lands determined to have the right to the use of such water by the decree entered by the United States District Court for the District of Arizona on June 29,1935, in United States v. Gila Valley Irrigation District et al. (Globe Equity No. 59) (herein referred to as the Gila Decree), and except pursuant to and in accordance with the terms and provisions of the Gila Decree; provided, however, that:
(1) This decree shall not enjoin the use of underground water on any of the following lands:
Owner Subdivision and Legal Description Sec. Twp. Bng. Acreage
Marvin Arnett and Part Lot 3...... 6 19S 21W 33.84
J. C. O’Dell............... Part Lot 4...... 6 19S 21W 52.33
NWVi SWV4... 5 19S 21W 38.36
SWV4SWV4... 5 19S 21W 39.80
Part Lot 1...... 7 19S 21W 50.68
NW*/4 NWV4.. 8 19S 21W 38.03
Hyrum M. Pace, SWV4NEV4... 12 19S 21W 8.00
Ray Richardson, SWV4 NEV4... 12 19S 21W 15.00
Harry Day and N. O. Pace, Est. SEj/4 NEV4.... 12 19S 21W 7.00
C. C. Martin......... S. part SEV4
SW!/4SE!/4......... 19S 21W 0.93
wta wt& wts
NEV4NEV4........ 12 19S 21W 0.51
NWV4 NEV4........ 12 19S 21W 18.01
A. E. Jacobson...... SW part Lot 1.... 6 19S 21W 11.58
W. LeRoss Jones.. E. Central part: 12 19S 21W 0.70
EVü EVfe Etk
NWV4 NWV4
SW part NEl/4
NW'/4................... 12 19S 21W 8.93
N. Central part: 12 19S 21W 0.51
NtS NtS NWt£
SEV4 NWV4
Conrad and James Ntk NtS NtS
R. Donaldson........... SEV4..................... 18 19S 20W 8.00
James D. Freestone................. Part WVfe NWV4.. 33 18S 21W 7.79
Virgil W. Jones........ Nt& SEV4 12 19S 21W 7.40
NWV4; SEV4
NEV4 NWV4
Darrell Brooks.. SEV4SWV4.......... 32 18S 21W 6.15
Floyd Jones....... Part NtS SEV4
NEV4..................... 13 19S 21W 4.00
Part NWV4
SWí/4 NWl/4......... 18 19S 20W 1.70
L. M. HatchSWV4SWV4......... 32 18S 21W 4.40
Virden Townsite.. 3.90
Owner Subdivision and Legal Description Sec. Twp. Rng. Acreage
Carl M. Donaldson.. SWV4SEV4............. 12 19S 21W 3.40
Part NW>/4 NWV4
Mack Johnson.......... NEV4........................ 10 19S 21W 2.80
Part NEV4 NWV4
NEV4........................ 10 19S 21W 0.30
Part Ntfc NV6 StS
NWV4 NEV4............ 10 19S 21W 0.10
SEV4 SEV4; SWV4
SEV4......................... 3 19S 21W
Chris Dotz.. NWV4 NEj/4; 2.66
NEV4 NEV4............. 10 19S 21W
Roy A. Johnson... NEV4SEV4SEV4.., 4 19S 21W 1.00
Ivan and Antone NEV4 SEV4
Thygerson............ SEV4 32 18S 21W 1.00
SWV4 SEV4
John W. Bonine. SWV4......................... 34 18S 21W 1.00
Marion K. SWV4 SWV4 SEV4
Mortenson.......... 33 18S 21W 1.00
Total. 380.81
or on lands or for other uses in the Virden Valley to which such use may be transferred or substituted on retirement from irrigation of any of said specifically described lands, up to a maximum total consumptive use of such water of 838.2 acre-feet per annum, unless and until such uses are adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to be an infringement or impairment of rights confirmed by the Gila Decree; and
(2) This decree shall not prohibit domestic use of water from the Gila River and its underground water sources on lands with rights confirmed by the Gila Decree, or on farmsteads located adjacent to said lands, or in the Virden Townsite, up to a total consumptive use of 265 acre-feet per annum in addition to the uses confirmed by the Gila Decree, unless and until such use is adjudged by a court of competent jurisdiction to be an infringement or impairment of rights confirmed by the Gila Decree;
(E) Provided, however, that nothing in this Article IV shall be construed to affect rights as between individual water users in the State of New Mexico; nor shall anything in this Article be construed to affect possible superior rights of the United States asserted on behalf of National Forests, Parks, Memorials, Monuments, and lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management; and provided further that in addition to the diversions authorized herein the United States has the right to divert water from the mainstream of the Gila and San Francisco Rivers in quantities reasonably necessary to fulfill the purposes of the Gila National Forest with priority dates as of the date of withdrawal for forest purposes of each area of the forest within which the water is used;
(F) Provided, further, that no diversion from a stream authorized in Article IV(A) through (D) may be transferred to any of the other streams, nor may any use for irrigation purposes within any area on one of the streams be transferred for use for irrigation purposes to any other area on that stream.
V. The United States shall prepare and maintain, or provide for the preparation and maintenance of, and shall make available, annually and at such shorter intervals as the Secretary of the Interior shall deem necessary or advisable, for inspection by interested persons at all reasonable times and at a reasonable place or places, complete, detailed, and accurate records of:
(A) Releases of water through regulatory structures controlled by the United States;
(B) Diversions of water from the mainstream, return flow of such water to the stream as is available for consumptive use in the United States or in satisfaction of the Mexican Treaty obligation, and consumptive use of such water. These quantities shall be stated separately as to each diverter from the mainstream, each point of diversion, and each of the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada;
(C) Releases of mainstream water pursuant to orders therefor but not diverted by the party ordering the same, and the quantity of such water delivered to Mexico in satisfaction of the Mexican Treaty or diverted by others in satisfaction of rights decreed herein. These quantities shall be stated separately as to each diverter from the mainstream, each point of diversion, and each of the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada;
(D) Deliveries to Mexico of water in satisfaction of the obligations of Part III of the Treaty of February 3, 1944, and, separately stated, water passing to Mexico in excess of treaty requirements;
(E) Diversions of water from the mainstream of the Gila and San Francisco Rivers and the consumptive use of such water, for the benefit of the Gila National Forest.
VI. By March 9, 1967, the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada shall furnish to this Court and to the Secretary of the Interior a list of the present perfected rights, with their claimed priority dates, in waters of the mainstream within each State, respectively, in terms of consumptive use, except those relating to federal establishments. Any named party to this proceeding may present its claim of present perfected rights or its opposition to the claims of others. The Secretary of the Interior shall supply similar information, by March 9, 1967, with respect to the claims of the United States to present perfected rights within each State. If the parties and the Secretary of the Interior are unable at that time to agree on the present perfected rights to the use of mainstream water in each State, and their priority dates, any party may apply to the Court for the determination of such rights by the Court. A list of present perfected rights, with priority dates, in waters of the mainstream in the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada is set forth in Parts I-A, II-A, and III of the Appendix to this decree and is incorporated herein by reference.
VII. The State of New Mexico shall, by March 9, 1968, prepare and maintain, or provide for the preparation and maintenance of, and shall annually thereafter make available for inspection at all reasonable times and at a reasonable place or places, complete, detailed, and accurate records of:
(A) The acreages of all lands in New Mexico irrigated each year from the Gila River, the San Francisco River, San Simon Creek, and their tributaries and all of their underground water sources, stated by legal description and component acreages and separately as to each of the areas designated in Article IV of this decree and as to each of the three streams;
(B) Annual diversions and consumptive uses of water in New Mexico, from the Gila River, the San Francisco River, San Simon Creek, and their tributaries and all their underground water sources, stated separately as to each of the three streams.
VIII. This decree shall not affect:
(A) The relative rights inter sese of water users within any one of the States, except as otherwise specifically provided herein;
(B) The rights or priorities to water in any of the Lower Basin tributaries of the Colorado River in the States of Arizona, California, Nevada, New Mexico, and Utah except the Gila River System;
(C) The rights or priorities, except as specific provision is made herein, of any Indian Reservation, National Forest, Park, Recreation Area, Monument or Memorial, or other lands of the United States;
(D) Any issue of interpretation of the Colorado River Compact.
IX. Any of the parties may apply at the foot of this decree for its amendment or for further relief. The Court retains jurisdiction of this suit for the purpose of any order, direction, or modification of the decree, or any supplementary decree, that may at any time be deemed proper in relation to the subject matter in controversy.
APPENDIX
The present perfected rights to the use of mainstream water in the States of Arizona, California, and Nevada, and their priority dates are determined to be as set forth below, subject to the following:
(1) The following listed present perfected rights relate to the quantity of water which may be used by each claimant and the list is not intended to limit or redefine the type of use otherwise set forth in this decree.
(2) This determination shall in no way affect future adjustments resulting from determinations relating to settlement of Indian reservation boundaries referred to in Article 11(D)(5) of this decree.
(3) Article IX of this decree is not affected by this list of present perfected rights.
(4) Any water right listed herein may be exercised only for beneficial uses.
(5) In the event of a determination of insufficient mainstream water to satisfy present perfected rights pursuant to Article 11(B)(3) of this decree, the Secretary of the Interior shall, before providing for the satisfaction of any of the other present perfected rights except for those listed herein as “MISCELLANEOUS PRESENT PERFECTED RIGHTS” (rights numbered 7-21 and 29-80 below) in the order of their priority dates without regard to state lines, first provide for the satisfaction in full of all rights of the Chemehuevi Indian Reservation, Cocopah Indian Reservation, Fort Yuma Indian Reservation, Colorado River Indian Reservation, and the Fort Mojave Indian Reservation as set forth in Article II(D)(l)-(5) of this decree, provided that the quantities fixed in paragraphs (1) through (5) of Article 11(D) of this decree shall continue to be subject to appropriate adjustment by agreement or decree of this Court in the event that the boundaries of the respective reservations are finally determined except for the western boundaries of the Fort Mojave and Colorado River Indian Reservations in California and except for the boundaries of the Fort Yuma Indian Reservation in Arizona and California. Additional present perfected rights so adjudicated by such adjustment shall be in annual quantities not to exceed the quantities of mainstream water necessary to supply the consumptive use required for irrigation of the practicably irrigable acres which are included within any area determined to be within a reservation by such final determination of a boundary and for the satisfaction of related uses. The quantities
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question in this ease is when a school district may be held liable in damages in an implied right of action under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, 86 Stat. 373, as amended, 20 U. S. C. § 1681 et seq. (Title IX), for the sexual harassment of a student by one of the district’s teachers. We conclude that damages may not be recovered in those circumstances unless an official of the school district who at a minimum has authority to institute corrective measures on the district’s behalf has actual notice of, and is deliberately indifferent to, the teacher’s misconduct.
I
In the spring of 1991, when petitioner Alida Star Gebser was an eighth-grade student at a middle school in respondent Lago Vista Independent School District (Lago Vista), she joined a high school book discussion group led by Frank Wal-drop, a teacher at Lago Yista’s high school. Lago Vista received federal funds at all pertinent times. During the book discussion sessions, Waldrop often made sexually suggestive comments to the students. Gebser entered high school in the fall and was assigned to classes taught by Waldrop in both semesters. Waldrop continued to make inappropriate remarks to the students, and he began to direct more of his suggestive comments toward Gebser, including during the substantial amount of time that the two were alone in his classroom. He initiated sexual contact with Gebser in the spring, when, while visiting her home ostensibly to give her a book, he kissed and fondled her. The two had sexual intercourse on a number of occasions during the remainder of the school year. Their relationship continued through the summer and into the following school year, and they often had intercourse during class time, although never on school property.
Gebser did not report the relationship to school officials, testifying that while she realized Waldrop’s conduct was improper, she was uncertain how to react and she wanted to continue having him as a teacher. In October 1992, the parents of two other students complained to the high school principal about Waldrop’s comments in class. The principal arranged a meeting, at which, according to the principal, Waldrop indicated that he did not believe he had made offensive remarks but apologized to the parents and said it would not happen again. The principal also advised Waldrop to be careful about his classroom comments and told the school guidance counselor about the meeting, but he did not report the parents’ complaint to Lago Vista’s superintendent, who was the district’s Title IX coordinator. A couple of months later, in January 1993, a police officer discovered Waldrop and Gebser engaging in sexual intercourse and arrested Wal-drop. Lago Vista terminated his employment, and subsequently, the Texas Education Agency revoked his teaching license. During this time, the district had not promulgated or distributed an official grievance procedure for lodging sexual harassment complaints; nor had it issued a formal anti-harassment policy. -
Gebser and her mother filed suit against Lago Vista and Waldrop in state court in November 1993, raising claims against the school district under Title IX, Rev. Stat. § 1979, 42 U. S. C. § 1988, and state negligence law, and claims against Waldrop primarily under state law. They sought compensatory and punitive damages from both defendants. After the case was removed, the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas granted summary judgment in favor of Lago Vista on all claims, and remanded the allegations against Waldrop to state court. In rejecting the Title IX claim against the school district, the court reasoned that the statute “was enacted to counter policies of discrimination ... in federally funded education programs,” and that “[o]nly if school administrators have some type of notice of the gender discrimination and fail to respond in good faith can the discrimination be interpreted as a policy of the school district.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 6a-7a. Here, the court determined, the parents’ complaint to the principal concerning Waldrop’s comments in class was the only one Lago Vista had received about Waldrop, and that evidence was inadequate to raise a genuine issue on whether the school district had actual or constructive notice that Waldrop was involved in a sexual relationship with a student.
Petitioners appealed only on the Title IX claim. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, Doe v. Lago Vista Independent School Dist., 106 F. 3d 1223 (1997), relying in large part on two of its recent decisions, Rosa H. v. San Elizario Independent School Dist., 106 F. 3d 648 (1997), and Canutillo Independent School Dist. v. Leija, 101 F. 3d 393 (1996), cert. denied, 520 U. S. 1265 (1997). The court first declined to impose strict liability on school districts for a teacher’s sexual harassment of a student, reiterating its conclusion in Leija that strict liability is inconsistent with “the Title IX contract.” 106 F. 3d, at 1225 (internal quotation marks omitted). The court then determined that Lago Vista could not be liable on the basis of constructive notice, finding that there was insufficient evidence to suggest that a school official should have known about Waldrop’s relationship with Gebser. Ibid. Finally, the court refused to invoke the common law principle that holds an employer vicariously liable when an employee is “aided in accomplishing [a] tort by the existence of the agency relation,” Restatement (Second) of Agency §219(2)(d) (1957) (hereinafter Restatement), explaining that application of that principle would result in school district liability in essentially every case of teacher-student harassment. 106 F. 3d, at 1225-1226.
The court concluded its analysis by reaffirming its holding in Rosa H. that “school districts are not liable in tort for teacher-student [sexual] harassment under Title IX unless an employee who has been invested by the school board with supervisory power over the offending employee actually knew of the abuse, had the power to end the abuse, and failed to do so,” 106 F. 3d, at 1226, and ruling that petitioners could not satisfy that standard. The Fifth Circuit’s analysis represents one of the varying approaches adopted by the Courts of Appeals in assessing a school district’s liability under Title IX for a teacher’s sexual harassment of a student. See Smith v. Metropolitan School Dist. Perry Twp., 128 F. 3d 1014 (CA7 1997); Kracunas v. Iona College, 119 F. 3d 80 (CA2 1997); Doe v. Claiborne County, 103 F. 3d 495, 513-515 (CA6 1996); Kinman v. Omaha Public School Dist., 94 F. 3d 463, 469 (CA8 1996). We granted certiorari to address the issue, 522 U. S. 1011 (1997), and we now affirm.
I — I H-i
Title IX provides in pertinent part: “No person ... shall, on the basis of sex, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal financial assistance.” 20 U. S. C. § 1681(a). The express statutory means of enforcement is administrative: The statute directs federal agencies that distribute education funding to establish requirements to effectuate the nondiscrimination mandate, and permits the agencies to enforce those requirements through “any... means authorized by law,” including ultimately the termination of federal funding. § 1682. The Court held in Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U. S. 677 (1979), that Title IX is also enforceable through an implied private right of action, a conclusion we do not revisit here. We subsequently established in Franklin v. Gwinnett County Public Schools, 503 U. S. 60 (1992), that monetary damages are available in the implied private action.
In Franklin, a high school student alleged that a teacher had sexually abused her on repeated occasions and that teachers and school administrators knew about the harassment but took no action, even to the point of dissuading her from initiating charges. See id., at 68-64. The lower courts dismissed Franklin’s complaint against the school district on the ground that the implied right of action under Title IX, as a categorical matter, does not encompass recovery in damages. We reversed the lower courts’ blanket rule, concluding that Title IX supports a private action for damages, at least “in a ease such as this, in which intentional discrimination is alleged.” See id., at 74-75. Franklin thereby establishes that a school district can be held liable in damages in eases involving a teacher’s sexual harassment of a student; the decision, however, does not purport to define the contours of that liability.
We face that issue squarely in this ease. Petitioners, joined by the United States as amicus curiae, would invoke standards used by the Courts of Appeals in Title YII eases involving a supervisor’s sexual harassment of an employee in the workplace. In support of that approach, they point to a passage in Franklin in which we stated: “Unquestionably, Title IX placed on the Gwinnett County Public Schools the duty not to discriminate on the basis of sex, and ‘when a supervisor sexually harasses a subordinate because of the subordinate’s sex, that supervisor “discriminate[s]” on the basis of sex.’ Meritor Sav. Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U. S. 57, 64 (1986). We believe the same rule should apply when a teacher sexually harasses and abuses a student.” Id., at 75. Meritor Savings Bank, FSB v. Vinson, 477 U. S. 57 (1986), directs courts to look to common law agency principles when assessing an employer’s liability under Title YII for sexual harassment of an employee by a supervisor. See id., at 72. Petitioners and the United States submit that, in light of Franklin’s comparison of teacher-student harassment with supervisor-employee harassment, agency principles should likewise apply in Title IX actions.
Specifically, they advance two possible standards under which Lago Vista would be liable for Waldrop’s conduct. First, relying on a 1997 “Policy Guidance” issued by the Department of Education, they would hold a school district liable in damages under Title IX where a teacher is “ ‘aided in carrying out the sexual harassment of students by his or her position of authority with the institution,’ ” irrespective of whether school district officials had any knowledge of the harassment and irrespective of their response upon becoming aware. Brief for Petitioners 36 (quoting Dept, of Education, Office for Civil Rights, Sexual Harassment Policy Guidance: Harrassment of Students by School Employees, Other Students, or Third Parties, 62 Fed. Reg. 12034, 12039 (1997) (1997 Policy Guidance)); Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 14. That rule is an expression of respondeat superior liability, i. e., vicarious or imputed liability, see Restatement §219(2)(d), under which recovery in damages against a school district would generally follow whenever a teacher’s authority over a student facilitates the harassment. Second, petitioners and the United States submit that a school district should at a minimum be liable for damages based on a theory of constructive notice, i. e., where the district knew or “should have known” about harassment but failed to uncover and eliminate it. Brief for Petitioners 28; Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 15-16; see Restatement § 219(2)(b). Both standards would allow a damages recovery in a broader range of situations than the rule adopted by the Court of Appeals, which hinges on actual knowledge by a school official with authority to end the harassment.
Whether educational institutions can be said to violate Title IX based solely on principles of respondeat superior or constructive notice was not resolved by Franklin’s citation of Meritor. That reference to Meritor was made with regard to the general proposition that sexual harassment can constitute discrimination on the basis of sex under Title IX, see Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U. S. 75, 80-81 (1998), an issue not in dispute here. In fact, the school district’s liability in Franklin did not necessarily turn on principles of imputed liability or constructive notice, as there was evidence that school officials knew about the harassment but took no action to stop it. See 503 U. S., at 63-64. Moreover, Meritor’s rationale for concluding that agency principles guide the liability inquiry under Title VII rests on an aspect of that statute not found in Title IX: Title VII, in which the prohibition against employment discrimination runs against “an employer,” 42 U. S. C. §2000e-2(a), explicitly defines “employer” to include “any agent,” §2000e(b). See Meritor, supra, at 72. Title IX contains no comparable reference to an educational institution’s “agents,” and so does not expressly call for application of agency principles.
In this case, moreover, petitioners seek not just to establish a Title IX violation but to recover damages based on theories of respondeat superior and constructive notice. It is that aspect of their action, in our view, that is most critical to resolving the case. Unlike Title IX, Title VII contains an express cause of action, §2000e-5(f), and specifically provides for relief in the form of monetary damages, § 1981a. Congress therefore has directly addressed the subject of damages relief under Title VII and has set out the particular situations in which damages are available as well as the maximum amounts recoverable. §1981a(b). With respect to Title IX, however, the private right of action is judicially implied, see Cannon, 441 U. S., at 717, and there is thus no legislative expression of the scope of available remedies, including when it is appropriate to award monetary damages. In addition, although the general presumption that courts can award any appropriate relief in an established cause of action, e. g., Bell v. Hood, 327 U. S. 678, 684 (1946), coupled with Congress’ abrogation of the States’ Eleventh Amendment immunity under Title IX, see 42 U. S. C. § 2000d-7, led us to conclude in Franklin that Title IX recognizes a damages remedy, 503 U. S., at 68-73; see id., at 78 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment), we did so in response to lower court decisions holding that Title IX does not support damages relief at all. We made no effort in Franklin to delimit the circumstances in which a damages remedy should lie.
HH HH 1 — !
Because the private right of action under Title IX is judicially implied, we have a measure of latitude to shape a sensible remedial scheme that best comports with the statute. See, e. g., Musick, Peeler & Garrett v. Employers Ins. of Wausau, 508 U. S. 286, 292-293 (1993); Virginia Bankshares, Inc. v. Sandberg, 501 U. S. 1083, 1104 (1991). That endeavor inherently entails a degree of speculation, since it addresses an issue on which Congress has not specifically spoken. See, e. g., Lampf, Pleva, Lipkind, Prupis & Petigrow v. Gilbertson, 501 U. S. 350, 359 (1991). To guide the analysis, we generally examine the relevant statute to ensure that we do not fashion the scope of an implied right in a manner at odds with the statutory structure and purpose. See Musick, Peeler, 508 U. S., at 294-297; id., at 300 (Thomas, J., dissenting); Virginia Bankshares, supra, at 1102.
Those considerations, we think, are pertinent not only to the scope of the implied right, but also to the scope of the available remedies. See Transamerica Mortgage Advisors, Inc. v. Lewis, 444 U. S. 11 (1979); see also Franklin, supra, at 77-78 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). We suggested as much in Franklin, where we recognized “the general rule that all appropriate relief is available in an action brought to vindicate a federal right,” but indicated that the rule must be reconciled with congressional purpose. 503 U. S., at 68. The “general rule,” that is, “yields where necessary to carry out the intent of Congress or to avoid frustrating the purposes of the statute involved.” Guardians Assn. v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of New York City, 463 U. S. 582, 595 (1983) (opinion of White, J.); cf., Cannon, 441 U. S, at 703 (“[A] private remedy should not be implied if it would frustrate the underlying purpose of the legislative scheme”).
Applying those principles here, we conclude that it would “frustrate the purposes” of Title IX to permit a damages recovery against a school district for a teacher’s sexual harassment of a student based on principles of respondeat superior or constructive notice, i. e., without actual notice to a school district official. Because Congress did not expressly create a private right of action under Title IX, the statutory text does not shed light on Congress’ intent with respect to the scope of available remedies. Franklin, 503 U. S., at 71; id., at 76 (Scalia, J., concurring in judgment). Instead, “we attempt to infer how the [1972] Congress would have addressed the issue had the . . . action been included as an express provision in the” statute. Central Bank of Denver, N. A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N. A., 511 U. S. 164, 178 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Mustek, Peeler, supra, at 294-295; North Haven Bd. of Ed. v. Bell, 456 U. S. 512, 529 (1982).
As a general matter, it does not appear that Congress contemplated unlimited recovery in damages against a funding recipient where the recipient is unaware of discrimination in its programs. When Title IX was enacted in 1972, the principal civil rights statutes containing an express right of action did not provide for recovery of monetary damages at all, instead allowing only injunctive and equitable relief. See 42 U.S.C. § 2000a-3(a) (1970 ed.); §§2000e-5(e), (g) (1970 ed., Supp. II). It was not until 1991 that Congress made damages available under Title VII, and even then, Congress carefully limited the amount recoverable in any individual case, calibrating the maximum recovery to the size of the employer. See 42 U. S. C. § 1981a(b)(3). Adopting petitioners’ position would amount, then, to allowing unlimited recovery of damages under Title IX where Congress has not spoken on the subject of either the right or the remedy, and in the face of evidence that when Congress expressly considered both in Title VII it restricted the amount of damages available.
Congress enacted Title IX in 1972 with two principal objectives in mind: “[T]o avoid the use of federal resources to support discriminatory practices” and “to provide individual citizens effective protection against those practices.” Cannon, supra, at 704. The statute was modeled after Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, see 441 U. S., at 694-696; Grove City College v. Bell, 465 U. S. 555, 566 (1984), which is parallel to Title IX except that it prohibits race discrimination, not sex discrimination, and applies in all programs receiving federal funds, not only in education programs. See 42 U. S. C. § 2000d et seq. The two statutes operate in the same manner, conditioning an offer of federal funding on a promise by the recipient not to discriminate, in what amounts essentially to a contract between the Government and the recipient of fluids. See Guardians, 463 U. S., at 599 (opinion of White, J.); id., at 609 (Powell, J., concurring in judgment); cf. Pennhurst State School and Hospital v. Halderman, 451 U. S. 1, 17 (1981).
That contractual framework distinguishes Title IX from Title VII, which is framed in terms not of a condition but of an outright prohibition. Title VII applies to all employers without regard to federal funding and aims broadly to “eradicate] discrimination throughout the economy.” Landgraf v. USI Film Products, 511 U. S. 244, 254 (1994) (internal quotation marks omitted). Title VII, moreover, seeks to “make persons whole for injuries suffered through past discrimination.” Ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, whereas Title VII aims centrally to compensate victims of discrimination, Title IX focuses more on “protecting” individuals from discriminatory practices carried out by recipients of federal funds. Cannon, supra, at 704. That might explain why, when the Court first recognized the implied right under Title IX in Cannon, the opinion referred to injunctive or equitable relief in a private action, see 441 U. S., at 705, and n. 38, 710, n. 44, 711, but not to a damages remedy.
Title IX’s contractual nature has implications for our construction of the scope of available remedies. When Congress attaches conditions to the award of federal funds under its spending power, U. S. Const., Art. I, §8, cl. 1, as it has in Title IX and Title VI, we examine closely the propriety of private actions holding the recipient liable in monetary damages for noncomplianee with the condition. See Franklin, supra, at 74-75; Guardians, supra, at 596-603 (White, J.); see generally Pennhurst, supra, at 28-29. Our central concern in that regard is with ensuring that “the receiving entity of federal funds [has] notice that it will be liable for a monetary award.” Franklin, supra, at 74. Justice White’s opinion announcing the Court’s judgment in Guardians Assn. v. Civil Serv. Comm’n of New York City, for instance, concluded that the relief in an action under Title VI alleging unintentional discrimination should be prospective only, because where discrimination is unintentional, “it is surely not obvious that the grantee was aware that it was administering the program in violation of the [condition].” 463 U. S., at 598. We confront similar concerns here. If a school district’s liability for a teacher’s sexual harassment rests on principles of constructive notice or respondeat superior, it will likewise be the case that the recipient of funds was unaware of the discrimination. It is sensible to assume that Congress did not envision a recipient’s liability in damages in that situation. See Rosa H., 106 F. 3d, at 654 (“When the school board accepted federal funds, it agreed not to discriminate on the basis of sex. We think it unlikely that it further agreed to suffer liability whenever its employees discriminate on the basis of sex”).
Most significantly, Title IX contains important clues that Congress did not intend to allow recovery in damages where liability rests solely on principles of vicarious liability or constructive notice. Title IX’s express means of enforcement — by administrative agencies — operates on an assumption of actual notice to officials of the funding recipient. The statute entitles agencies who disburse education funding to enforce their rules implementing the nondiscrimination mandate through proceedings to suspend or terminate funding or through “other means authorized by law.” 20 U. S. C. §1682. Significantly, however, an agency may not initiate enforcement proceedings until it “has advised the appropriate person or persons of the failure to comply with the requirement and has determined that compliance cannot be secured by voluntary means.” Ibid. The administrative regulations implement that obligation, requiring resolution of compliance issues “by informal means whenever possible,” 34 CFR, § 100.7(d) (1997), and prohibiting commencement of enforcement proceedings until the agency has determined that voluntary compliance is unobtainable and “the recipient . . . has been notified of its failure to comply and of the action to be taken to effect compliance,” § 100.8(d); see § 100.8(c).
In the event of a violation, a finding recipient may be required to take “such remedial action as [is] deem[ed] necessary to overcome the effects of [the] discrimination.” § 106.3. "While agencies have conditioned continued funding on providing equitable relief to the victim, see, e. g., North Haven, 456 U. S., at 518 (reinstatement of employee), the regulations do not appear to contemplate a condition ordering payment of monetary damages, and there is no indication that payment of damages has been demanded as a condition of finding a recipient to be in compliance with the statute. See Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae in Franklin v. Gwinnett County School District, O. T. 1991, No. 90-918, p. 24. In Franklin, for instance, the Department of Education found a violation of Title IX but determined that the school district came into compliance by virtue of the offending teacher’s resignation and the district’s institution of a grievance procedure for sexual harassment complaints. 503 U. S., at 64, n. 3.
Presumably, a central purpose of requiring notice of the violation “to the appropriate person” and an opportunity for voluntary compliance before administrative enforcement proceedings can commence is to avoid diverting education funding from beneficial uses where a recipient was unaware of discrimination in its programs and is willing to institute prompt corrective measures. The scope of private damages relief proposed by petitioners is at odds with that basic objective. When a teacher’s sexual harassment is imputed to a school district or when a school district is deemed to have “constructively” known of the teacher’s harassment, by assumption the district had no actual knowledge of the teacher’s conduct. Nor, of course, did the district have an opportunity to take action to end the harassment or to limit further harassment.
It would be unsound, we think, for a statute’s express system of enforcement to require notice to the recipient and an opportunity to come into voluntary compliance while a judicially implied system of enforcement permits substantial liability without regard to the recipient’s knowledge or its corrective actions upon receiving notice. Cf. Central Bank of Denver, N. A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N. A., 511 U. S., at 180 (“[I]t would be ‘anomalous to impute to Congress an intention to expand the plaintiff class for a judicially implied cause of action beyond the bounds it delineated for comparable express causes of action’”), quoting Blue Chip Stamps v. Manor Drug Stores, 421 U. S. 723, 736 (1975). Moreover, an award of damages in a particular ease might well exceed a recipient’s level of federal funding. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 35 (Lago Vista’s federal funding for 1992-1993 was roughly $120,000). Where a statute’s express enforcement scheme hinges its most severe sanction on notice and unsuccessful efforts to obtain compliance, we cannot attribute to Congress the intention to have implied an enforcement scheme that allows imposition of greater liability without comparable conditions.
IV
Because the express remedial scheme under Title IX is predicated upon notice to an "appropriate person” and an opportunity to rectify any violation, 20 U. S. C. § 1682, we conclude, in the absence of further direction from Congress, that the implied damages remedy should be fashioned along the same lines. An “appropriate person” under § 1682 is, at a minimum, an official of the recipient entity with authority to take corrective action to end the discrimination. Consequently, in eases like this one that do not involve official policy of the recipient entity, we hold that a damages remedy will not lie under Title IX unless an official who at a minimum has authority to address the alleged discrimination and to institute corrective measures on the recipient’s behalf has actual knowledge of discrimination in the recipient’s programs and fails adequately to respond.
We think, moreover, that the response must amount to deliberate indifference to discrimination. The administrative enforcement scheme presupposes that an official who is advised of a Title IX violation refuses to take action to bring the recipient into compliance. The premise, in other words, is an official decision by the recipient not to remedy the violation. That framework finds a rough parallel in the standard of deliberate indifference. Under a lower standard, there would be a risk that the recipient would be liable in damages not for its own official decision but instead for its employees’ independent actions. Comparable considerations led to our adoption of a deliberate indifference standard for claims under § 1983 alleging that a municipality’s actions in failing to prevent a deprivation of federal rights was the cause of the violation. See Board of Comm’rs of Bryan Cty. v. Brown, 520 U. S. 397 (1997); Canton v. Harris, 489 U. S. 378, 388-392 (1989); see also Collins v. Harker Heights, 503 U. S. 115, 123-124 (1992).
Applying the framework to this case is fairly straightforward, as petitioners do not contend they can prevail under an actual notice standard. The only official alleged to have had information about Waldrop’s misconduct is the high school principal. That information, however, consisted of a complaint from parents of other students charging only that Waldrop had made inappropriate comments during class, which was plainly insufficient to alert the principal to the possibility that Waldrop was involved in a sexual relationship with a student. Lago Vista, moreover, terminated Wal-drop’s employment upon learning of his relationship with Gebser. Justice Stevens points out in his dissenting opinion that Waldrop of eourse had knowledge of his own actions. See post, at 299, n. 8. Where a school district’s liability rests on actual notice principles, however, the knowledge of the wrongdoer himself is not pertinent to the analysis. See Restatement §280.
Petitioners focus primarily on Lago Vista’s asserted failure to promulgate and publicize an effective policy and grievance procedure for sexual harassment claims. They point to Department of Education regulations requiring each funding recipient to “adopt and publish grievance procedures providing for prompt and equitable resolution” of discrimination complaints, 34 CFR § 106.8(b) (1997), and to notify students and others that “it does not discriminate on the basis of sex in the educational programs or activities which it operates,” § 106.9(a). Lago Vista’s alleged failure to comply with the regulations, however, does not establish the requisite actual notice and deliberate indifference. And in any event, the failure to promulgate a grievance procedure does not itself constitute “discrimination” under Title IX. Of course, the Department of Education could enforce the requirement administratively: Agencies generally have authority to promulgate and enforce requirements that effectuate the statute’s nondiscrimination mandate, 20 U. S. C. § 1682, even if those requirements do not purport to represent a definition of discrimination under the statute. E. g., Grove City, 465 U. S., at 574-575 (permitting administrative enforcement of regulation requiring college to execute an “Assurance of Compliance” with Title IX). We have never held, however, that the implied private right of action under Title IX allows recovery in damages for violation of those sorts of administrative requirements.
V
The number of reported cases involving sexual harassment of students in schools confirms that harassment unfortunately is an all too common aspect of the educational experience. No one questions that a student suffers extraordinary harm when subjected to sexual harassment and abuse by a teacher, and that the teacher’s conduct is reprehensible and undermines the basic purposes of the educational system. The issue in this ease, however, is whether the independent misconduct of a teacher is attributable to the school district that employs him under a specific federal statute designed primarily to prevent recipients of federal financial assistance from using the funds in a discriminatory manner. Our decision does not affect any right of recovery that an individual may have against a school district as a matter of state law or against the teacher in his individual capacity under state law or under 42 U. S. C. § 1983. Until Congress speaks directly on the subject, however, we will not hold a school district liable in damages under Title IX for a teacher’s sexual harassment of a student absent actual notice and deliberate indifference. We therefore affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
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.
Me. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question for decision is whether the National Bank Act, Rev. Stat. § 5197, as amended, 12 U. S. C. § 85, authorizes a national bank based in one State to charge its out-of-state credit-card customers an interest rate on unpaid balances allowed by its home State, when that rate is greater than that permitted by the State of the bank’s nonresident customers. The Minnesota Supreme Court held that the bank is allowed by § 85 to charge the higher rate. 262 N. W. 2d 358 (1977). We affirm.
I
The First National Bank of Omaha (Omaha Bank) is a national banking association with its charter address in Omaha, Neb. Omaha Bank is a card-issuing member in the BankAmericard plan. This plan enables cardholders to purchase goods and services from participating merchants and to obtain cash advances from participating banks throughout the United States and the world. Omaha Bank has systematically sought to enroll in its BankAmericard program the residents, merchants, and banks of the nearby State of Minnesota. The solicitation of Minnesota merchants and banks is carried on by respondent First of Omaha Service Corp. (Omaha Service Corp.), a wholly owned subsidiary of Omaha Bank.
Minnesota residents are obligated to pay Omaha Bank interest on the outstanding balances of their BankAmericards. Nebraska law permits Omaha Bank to charge interest on the unpaid balances of cardholder accounts at a rate of 18% per year on the first $999.99, and 12% per year on amounts of $1,000 and over. Minnesota law, however, fixes the permissible annual interest on such accounts at 12%. To compensate for the reduced interest, Minnesota law permits banks to charge annual fees of up to $15 for the privilege of using a bank credit card.
The instant case began when petitioner Marquette National Bank of Minneapolis (Marquette), itself a national banking association enrolled in the BankAmericard plan, brought suit in the District Court of Hennepin County, Minn., to enjoin Omaha Bank and Omaha Service Corp. from soliciting in Minnesota for Omaha Bank’s BankAmericard program until such time as that program complied with Minnesota law. Marquette claimed to be losing customers to Omaha Bank because, unlike the Nebraska bank, Marquette was forced by the low rate of interest permissible under Minnesota law to charge a $10 annual fee for the use of its credit cards. App. 7a-15a, 45a-48a.
Marquette named as defendants Omaha Bank, Omaha Service Corp., which is organized under the laws of Nebraska but qualified to do business and doing business in Minnesota, and the Credit Bureau of St. Paul, Inc., a corporation organized under the laws of Minnesota having its principal office in St. Paul, Minn. Omaha Service Corp. participates in Omaha Bank’s BankAmericard program by entering into agreements with banks and merchants necessary to the operation of the BankAmericard scheme. Id., at 30a. At the time Marquette filed its complaint, Omaha Service Corp. had not yet entered into any such agreements in Minnesota, although it intended to do so. Id., at 30a, 92a, 94a. For its services, Omaha Service Corp. receives a fee from Omaha Bank, but it does not itself extend credit or receive interest. Id., at 94a, 97a-110a. It was alleged that the Credit Bureau of St. Paul, Inc., solicited prospective cardholders for Omaha Bank’s BankAmericard program in Minnesota. Id., at 9a, 30a.
The defendants sought to remove Marquette’s action to Federal District Court. See 12 IT. S. C. § 94. Marquette responded by dismissing without prejudice its action against Omaha Bank, see Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 41 (a)(l)(i), and the District Court, citing Gully v. First Nat. Bank, 299 U. S. 109 (1936), remanded the case to the District Court of Hennepin County. Marquette Nat. Bank v. First Nat. Bank of Omaha, 422 F. Supp. 1346 (Minn. 1976). Marquette thereupon moved for partial summary judgment to have Omaha Bank’s BankAmericard program declared in violation of the Minnesota usury statute, Minn. Stat. § 48.185 (1978), and permanently to enjoin the remaining defendants from engaging in any activity in connection with the offering or operation of that program in further violation of Minnesota law. Defendants argued that the National Bank Act, Rev. Stat. § 5197, as amended, 12 U. S. C. § 85, pre-empted Minn. Stat. § 48.185 and enforcement of that statute against Omaha Bank’s Bank-Americard program. Upon being notified of this challenge to Minn. Stat. § 48.185, the Attorney General of the State of Minnesota intervened as a party plaintiff and joined in Marquette’s prayer for a declaratory judgment and permanent injunction.
The District Court of Hennepin County granted plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment, holding in an unreported opinion that “nothing contained in the National Bank Act, 12 U. S. C. § 85, precludes or preempts the application and enforcement of Minnesota Statutes, § 48.185 to the First National Bank of Omaha’s BankAmericard program as solicited and operated in the State of Minnesota.” App. 139a-140a. The court enjoined Omaha Service Corp., “as agent of the First National Bank of Omaha,” from “engaging in any solicitation of residents of the State of Minnesota or other activity in connection with the offering or operation of a bank credit card program in the State of Minnesota in violation of Minnesota Statutes, § 48.185.” Id., at 140a-141a.
On appeal, the Minnesota Supreme Court reversed. Noting that Marquette’s dismissal of Omaha Bank was a procedural device that removed the case from the jurisdiction of the federal courts of the Eighth Circuit, and noting that a recent decision of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit had made it plain that in its judgment the usury laws of Nebraska rather than Minnesota should govern the operation of Omaha Bank’s BankAmericard program in Minnesota, see Fisher v. First Nat. Bank of Omaha, 548 F. 2d 255 (1977), the Minnesota Supreme Court concluded that it would be “inappropriate for this court to permit the use of procedural devices to obtain a result inconsistent with the existing doctrine in the Eighth Circuit.” 262 N. W. 2d, at 365. Plaintiffs filed timely petitions for writs of certiorari, which we granted, 436 U. S. 916 (1978), in order to decide the appropriate application of 12 U. S. C. § 85.
II
In the present posture of this case Omaha Bank is no longer a party defendant. The federal question presented for decision is nevertheless the application of 12 U. S. C. § 85 to the operation of Omaha Bank's BankAmericard program. There is no allegation in petitioners’ complaints that either Omaha Service Corp. or the Minnesota merchants and banks participating in the BankAmericard program are themselves extending credit in violation of Minn. Stat. §48.185 (1978), and we therefore have no occasion to determine the application of the National Bank Act in such a case.
Omaha Bank is a national bank; it is an “instrumentalit[yj of the Federal government, created for a public purpose, and as such necessarily subject tO' the paramount authority of the United States.” Davis v. Elmira Savings Bank, 161 U. S. 275, 283 (1896). The interest rate that Omaha Bank may charge in its BankAmericard program is thus governed by federal law. See Farmers’ & Mechanics’ Nat. Bank v. Dearing, 91 U. S. 29, 34 (1875). The provision of § 85 called into question states:
“Any association may take, receive, reserve, and charge on any loan or discount made, or upon any notes, bills of exchange, or other evidences of debt, interest at the rate allowed by the laws of the State, Territory, or District where the bank is located,... and no more, except that where by the laws of any State a different rate is limited for banks organized under State laws, the rate so limited shall be allowed for associations organized or existing in any such State under this chapter.” (Emphasis supplied.)
Section 85 thus plainly provides that a national bank may charge interest “on any loan” at the rate allowed by the laws of the State in which the bank is “located.” The question before us is therefore narrowed to whether Omaha Bank and its BankAmericard program are “located” in Nebraska and for that reason entitled to charge its Minnesota customers the rate of interest authorized by Nebraska law.
There is no question but that Omaha Bank itself, apart from its BankAmericard program, is located in Nebraska. Petitioners concede as much. See Brief for Petitioner in No. 77-1258, p. 3; Brief for Petitioner in No. 77-1265, pp. 3, 16, 33-34. The National Bank Act requires a national bank to state in its organization certificate “[t]he place where its operations of discount and deposit are to be carried on, designating the State, Territory, or district, and the particular county and city, town, or village.” Rev. Stat. § 5134, 12 U. S. C. § 22. The charter address of Omaha Bank is in Omaha, Douglas County, Neb. The bank operates no branch banks in Minnesota, cf. Seattle Trust & Savings Bank v. Bank of California, 492 F. 2d 48 (CA9 1974), nor apparently could it under federal law. See 12 U. S. C. § 36 (c).
The State of Minnesota, however, contends that this con-elusion must be altered if Omaha Bank’s BankAmericard program is considered: “In the context of a national bank which systematically solicits Minnesota residents for credit cards to be used in transactions with Minnesota merchants the bank must be deemed to be located’ in Minnesota for purposes of this credit card program.” Reply Brief for Petitioner in No. 77-1258, p. 7.
We disagree. Section 85 was originally enacted as § 30 of the National Bank Act of 1864, 13 Stat. 108.' The congressional debates surrounding the enactment of § 30 were conducted on the assumption that a national bank was “located” for purposes of the section in the State named in its organization certificate. See Cong. Globe, 38th Cong., 1st Sess., 2123-2127 (1864). Omaha Bank cannot be deprived of this location merely because it is extending credit to residents of a foreign State. Minnesota residents were always free to visit Nebraska and receive loans in that State. It has not been suggested that Minnesota usury laws would apply to such transactions. Although the convenience of modern mail permits Minnesota residents holding Omaha Bank’s BankAmericards to receive loans without visiting Nebraska, credit on the use of their cards is nevertheless similarly extended by Omaha Bank in Nebraska by the bank’s honoring of the sales drafts of participating Minnesota merchants and banks. Finance charges on the unpaid balances of cardholders are assessed by the bank in Omaha, Neb., and all payments on unpaid balances are remitted to the bank in Omaha, Neb. Furthermore, the bank issues its BankAmericards in Omaha, Neb., after credit assessments made by the bank in that city. App. 30a.
Nor can the fact that Omaha Bank’s BankAmericards are used “in transactions with Minnesota merchants” be determinative of the bank’s location for purposes of § 85. The bank’s BankAmericard enables its holder “to purchase goods and services from participating merchants and obtain cash advances from participating banks throughout the United States and the world.” Stipulation of Facts, App. 91a. Minnesota residents can thus use their Omaha Bank Bank-Americards to purchase services in the State of New York or mail-order goods from the State of Michigan. If the location of the bank were to depend on the whereabouts of each credit-card transaction, the meaning of the term “located” would be so stretched as to throw into confusion the complex system of modern interstate banking. A national bank could never be certain whether its contacts with residents of foreign States were sufficient to alter its location for purposes of § 85. We do not choose to invite these difficulties by rendering so elastic the term “located.” The mere fact that Omaha Bank has enrolled Minnesota residents, merchants, and banks in its BankAmericard program thus does not suffice to “locate” that bank in Minnesota for purposes of 12 U. S. C. § 85. See Second Nat. Bank of Leavenworth v. Smoot, 9 D. C. 371, 373 (1876).
Ill
Since Omaha Bank and its BankAmericard program are “located” in Nebraska, the plain language of § 85 provides that the bank may charge “on any loan” the rate “allowed” by the State of Nebraska. Petitioners contend, however, that this reading of the statute violates the basic legislative intent of the National Bank Act. See Train v. Colorado Public Interest Research Group, 426 U. S. 1, 9-10 (1976). At the time Congress enacted § 30 of the National Bank Act of 1864, 13 Stat. 108, so petitioners’ argument runs, it intended “to insure competitive equality between state and national banks in the charging of interest.” Brief for Petitioner in No. 77-1265, p. 24. This policy could best be effectuated by limiting national banks to the rate of interest allowed by the States in which the banks were located. Since Congress in 1864 was addressing a financial system in which incorporated banks were “local institutions,” it did not “contemplate a national bank soliciting customers and entering loan agreements outside of the state in which it was established.” Brief for Petitioner in No. 77-1258, p. 17. Therefore to interpret § 85 to apply to interstate loans such as those involved in this case would not only enlarge impermissibly the original intent of Congress, but would also undercut the basic policy foundations of the statute by upsetting the competitive equality now existing between state and national banks.
We cannot accept petitioners’ argument. Whatever policy of “competitive equality” has been discerned in other sections of the National Bank Act, see, e. g., First Nat. Bank v. Dickinson, 396 U. S. 122, 131 (1969); First Nat. Bank of Logan v. Walker Bank & Trust Co., 385 U. S. 252, 261-262 (1966), § 30 and its descendants have been interpreted for over a century to give “advantages to National banks over their State competitors.” Tiffany v. National Bank of Missouri, 18 Wall. 409, 413 (1874). “National banks,” it was said in Tiffany, “have been National favorites.” The policy of competitive equality between state and national banks, however, is not truly at the core of this case. Instead, we are confronted by the inequalities that occur when a national bank applies the interest rates of its home State in its dealing with residents of a foreign State. These inequalities affect both national and state banks in the foreign State. Indeed, in the instant case Marquette is a national bank claiming to be injured by the unequal interest rates charged by another national bank. Whether the inequalities which thus occur when the interest rates of one State are “exported” into another violate the intent of Congress in enacting § 30 in part depends on whether Congress in 1864 was aware of the existence of a system of interstate banking in which such inequalities would seem a necessary part.
Close examination of the National Bank Act of 1864, its legislative history, and its historical context makes clear that, contrary to the suggestion of petitioners, Congress intended to facilitate what Representative Hooper termed a “national banking system.” Cong. Globe, 38th Cong., 1st Sess., 1451 (1864). See also Report of the Comptroller of the Currency 4 (1864). Section 31 of the Act, for example, fully recognized the interstate nature of American banking by providing that three-fifths of the 15% of the aggregate amount of their notes in circulation that national banks were required to “have on hand, in lawful money” could
“consist of balances due to an association available for the redemption of its circulating notes from associations approved by the comptroller of the currency, organized under this act, in the cities of Saint Louis, Louisville, Chicago, Detroit, Milwaukie [sic], New Orleans, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Pittsburg, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Boston, New York, Albany, Leavenworth, San Francisco, and Washington City.” 13 Stat. 108, 109.
The debates surrounding the enactment of this section portray a banking system of great regional interdependence. Senator Chandler of Michigan, for example, noted:
“[T]he banking business of the Northwest is done upon bills of exchange. The wool clip of Michigan, the wheat crop of Michigan, the hog crop of Iowa, are all purchased with drafts drawn chiefly upon [New York, Philadelphia, and Boston], The wool clip is chiefly bought by drafts upon Boston. I put in the three cities because it is convenient to the customer, to the broker, to the merchant, to be enabled to purchase a draft upon either one of these three places.” Cong. Globe, 38th Cong., 1st Sess., 2144 (1864).
See also id., at 1343, 1376, 2143-2145, 2152, 2181-2182. Similarly, the debates surrounding the enactment of § 41 of the Act, which provided that the shares of a national bank could be taxed as personal property “in the assessment of taxes imposed by or under state authority at the place where such bank is located, and not elsewhere,” 13 Stat. 112, demonstrated a sensitive awareness of the possibilities of interstate ownership and control of national banks. See, e. g., Cong. Globe, 38th Cong., 1st Sess., 1271, 1898-1899 (1864).
Although in the debates surrounding the enactment of § 30 there is no specific discussion of the impact of interstate loans, these debates occurred in the context of a developed interstate loan market. As early as 1839 this Court had occasion to note: “Money is frequently borrowed in one state, by a corporation created in another. The numerous banks established by different states are in the constant habit of contracting and dealing with one another.... These usages of commerce and trade have been so general and public, and have been practiced for so long a period of time, and so generally acquiesced in by the states, that the Court cannot overlook them....” Bank of Augusta v. Earle, 13 Pet. 519, 590-591 (1839). Examples of this interstate loan market have been noted by historians of American banking. See, e. g., 1 F. Redlich, The Molding of American Banking 49 (1968); 1 F. James, The Growth of Chicago Banks 546 (1938); Breckenridge, Discount Rates in the United States, 13 Pol. Sci. Q. 119, 136-138 (1898). Evidence of this market is to be found in the numerous judicial decisions in cases arising out of interstate loan transactions. See, e. g., Woodcock v. Campbell, 2 Port. 456 (Ala. 1835); Clarke v. Bank of Mississippi, 10 Ark. 516 (1850); Planters Bank v. Bass, 2 La. Ann. 430 (1847); Knox v. Bank of United States, 27 Miss. 65 (1854); Bard v. Poole, 12 N. Y. 495 (1855); Curtis v. Leavitt, 15 N. Y. 9 (1857). After passage of the National Bank Act of 1864, cases involving interstate loans begin to appear with some frequency in federal courts. See, e. g., In re Wild, 29 F. Cas. 1211 (No. 17,645) (SDNY 1873); Cadle v. Tracy, 4 F. Cas. 967 (No. 2,279) (SDNY 1873); Farmers’ Nat. Bank v. McElhinney, 42 F. 801 (SD Iowa 1890); Second Nat. Bank of Leavenworth v. Smoot, 9 D. C. 371 (1876).
We cannot assume that Congress was oblivious to the existence of such common commercial transactions. We find it implausible to conclude, therefore, that Congress meant through its silence to exempt interstate loans from the reach of § 30. We would certainly be exceedingly reluctant to read such a hiatus into the regulatory scheme of § 30 in the absence of evidence of specific congressional intent. Petitioners have adduced no such evidence.
Petitioners’ final argument is that the “exportation” of interest rates, such as occurred in this case, will significantly impair the ability of States to enact effective usury laws. This impairment, however, has always been implicit in the structure of the National Bank Act, since citizens of one State were free to visit a neighboring State to receive credit at foreign interest rates. Cf. 38 Cong. Globe, 38th Cong., 1st Sess., 2123 (1864). This impairment may in fact be accentuated by the ease with which interstate credit is available by mail through the use of modem credit cards. But the protection of state usury laws is an issue of legislative policy, and any plea to alter § 85 to further that end is better addressed to the wisdom of Congress than to the judgment of this Court.
Affirmed.
Section 85 states in pertinent part:
“Any association may take, receive, reserve, and charge on any loan or discount made, or upon any notes, bills of exchange, or other evidences of debt, interest at the rate allowed by the laws of the State, Territory, or District where the bank is located, or at a rate of 1 per centum in excess of the discount rate on ninety-day commercial paper in effect at the Federal reserve bank hi the Federal reserve district where the bank is located, or in the case of business or agricultural loans in the amount of $25,000 or more, at a rate of 5 per centum in excess of the discount rate on ninety-day commercial paper in effect at the Federal Reserve bank in the Federal Reserve district where the bank is located, whichever may be the greater, and no more, except that where by the laws of any State a different rate is limited for banks organized under State laws, the rate so limited shall be allowed for associations organized or existing in any such State under this chapter.” See §§ 201, 206 of Pub. L. 93-501, 88 Stat. 1558, 1560.
The National Bank Act, Rev. Stat. § 5134, 12 U. S. C. § 22, provides that a national bank must create an “organization certificate” which specifically states “[t]he place where its operations of discount and deposit are to be carried on, designating the State, Territory, or District, and the particular county and city, town, or village.”
See Neb. Rev. Stat. §§ 8-815 to 8-823, 8-825 to 8-829 (1974). Omaha Bank assesses a finance charge on the daily outstanding balance of cash advances and on the entire previous balance of purchases of goods or services before deducting any payments made during the billing cycle. No finance charges are imposed, however, on the purchases portion of the account balance when the previous month’s total balance is paid in full on or before the due date shown on the monthly statement. See Stipulation of Facts, App. 93a-94a.
Minnesota Stat. §48.185 (1978) provides in pertinent part:
“Subdivision 1. Any bank organized under the laws of this state, any national banking association doing business in this state, and any savings bank organized and operated pursuant to Chapter 50, may extend credit through an open end loan account arrangement with a debtor, pursuant to which the debtor may obtain loans from time to time by cash advances, purchase or satisfaction of the obligations of the debtor incurred pursuant to a credit card plan, or otherwise under a credit card or overdraft checking plan.
“Subd. 3. A bank or savings bank may collect a periodic rate of finance charge in connection with extensions of credit pursuant to this section, which rate does not exceed one percent per month computed on an amount no greater than the average daily balance of the account during each monthly billing cycle. If the billing cycle is other than monthly, the maximum finance charge for that billing cycle shall be that percentage which bears the same relation to one percent as the number of days in the billing cycle bears to 30.
“Subd. 4. No charges other than those provided for in subdivision 3 shall be made directly or indirectly for any credit extended under the authority of this section, except that there may be charged to the debtor:
“(a) Annual charges, not to exceed $15 per annum, payable in advance, for the privilege of using a bank credit card which entitled the debtor to purchase goods or services from merchants, under an arrangement pursuant to which the debts resulting from the purchases are paid or satisfied by the bank or savings bank and charged to the debtor’s open end loan account with the bank or savings bank....
“Subd. 5. If the balance in a revolving loan account under a credit card plan is attributable solely to purchases of goods or services charged to the account during one billing cycle, and the account is paid in full before the due date of the first statement issued after the end of that billing cycle, no finance charge shall be charged on that balance.
“Subd. 6. This section shall apply to all open end credit transactions of a bank or savings bank in extending credit under an open end loan account or other open end credit arrangement to persons who are residents of this state, if the bank or savings bank induces such persons to enter into such arrangements by a continuous and- systematic solicitation either personally or by an agent or by mail, and retail merchants and banks or savings banks within this state are contractually bound to honor credit cards issued by the bank or savings bank, and the goods, services and loans are delivered or furnished in this state and payment is made from this state. A term of a writing or credit card device executed or signed by a person to evidence an open end credit arrangement specifying:
“(a) that the law of another state shall apply;
“(b) that the person consents to the jurisdiction of another state; and
“(c) which fixes venue;
“is invalid with respect to open end credit transactions to which this section applies. An open end credit arrangement made in another state with a person who was a resident of that state when the open end credit arrangement was made is valid and enforceable in this state according to its terms to the extent that it is valid and enforceable under the laws of the state applicable to the transaction.
“Subd. 7. Any bank or savings bank extending credit in compliance with the provisions of this section, which is injured competitively by violations of this section by another bank or savings bank, may institute a civil action in the district court of this state against that bank or savings bank for an injunction prohibiting any violation of this section. The court, upon proper proof that the defendant has engaged in any practice in violation of this section, may enjoin the future commission of that practice. Proof of monetary damage or loss of profits shall not be required.... The relief provided in this subdivision is in addition to remedies otherwise available against the same conduct under the common law or statutes of this state.”
See Minn. Stat. § 48.185 (4) (a) (1978), supra, n. 4.
Marquette is petitioner in No. 77-1265.
The principal banking offices of Marquette are located in the County of Hennepin in the State of Minnesota. See n. 2, supra.
Marquette also asked for compensator}'' and punitive damages. App. 16a.
The principal offices of Omaha Service Corp. are located in Omaha, Neb.
Omaha Service Corp. does, however, accept assignments of delinquent accounts from Omaha Bank and, as an incident to collecting these accounts, does collect interest. Id.., at 94a.
The venue provision of the National Bank Act, Rev. Stat. § 5198, 12 U. S. C. § 94, states:
“Suits, actions and proceedings against any association under this chapter may be had in any district.or Territorial court of the United States held within the district in which such association may be established, or in any State, county, or municipal court in the county or city in which said association is located having jurisdiction in similar cases.”
See n. 4, supra.
See n. 1, supra.
The State of Minnesota is petitioner in No. 77-1258.
Defendant Credit Bureau of St. Paul, Inc., was not named as an addressee of the injunction, and it is not before this Court.
In its opinion the Eighth Circuit relied upon the decision of the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in Fisher v. First Nat. Bank of Chicago, 538 F. 2d 1284 (1976).
The Supreme Court of Iowa has since reached a contrary conclusion. See Iowa ex rel. Turner v. First of Omaha Service Corp., 269 N. W. 2d 409 (1978), appeal docketed, No. 78-846.
We reject respondent’s argument that the petitions are untimely. The opinion of the Minnesota Supreme Court was filed on November 10, 1977. Petitioners filed a timely petition for rehearing, which, under Minnesota law, defers the entry of judgment until after the disposition of the petition. See Minn. Rules Civ. App. Proc. 136.02, 140. The petition for rehearing was denied on December 8, 1977; judgment was entered on December 14, 1977, by way of a separate document stating that “the order and judgment of the Court below, 'herein appealed from,... be and the same hereby is in all things reversed.” App. H to Pet. for Cert, in No. 77-1265. Petitions for certiorari were filed in this Court on March 13, 1978, within the 90 days “after the entry of such judgment or decree” allotted by 28 U. S. C. §2101 (c). See Puget Sound Power & Light Co. v. King County, 264 U. S. 22, 24-25 (1924); Commissioner v. Estate of Bedford, 325 U. S. 283, 284-288 (1945).
We have no occasion in this case to parse the meaning of the phrase in § 85 “associations organized or existing in any such State (Emphasis added.) This phrase occurs in the “except” clause of § 85, which, at least since Tiffany v. National Bank of Missouri, 18 Wall. 409 (1874), has been interpreted as an “enabling” clause. “If there is a rate of interest fixed by State laws for lenders generally, the banks are allowed to charge that rate, but no more, except that if State banks of issue are allowed to reserve more, the same privilege is allowed to National banking ássocia-tions.” Id., at 411. Since there is in this case no allegation or proof that Minnesota state banks are “allowed to reserve more” than the rate of interest “for lenders generally,” we need not determine the relationship of the phrase “organized or existing” to the term “located.”
There is no contention that Omaha Bank could qualify to operate a branch bank in Minnesota under the grandfather provisions of 12 U. S. C. §36 (a).
Although Nebraska law prohibits branch banking, it permits the establishment of not more than two “detached auxiliary teller offices” which must be maintained “within the corporate limits of the city in which such bank is located.” Neb. Rev. Stat. §§8-157 (1) and (2) (1977). Nebraska also permits banks to operate manned or unmanned “electronic satellite facilities.” §8-157 (3). There is no contention in this case that Omaha Bank operates such facilities in the State of Minnesota.
Last Term Citizens & Southern Nat. Bank v. Bougas, 434 U. S. 35 (1977), held that, with respect to the venue provision of the National Bank Act, 12 U. S. C. § 94, supra, n. 11, a national bank is “located” either in the place designated in its “organization certificate,” 12 ü. S. C. § 22, supra, n. 2, or in the places in which it has established authorized branches. Omaha Bank is thus also “located” in Nebraska for purposes of 12 U. S. C. § 94.
Although the Act of June 3, 1864, ch. 106, 13 Stat. 99, was originally entitled "An Act to Provide a National Currency...,” its title was altered by Congress in 1874 to "the national-bank act.” Ch. 343, 18 Stat. 123.
Section 30 was, in its pertinent parts, virtually identical with the current § 85. Section 30 stated:
“[E]very association may take, reserve, receive, and charge on any loan, or discount made, or upon any note, bill of exchange, or other evidences of debt, interest at the rate allowed by the laws of the state or territory where the bank is located, and no more, except that where by the laws of any state a different rate is limited for banks of issue organized under state laws, the rate so limited shall be allowed for associations organized in any such state under this act.”
Section 30 was preceded by § 46 of the National Currency Act of 1863, 12 Stat. 678, which provided:
“[E]very association may take, reserve, receive, and charge on any loan, or discount made, or upon any note, bill of exchange, or other evidence of debt, such rate of interest or discount as is for the time the established rate of interest for delay in the payment of money, in the absence of contract between the parties, by the laws of the several States in which the associations are respectively located, and no more....”
Once again, there is no allegation in these cases that either Omaha Service Corp. or any of the Minnesota merchants or banks participating in Omaha Bank’s BankAmericard program are themselves extending credit in violation of Minn. Stat. § 48.185 (1978).
In their stipulation of facts, the parties describe the operation of the BankAmericard program as follows:
“HI
“While participating Minnesota banks will not have the authority to issue cards or extend credit directly in connection with BankAmericard transactions, they will advertise the BankAmericard plan and solicit applications for BankAmericards from Minnesota residents which are then forwarded to First National Bank of Omaha for acceptance or rejection, and they will serve as a depository for BankAmericard sales drafts deposited by participating merchants with whom defendant First of Omaha Service Corporation has member agreements.
“V
“Minnesota cardholders wishing to purchase goods and services or obtain cash advances with a BankAmericard issued by the First National Bank of Omaha, sign a BankAmericard form evidencing the transaction which is authenticated by the cardholder’s BankAmericard credit card, and exchange
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 question regarding the applicability of 18 U. S. C. § 1304, which provides:
“Whoever broadcasts by means of any radio station for which a license is required by any law of the United States, or whoever, operating any such station, knowingly permits the broadcasting of, any advertisement of or information concerning any lottery, gift enterprise, or similar scheme, offering prizes dependent in whole or in part upon lot or chance, or any list of the prizes drawn or awarded by means of any such lottery, gift enterprise, or scheme, whether said list contains any part or all of such prizes, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.”
Jersey Cape, a licensed radio station in New Jersey, sued for declaratory relief before the Federal Communications Commission arguing that § 1304 should not apply to the broadcast of the winning number in a lawful state-run lottery such as the one conducted by the State of New Jersey. See N. J. Stat. Ann. § 5:9-1 et seg. (1973). The Commission denied relief. 30 F. C. C. 2d 794 (1971). Upon a petition for rehearing, the New Jersey Lottery Commission was allowed to intervene and the FCC reaffirmed its denial. 36 F. C. C. 2d 93 (1972). The Lottery Commission petitioned for review in the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 491 F. 2d 219 (1974), and the States of New Hampshire and Pennsylvania were granted permission to intervene as petitioners, id., at 221 n. 2. Sitting en banc, the Third Circuit unanimously reversed the FCC. We granted certiorari to resolve an apparent conflict between that decision and the decision by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit in New York State Broadcasters Assn. v. United States, 414 F. 2d 990 (1969).
Subsequent to the briefing and oral argument of the case in this Court, Congress passed and the President signed Pub. L. 93-583, 88 Stat. 1916, codified at 18 U. S. C. § 1307 (1970 ed., Supp. IV), which, in relevant part, provides:
“(a) The provisions of section . . . 1304 shall not apply to an advertisement, list of prizes, or information concerning a lottery conducted by a State acting under the authority of State law—
“(2) broadcast by a radio or television station licensed to a location in that State or an adjacent State which conducts such a lottery.”
The United States now urges us to dismiss this case as moot. It points out that the only relief requested was by a broadcaster located in New Jersey, a State that conducts an authorized lottery, and therefore the type of broadcast at issue is now allowed by statute. Intervenor, the State of New Hampshire disputes the suggestion of mootness. New Hampshire argues that the amendment to § 1304 does not grant it full relief. It is noted that Vermont, an adjacent State, does not conduct a state-authorized lottery. Thus, Vermont broadcasters will not be allowed, under § 1304, as modified by § 1307, to broadcast to New Hampshire listeners the winning numbers in the New Hampshire state lottery. New Hampshire apparently believes that this limitation constitutes a denial of First Amendment rights. This specific issue, however, was not briefed or argued in this Court.
In view of the enactment of § 1307, we deem it appropriate to remand to the Court of Appeals so that it may consider whether the case is now moot. Accordingly, the judgment below is vacated and the case is remanded.
It is so ordered.
The Chief Justice took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
Applicant Doherty was convicted in federal court of smuggling marihuana. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed. Doherty’s retained counsel, who had represented him both at trial and on appeal, withdrew after the appellate decision because Doherty was without funds to pay for legal services. Without opinion the Court of Appeals denied Doherty’s pro s.e motion for appointment of counsel to assist in preparing a petition for writ of certiorari. Doherty has now filed a motion in this Court seeking appointment of counsel for that purpose. We treat the motion for appointment of counsel as a petition for writ of certiorari seeking review of the Court of Appeals’ order denying the appointment.
The Court of Appeals has a rule that counsel appointed for indigent appellants must, after adverse decision in the Court of Appeals, inform his client of the right to seek review in this Court and, if the client so desires, prepare a petition for certiorari. In denying Doherty’s motion for counsel, the Court of Appeals apparently determined that its rule was of no help to Doherty, whose counsel had been retained rather than appointed. We defer to that court's construction of its own rule. However, it is not clear that the court also considered Doherty’s motion in the light of the provisions of the Criminal Justice Act of 1964 insofar as they may be relevant to a federal prisoner’s right to have counsel’s help in seeking certiorari in this Court. 18 U. S. C. §§ 3006A (c), 3006A (d)(6), 3006A (g). See also H. R. Rep. No. 1709, 88th Cong., 2d Sess., 7 (1964); Report of the Proceedings of a Special Session of the Judicial Conference of the United States, 36 F. R. D. 282, 291 (1965); Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 44 (a). In order that the Court of Appeals may give further consideration to the request for counsel, Doherty’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is granted, the petition for certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals affirming Doherty’s conviction and its order denying appointment of counsel are vacated, and the case is remanded to that court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion, including re-entry of its judgment of affirmance and appropriate reconsideration of the motion for appointment of counsel.
So ordered.
The Ninth Circuit rule provides:
“Following decision on appeal, if the appeal is unsuccessful, counsel appointed shall advise the defendant of his right to initiate a further review by the filing of a petition for certiorari, and, if requested to do so by the defendant, file such petition. If the defendant does not desire to seek certiorari, counsel shall file with the Clerk a statement to that effect, signed by counsel and the defendant. If the defendant refuses to sign, counsel shall so state.” Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, App. 4 (c).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Douglas
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case petitioner was charged on four counts of an indictment with the making and filing of false non-Communist affidavits required by § 9 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, as amended by the Taft-Hartley Act, 61 Stat. 136, 146, and further amended by the Act of Oct. 22, 1951, § 1 (d), 65 Stat. 601, 602. The indictment charged that the affidavits were false writings or documents made and executed in Colorado and filed in Washington, D. C., with the National Labor Relations Board.
Petitioner was convicted and on appeal the judgment of conviction was reversed for a new trial. 247 F. 2d 130. Petitioner was tried a second time and again convicted. This time the judgment was affirmed on appeal, one judge dissenting. 269 F. 2d 928. The case is here on a writ of certiorari. 363 U. S. 801.
Before the first trial, petitioner moved to dismiss the indictment on the ground that venue was improperly laid in Colorado. The District Court denied the motion. Although the Court of Appeals reversed on another ground on petitioner’s first appeal, it specifically approved the laying of venue in Colorado (247 F. 2d 130, 133-134) recognizing that its ruling was in conflict with that in United States v. Valenti, 207 F. 2d 242 (C. A. 3d Cir.). It is solely to this issue that we address ourselves.
It is agreed that the affidavits were executed by petitioner as a union officer in Colorado and mailed there to the Board in Washington, D. C., where they were received and filed. The prosecution contends — and it was held below — that the offense was begun in Colorado and completed in the District of Columbia. In that view venue was properly laid in Colorado by virtue of 18 U. S. C. § 3237 (a) which provides:
“Except as otherwise expressly provided by enactment of Congress, any offense against the United States begun in one district and completed in another . . . may be inquired of and prosecuted in any district in which such offense was begun ... or completed.”
We start with the provision of Art. Ill, § 2 of the Constitution that criminal trials “shall be held in the State where the said crimes shall have been committed,” a safeguard reinforced by the command of the Sixth Amendment that the criminal trial shall be before an impartial jury of “the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed.” We start also with the assumption that Colorado, the residence of petitioner, might offer conveniences and advantages to him which a trial in the District of Columbia might lack. We are also aware that venue provisions in Acts of Congress should not be so freely construed as to give the Government the choice of “a tribunal favorable” to it. United States v. Johnson, 323 U. S. 273, 275. We therefore begin our inquiry from the premise that questions of venue are more than matters of mere procedure. “They raise deep issues of public policy in the light of which legislation must be construed.” United States v. Johnson, supra, 276.
Where various duties are imposed, some to be performed at a distant place, others at home, the Court has allowed the prosecution to fix the former as the venue of trial. Johnston v. United States, 351 U. S. 215, 222. The use of agencies of interstate commerce enables Congress to place venue in any district where the particular agency was used. Armour Packing Co. v. United States, 209 U. S. 56. “The constitutional requirement is as to the locality of the offense and not the personal presence of the offender.” Id., at 76. Where the language of the Act defining venue has been construed to mean that Congress created a continuing offense, it is held, for venue purposes, to have been committed wherever the wrongdoer roamed. United States v. Cores, 356 U. S. 405. And see Brown v. Elliott, 225 U. S. 392. The decisions are discrete, each looking to the nature of the crime charged. Thus, while the use of the mails might be thought to allow venue to be laid either at the sending or receiving end, the trial was recently restricted to the district of the sender, in light of the constitutional provisions already mentioned and the phrasing of a particular criminal statute. United States v. Johnson, supra, 277-278. Where Congress is not explicit, “the locus delicti must be determined from the nature of the crime alleged and the location of the act or acts constituting it.” United States v. Anderson, 328 U. S. 699, 703.
Section 9 (h) of the National Labor Relations Act, with which we are concerned, did not require union officers to file non-Communist affidavits. If it had, the whole process of filing, including the use of the mails, might logically be construed to constitute the offense. But this statutory design is different. It requires that the Board shall make no investigation nor issue any complaint in the matters described in § 9 (h) “unless there is on file with the Board” a non-Communist affidavit of each union officer. The filings are conditions precedent to a union’s use of the Board’s procedures. Leedom v. International Union, 352 U. S. 145, 148. The false statement statute, under which the prosecution is brought, penalizes him who knowingly makes any “false” statement “in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States.” There would seem to be no offense, unless petitioner completed the filing in the District of Columbia. The statute demanded that the affidavits be on file with the Board before it could extend help to the union; the forms prescribed by the Board required the filing in the District of Columbia; the indictment charged that petitioner filed the affidavits there. The words of the Act— “unless there is on file with the Board” — suggest to us that the filing must be completed before there is a “matter within the jurisdiction” of the Board within the meaning of the false statement statute. When § 9 (h) provides the criminal penalty, it makes the penal provisions applicable “to such affidavits,” viz., to those “on file with the Board.”
The Government admits that the filing is necessary to the “occurrence” of the offense, but it argues that the offense has its “beginning” in Colorado, because it was there that “the defendant had irrevocably set in motion and placed beyond his control the train of events which would normally result (and here did result) in the consummation of the offense.” We do not agree with this analysis. Yenue should not be made to depend on the chance use of the mails, when Congress has so carefully indicated the locus of the crime. After mailing, the affidavit might have been lost; petitioner himself might have recalled it. Multiple venue in general requires crimes consisting of “distinct parts” or involving “a continuously moving act.” United States v. Lombardo, 241 U. S. 73, 77. When a place is explicitly designated where a paper must be filed, a prosecution for failure to file lies only at that place. Id., at 76-78. The theory of that case was followed in United States v. Valenti, supra, where Judge Maris stated that no false statement has been made within the jurisdiction of the Board “until the affidavit through its filing has become the basis for action by the Board.” Id., at 244.
We think that is the correct view when 18 U. S. C. § 3237 is read in light of the constitutional requirements and the explicit provision of § 9 (h). The locus of the offense has been carefully specified; and only the single act of having a false statement at a specified place is penalized. The rationale of United States v. Lombardo, supra, a case involving a failure to file, is therefore equally applicable here. We conclude that venue lay only in the District of Columbia.
Petitioner also brought here two companion cases arising out of the same trial. In No. 3 he asked for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. In No. 71 he moved a second time for a new trial on the ground of newly discovered evidence. We granted the petitions in these cases as they were protective of petitioner’s rights in the main litigation. 363 U. S. 801. But since our holding in the main case is that venue was improperly laid in Colorado, the judgment of conviction must be set aside. Accordingly the orders in Nos. 3 and 71 denying new trials' have become moot and are vacated in the customary manner. In No. 10 the judgment is
Reversed.
There are two companion eases, No. 3, Travis v. United States, and No. 71, Travis v. United States, in which we also granted certio-rari and which present phases of the main case. We discuss them near the close of the opinion.
This section, which was repealed by § 201 (d) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959, 73 Stat. 519, 525, provided:
“No investigation shall be made by the Board of any question affecting commerce concerning the representation of employees, raised by a labor organization under subsection (c) of this section, and no complaint shall be issued pursuant to a charge made by a labor organization under subsection (b) of section 10, unless there is on file with the Board an affidavit executed contemporaneously or within the preceding twelve-month period by each officer of such labor organization and the officers of any national or international labor organization of which it is an affiliate or constituent unit that he is not a member of the Communist Party or affiliated with such party, and that he does not believe in, and is not a member of or supports any organization that believes in or teaches, the overthrow of the United States Government by force or by any illegal or unconstitutional methods. The provisions of section 35 A of the Criminal Code shall be applicable in respect to such affidavits.” (Italics added.)
Section 35 (A) of the Criminal Code was repealed by § 21 of the Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 683, 862, and is now covered, so far as we are now concerned, by 18 U. S. C. § 1001, which provides:
“Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any department or agency of the United States knowingly and willfully falsifies, conceals or covers up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any false, fictitious or fraudulent statements or representations, or makes or uses any false writing or document knowing the same to contain any false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” (Italics added.)
Under the regulations in force at the time of filing, petitioner’s affidavit was required to be on file with the General Counsel of the National Labor Relations Board in Washington, D. C. 29 CFR § 101.3 (b) (since deleted, see 24 Fed. Reg. 7501 (Sept. 17,1959)).
See note 2, supra.
See 18 U. S. C. § 1001, note 2, supra.
See 18 U. S. C. § 1001, note 2, supra.
See note 2, supra.
39 CFR §43.6 (a) provides: "Mail deposited in a post office may be recalled by the sender, by the parent or guardian of a minor child, or by the guardian of a person of unsound mind.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Breyer
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Frank G. Spisak, Jr., the respondent, was convicted in an Ohio trial court of three murders and two attempted murders. He was sentenced to death. He filed a habeas corpus petition in federal court, claiming that constitutional errors occurred at his trial. First, Spisak claimed that the jury instructions at the penalty phase unconstitutionally required the jury to consider in mitigation only those factors that the jury unanimously found to be mitigating. See Mills v. Maryland, 486 U. S. 367 (1988). Second, Spisak claimed that he suffered significant harm as a result of his counsel’s inadequate closing argument at the penalty phase of the proceeding. See Strickland v. Washington, 466 U. S. 668 (1984). The Federal Court of Appeals accepted these arguments and ordered habeas relief. We now reverse the Court of Appeals.
I
In 1983, an Ohio jury convicted Spisak of three murders and two attempted murders at Cleveland State University in 1982. The jury recommended, and the judge imposed, a death sentence. The Ohio courts denied Spisak’s claims, both on direct appeal and on collateral review. State v. Spisak, 36 Ohio St. 3d 80, 521 N. E. 2d 800 (1988) (per curiam); State v. Spisak, No. 67229, 1995 WL 229108 (Ohio App., 8th Dist., Cuyahoga Cty., Apr. 13, 1995); State v. Spisak, 73 Ohio St. 3d 151, 652 N. E. 2d 719 (1995) (per curiam).
Spisak then sought a federal writ of habeas corpus. Among other claims, he argued that the sentencing phase of his trial violated the U. S. Constitution for the two reasons we consider here. The District Court denied his petition. Spisak v. Coyle, Case No. 1:95CV2675 (ND Ohio, Apr. 18, 2003), App. to Pet. for Cert. 95a. But the Court of Appeals accepted Spisak’s two claims, namely, his mitigation instruction claim and his ineffeetive-assistance-of-counsel claim. Spisak v. Mitchell, 465 F. 3d 684, 703-706, 708-711 (CA6 2006). The Court of Appeals consequently ordered the District Court to issue a conditional writ of habeas corpus forbidding Spisak’s execution. Id., at 715-716.
The State of Ohio then sought certiorari in this Court. We granted the petition and vacated the Court of Appeals’ judgment. Hudson v. Spisak, 552 U. S. 945 (2007). We remanded the case for further consideration in light of two recent cases in which this Court had held that lower federal courts had not properly taken account of the deference federal law grants state-court determinations on federal habeas review. Ibid.; see 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d); Carey v. Musladin, 549 U. S. 70 (2006); Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U. S. 465 (2007). On remand, the Sixth Circuit reinstated its earlier opinion. Spisak v. Hudson, 512 F. 3d 852, 853-854 (2008). The State again sought certiorari. We again granted the petition. And we now reverse.
II
Spisak’s first claim concerns the instructions and verdict forms that the jury received at the sentencing phase of his trial. The Court of Appeals held the sentencing instructions unconstitutional because, in its view, the instructions, taken together with the forms, “require[d]” juror “unanimity as to the presence of a mitigating factor” — contrary to this Court’s holding in Mills v. Maryland, supra. 465 F. 3d, at 708. Since the parties do not dispute that the Ohio courts “adjudicated” this claim, i. e., they considered and rejected it “on the merits,” the law permits a federal court to reach a contrary decision only if the state-court decision “was contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1). Unlike the Court of Appeals, we conclude that Spisak’s claim does not satisfy this standard.
The parties, like the Court of Appeals, assume that Mills sets forth the pertinent “clearly established Federal law.” While recognizing some uncertainty as to whether Mills was “clearly established Federal law” for the purpose of reviewing the Ohio Supreme Court’s opinion, we shall assume the same. Compare Williams v. Taylor, 529 U. S. 362, 390 (2000) (Stevens, J., for the Court) (applicable date for purposes of determining whether “Federal law” is “established” is when the “state-court conviction became final”), with id., at 412 (O’Connor, J., for the Court) (applicable date is “the time of the relevant state-court decision”); see State v. Spisak, 36 Ohio St. 3d 80, 521 N. E. 2d 800 (decided Apr. 13, 1988), cert. denied, 489 U. S. 1071 (decided Mar. 6, 1989); Mills v. Maryland, supra (decided June 6, 1988).
A
The rule the Court set forth in Mills is based on two well-established principles. First, the Constitution forbids imposition of the death penalty if the sentencing judge or jury is “‘“precluded from considering, as a mitigating factor, any aspect of a defendant’s character or record and any of the circumstances of the offense that the defendant proffers as a basis for a sentence less than death.” ’ ” 486 U. S., at 374 (quoting Eddings v. Oklahoma, 455 U. S. 104, 110 (1982), in turn quoting Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U. S. 586, 604 (1978) (plurality opinion)). Second, the sentencing judge or jury “ ‘may not refuse to consider or he prechided from considering “any relevant mitigating evidence.” ’ ” Mills, 486 U. S., at 374-375 (quoting Skipper v. South Carolina, 476 U. S. 1, 4 (1986), in turn quoting Eddings, supra, at 114).
Applying these principles, the Court held that the jury instructions and verdict forms at issue in the case violated the Constitution because, read naturally, they told the jury that it could not find a particular circumstance to be mitigating unless all 12 jurors agreed that the mitigating circumstance had been proved to exist. Mills, 486 U. S., at 380-381, 384. If, for example, the defense presents evidence of three potentially mitigating considerations, some jurors may believe that only the first is mitigating, some only the second, and some only the third. But if even one of the jurors believes that one of the three mitigating considerations exists, but that he is barred from considering it because the other jurors disagree, the Court held, the Constitution forbids imposition of the death penalty. See id., at 380, 384; see also McKoy v. North Carolina, 494 U. S. 433, 442-443 (1990) (“Mills requires that each juror be permitted to consider and give effect to . . . all mitigating evidence in deciding . . . whether aggravating circumstances outweigh mitigating circumstances . . . ”). Because the instructions in Mills would have led a reasonable juror to believe the contrary, the Court held that the sentencing proceeding violated the Constitution. 486 U. S., at 374-375.
B
In evaluating the Court of Appeals’ determination here, we have examined the jury instructions and verdict forms at issue in Mills and compared them with those used in the present case. In the Mills sentencing phase, the trial judge instructed the jury to fill out a verdict form that had three distinct parts. Section I set forth a list of 10 specific aggravating circumstances next to which were spaces where the jury was to mark “yes” or “no.” Just above the list, the form said:
“Based upon the evidence we unanimously find that each of the following aggravating circumstances which is marked ‘yes’ has been proven . . . and each aggravating circumstance which is marked ‘no’ has not been proven....” Id., at 384-385 (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted).
Section II set forth a list of eight potentially mitigating circumstances (seven specific circumstances and the eighth designated as “other”) next to which were spaces where the jury was to mark “yes” or “no.” Just above the list the form said:
“Based upon the evidence we unanimously find that each of the following mitigating circumstances which is marked ‘yes’ has been proven to exist . . . and each mitigating circumstance marked ‘no’ has not been proven ....” Id., at 387 (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted).
Section III set forth the overall balancing question, along with spaces for the jury to mark “yes” or “no.” It said:
“Based on the evidence we unanimously find that it has been proven . . . that the mitigating circumstances marked ‘yes’ in Section II outweigh the aggravating circumstances marked ‘yes’ in Section I.” Id., at 388-389 (emphasis added; internal quotation marks omitted).
Explaining the forms, the judge instructed the jury with an example. He told the jury that it should mark “ ‘yes’ ” on the jury form if it “ ‘unanimously’ ” concluded that an aggravating circumstance had been proved. Id., at 378. Otherwise, he said, “‘of course you must answer no.’” Ibid. (emphasis deleted). These instructions, together with the forms, told the jury to mark “yes” on Section IPs list of mitigating factors only if the jury unanimously concluded that the particular mitigating factor had been proved, and to consider in its weighing analysis in Section III only those mitigating factors marked “yes” in Section II. Thus, as this Court found, the jury was instructed that it could consider in the ultimate weighing of the aggravating and mitigating evidence only the mitigating factors that the jury had unanimously found to exist. See id., at 380-381.
The instructions and jury forms in this case differ significantly from those in Mills. The trial judge instructed the jury that the aggravating factors it would consider were the specifications that the jury had found proved beyond a reasonable doubt at the guilt phase of the trial — essentially, that each murder was committed in a course of conduct including the other crimes, and, for two of the murders, that the murder was committed with the intent to evade apprehension or punishment for another offense. 8 Tr. 2967-2972 (July 19, 1983).
He then explained the concept of a “mitigating factor.” After doing so, he listed examples, including that “the defendant because of a mental disease or defect . . . lacked substantial capacity to appreciate the criminality of his conduct or to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law.” Id., at 2972-2973. The court also told the jury that it could take account of “any other” mitigating consideration it found “relevant to the issue of whether the defendant should be sentenced to death.” Id., at 2973. And he instructed the jury that the State bore the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating factors. Id., at 2965.
With respect to “the procedure” by which the jury should reach its verdict, the judge told the jury only the following:
“[Y]ou, the trial jury, must consider all of the relevant evidence raised at trial, the evidence and testimony received in this hearing and the arguments of counsel. From this you must determine whether, beyond a reasonable doubt, the aggravating circumstances, which [Spisak] has been found guilty of committing in the separate counts are sufficient to outweigh the mitigating factors present in this case.
“If all twelve members of the jury find by proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstance in each separate count outweighs the mitigating factors, then you must return that finding to the Court.
“On the other hand, if after considering all of the relevant evidence raised at trial, the evidence and the testimony received at this hearing and the arguments of counsel, you find that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstances which [Spisak] has been found guilty of committing in the separate counts outweigh the mitigating factors, you will then proceed to determine which of two possible life imprisonment sentences to recommend to the Court.” Id., at 2973-2975.
The judge gave the jury two verdict forms for each aggravating factor. The first of the two forms said:
“ We the jury in this case ... do find beyond a reasonable doubt that the aggravating circumstance . . . was sufficient to outweigh the mitigating factors present in this case.
“ ‘We the jury recommend that the sentence of death be imposed....’” Id., at 2975-2976.
The other verdict form read:
“‘We the jury ... do find that the aggravating circumstances . . . are not sufficient to outweigh the mitigation factors present in this case.
‘“We the jury recommend that the defendant ... be sentenced to life imprisonment....’” Id., at 2976.
The instructions and forms made clear that, to recommend a death sentence, the jury had to find, unanimously and beyond a reasonable doubt, that each of the aggravating factors outweighed any mitigating circumstances. But the instructions did not say that the jury must determine the existence of each individual mitigating factor unanimously. Neither the instructions nor the forms said anything about how — or even whether — the jury should make individual determinations that each particular mitigating circumstance existed. They focused only on the overall balancing question. And the instructions repeatedly told the jury to “considefr] all of the relevant evidence.” Id., at 2974. In our view the instructions and verdict forms did not clearly bring about, either through what they said or what they implied, the circumstance that Mills found critical, namely,
“a substantial possibility that reasonable jurors, upon receiving the judge’s instructions in this case, and in attempting to complete the verdict form as instructed, well may have thought they were precluded from considering any mitigating evidence unless all 12 jurors agreed on the existence of a particular such circumstance.” 486 U. S., at 384.
We consequently conclude that the state court’s decision upholding these forms and instructions was not “contrary to, or... an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States” in Mills. 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1).
We add that the Court of Appeals found the jury instructions unconstitutional for an additional reason, that the instructions “require[d] the jury to unanimously reject a death sentence before considering other sentencing alternatives.” 465 F. 3d, at 709 (citing Mapes v. Coyle, 171 F. 3d 408, 416-417 (CA6 1999)). We have not, however, previously held jury instructions unconstitutional for this reason. Mills says nothing about the matter. Neither the parties nor the courts below referred to Beck v. Alabama, 447 U. S. 625 (1980), or identified any other precedent from this Court setting forth this rule. Cf. Jones v. United States, 527 U. S. 373, 379-384 (1999) (rejecting an arguably analogous claim). But see post, at 158-160 (Stevens, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment). Whatever the legal merits of the rule or the underlying verdict forms in this case were we to consider them on direct appeal, the jury instructions at Spisak’s trial were not contrary to “clearly established Federal law.” 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1).
III
Spisak’s second claim is that his counsel’s closing argument at the sentencing phase of his trial was so inadequate as to violate the Sixth Amendment. To prevail, Spisak must show both that “counsel’s representation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness,” Strickland, 466 U. S., at 688, and that there is a “reasonable probability that, but for counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding would have been different,” id., at 694.
The Ohio Supreme Court held that Spisak’s claim was “not well-taken on the basis of our review of the record.” State v. Spisak, 36 Ohio St. 3d, at 82, 521 N. E. 2d, at 802 (citing, inter alia, Strickland, supra). The District Court concluded that counsel did a constitutionally adequate job and that “[tjhere simply is not a reasonable probability that, absent counsel’s alleged errors, the jury would have concluded that the balance of aggravating and mitigating circumstances did not warrant death.” Spisak v. Coyle, Case No. 1:95CV2675 (ND Ohio, Apr. 18, 2008), App. to Pet. for Cert. 204a. The Court of Appeals, however, reached a contrary conclusion. It held that counsel’s closing argument, measured by “‘an objective standard of reasonableness,’” was inadequate, and it asserted that “a reasonable probability exists” that adequate representation would have led to a different result. Spisak v. Mitchell, 465 F. 3d, at 703, 706 (quoting Strickland, supra, at 688). Responding to the State’s petition for certiorari, we agreed to review the Court of Appeals’ terse finding of a “reasonable probability” that a more adequate argument would have changed a juror’s vote.
In his closing argument at the penalty phase, Spisak’s counsel described Spisak’s killings in some detail. He acknowledged that Spisak’s admiration for Hitler inspired his crimes. He portrayed Spisak as “sick,” “twisted,” and “demented.” 8 Tr. 2896 (July 19, 1983). And he said that Spisak was “never going to be any different.” Ibid. He then pointed out that all the experts had testified that Spisak suffered from some degree of mental illness. And, after a fairly lengthy and rambling disquisition about his own decisions about calling expert witnesses and preparing them, counsel argued that, even if Spisak was not legally insane so as to warrant a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity, he nonetheless was sufficiently mentally ill to lessen his culpability to the point where he should not be executed. Counsel also told the jury that, when weighing Spisak’s mental illness against the “substantial” aggravating factors present in the case, id., at 2924, the jurors should draw on their own sense of “pride” for living in “a humane society” made up of “a humane people,” id., at 2897-2900, 2926-2928. That humanity, he said, required the jury to weigh the evidence “fairly” and to be “loyal to that oath” the jurors had taken to uphold the law Id., at 2926.
Spisak and his supporting amici say that this argument was constitutionally inadequate because: (1) It overly emphasized the gruesome nature of the killings; (2) it overly emphasized Spisak’s threats to continue his crimes; (3) it understated the facts upon which the experts based their mental illness conclusions; (4) it said little or nothing about any other possible mitigating circumstance; and (5) it made no explicit request that the jury return a verdict against death.
We assume for present purposes that Spisak is correct that the closing argument was inadequate. We nevertheless find no “reasonable probability” that a better closing argument without these defects would have made a significant difference.
Any different, more adequate closing argument would have taken place in the following context: Spisak admitted that he had committed three murders and two other shootings. Spisak’s defense at the guilt phase of the trial consisted of an effort by counsel to show that Spisak was not guilty by reason of insanity. And counsel, apparently hoping to demonstrate Spisak’s mentally defective condition, called him to the stand.
Spisak testified that he had shot and killed Horace Rickerson, Timothy Sheehan, and Brian Warford. He also admitted that he had shot and tried to kill John Hardaway, and shot at Coletta Dartt. He committed these crimes, he said, because he was a follower of Adolf Hitler, who was Spisak’s “spiritual leader” in a “war” for “survival” of “the Aryan people.” 4 id., at 1343-1344, 1396 (July 5, 1983). He said that he had purchased guns and stockpiled ammunition to further this war. Id., at 1406-1408. And he had hoped to “create terror” at Cleveland State University, because it was “one of the prime targets” where the “Jews and the system ... are brainwashing the youth.” Id., at 1426-1428.
Spisak then said that in February 1982 he had shot Rickerson, who was black, because Riekerson had made a sexual advance on Spisak in a university bathroom. He expressed satisfaction at having “eliminated that particular threat.. . to me and to the white race.” 5 id., at 1511 (July 7, 1983). In June he saw a stranger, John Hardaway, on a train platform and shot him seven times because he had been looking for a black person to kill as “blood atonement” for a recent crime against two white women. 4 id., at 1416 (July 5, 1983). He added that he felt “good” after shooting Hardaway because he had “accomplished something,” but later felt “[k]ind of bad” when he learned that Hardaway had survived. Id., at 1424-1425. In August 1982, Spisak shot at Coletta Dartt because, he said, he heard her “making some derisive remarks about us,” meaning the Nazi Party. Id., at 1432-1435. Later that August, he shot and killed Timothy Sheehan because he “thought he was one of those Jewish professors . . . that liked to hang around in the men’s room and seduce and pervert and subvert the young people that go there.” 5 id., at 1465-1466 (July 7,1983). Spisak added that he was “sorry about that” murder because he later learned Sheehan “wasn’t Jewish like I thought he was.” Ibid. And three days later, while on a “search and destroy mission,” he shot and killed Brian Warford, a young black man who “looked like he was almost asleep” in a bus shelter, to fulfill his “duty” to “inflict the maximum amount of casualties on the enemies.” Id., at 1454-1455, 1478.
Spisak also testified that he would continue to commit similar crimes if he had the chance. He said about Warford’s murder that he “didn’t want to get caught that time because I wanted to be able to do it again and again and again and again.” Id., at 1699 (July 8, 1983). In a letter written to a friend, he called the murders of'Rickerson and Warford “the finest thing I ever did in my whole life” and expressed a wish that he “had a human submachine gun right now so I could exterminate” black men “and watch them scream and twitch in agony.” Id., at 1724-1725. And he testified that, if he still had his guns, he would escape from jail, “go out and continue the war I started,” and “continue to inflict the maximum amount of damage on the enemies as I am able to do.” Id., at 1780-1781.
The State replied by attempting to show that Spisak was lying in his testimony about the Nazi-related motives for these crimes. The State contended instead that the shootings were motivated by less unusual purposes, such as robbery. See id., at 1680, 1816-1818.
The defense effort to show that Spisak was not guilty by reason of insanity foundered when the trial judge refused to instruct the jury to consider that question and excluded expert testimony regarding Spisak’s mental state. The defense’s expert witness, Dr. Oscar Markey, had written a report diagnosing Spisak as suffering from a “schizotypal personality disorder” and an “atypical psychotic disorder,” and as, at times, “unable to control his impulses to assault.” 6 id., at 1882-1883,1992 (July 11, 1983). His testimony was somewhat more ambiguous during a voir dire, however. On cross-examination, he conceded that he could not say Spisak failed Ohio’s sanity standard at the time of the murders. After Markey made the same concession before the jury, the court granted the prosecution’s renewed motion to exclude Markers testimony and instructed the jury to disregard the testimony that it heard. And the court excluded the defense’s proffered reports from other psychologists and psychiatrists who examined Spisak, because none of the reports said that Spisak met the Ohio insanity standard at the time of the crimes. Id., at 1898-1899, 1911-1912, 1995; id., at 2017, 2022 (July 12, 1983).
During the sentencing phase of the proceedings, defense counsel called three expert witnesses, all of whom testified that Spisak suffered from some degree of mental illness. Dr. Sandra McPherson, a clinical psychologist, said that Spisak suffered from schizotypal and borderline personality disorders characterized by bizarre and paranoid thinking, gender identification conflict, and emotional instability. She added that these defects “substantially impair his ability to conform himself” to the law’s requirements. 8 id., at 2428-2429, 2430-2441 (July 16, 1983). Dr. Kurt Bertschinger, a psychiatrist, testified that Spisak suffered from a schizotypal personality disorder and that “mental illness does impair his reason to the extent that he has substantial inability to know wrongfulness, or substantial inability to refrain.” Id., at 2552-2556. Dr. Markey, whose testimony had been stricken at the guilt phase, again testified and agreed with the other experts’ diagnoses. Id., at 2692-2693, 2712-2713 (July 18, 1983).
In light of this background and for the following reasons, we do not find that the assumed deficiencies in defense counsel’s closing argument raise “a reasonable probability that,” but for the deficient closing, “the result of the proceeding would have been different.” Strickland, 466 U. S., at 694. We therefore cannot find the Ohio Supreme Court’s decision rejecting Spisak’s ineffective-assistance-of-eounsel claim to be an “unreasonable application” of the law “clearly established” in Strickland. § 2254(d)(1).
First, since the sentencing phase took place immediately following the conclusion of the guilt phase, the jurors had fresh in their minds the government’s evidence regarding the killings — which included photographs of the dead bodies, images that formed the basis of defense counsel’s vivid descriptions of the crimes — as well as Spisak’s boastful and unrepentant confessions and his threats to commit further acts of violence. We therefore do not see how a less descriptive closing argument with fewer disparaging comments about Spisak could have made a significant difference.
Similarly fresh in the jurors’ minds was the three defense experts’ testimony that Spisak suffered from mental illness. The jury had heard the experts explain the specific facts upon which they had based their conclusions, as well as what they had learned of his family background and his struggles with gender identity. And the jury had heard the experts draw connections between his mental illness and the crimes. We do not see how it could have made a significant difference had counsel gone beyond his actual argument — which emphasized mental illness as a mitigating factor and referred the jury to the experts’ testimony — by repeating the facts or connections that the experts had just described.
Nor does Spisak tell us what other mitigating factors counsel might have mentioned. All those he proposes essentially consist of aspects of the “mental defect” factor that the defense experts described.
Finally, in light of counsel’s several appeals to the jurors’ sense of humanity — he used the words “humane people” and “humane society” 10 times at various points in the argument — we cannot find that a more explicit or more elaborate appeal for mercy could have changed the result, either alone or together with the other circumstances just discussed. Thus, we conclude that there is not a reasonable probability that a more adequate closing argument would have changed the result, and that the Ohio Supreme Court’s rejection of Spisak’s claim was not “contrary to, or ... an unreasonable application of,” Strickland. 28 U. S. C. §2254(d)(1).
Spisak contends that the deferential standard of review under § 2254(d)(1) should not apply to this claim because the Ohio Supreme Court may not have reached the question whether counsel’s closing argument caused Spisak prejudice. That is, the Ohio Supreme Court’s summary rejection of this claim did not indicate whether that court rested its conclusion upon a finding (1) that counsel was not ineffective, or (2) that a better argument would not have made a difference, or (3) both. See State v. Spisak, 36 Ohio St. 3d, at 82, 521 N. E. 2d, at 802. Spisak argues that, under these circumstances, a federal court should not defer to a state court that may not have decided a question, but instead should decide the matter afresh. Lower federal courts have rejected arguments similar to Spisak’s. See, e. g., Hennon v. Cooper, 109 F. 3d 330, 334-335 (CA7 1997); see also Weeks v. Angelone, 528 U. S. 225, 231, 237 (2000) (applying the § 2254(d) standard in case involving a state court’s summary denial of a claim, though not a Strickland claim, and without full briefing regarding whether or how § 2254(d) applied to a summary decision); Chadwick v. Janecka, 312 F. 3d 597, 605-606 (CA3 2002) (Alito, J.) (relying on Weeks in holding that § 2254(d) applies where a state court denies a claim on the merits without giving any indication how it reached its decision); see generally 2 R. Hertz & J. Liebman, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure §32.2, pp. 1574-1579 (5th ed. 2005 and 2008 Supp.). However, we need not decide whether deference under § 2254(d)(1) is required here. With or without such deference, our conclusion is the same.
For these reasons, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
James and Marilyn Nollan appeal from a decision of the California Court of Appeal ruling that the California Coastal Commission could condition its grant of permission to rebuild their house on their transfer to the public of an easement across their beachfront property. 177 Cal. App. 3d 719, 223 Cal. Rptr. 28 (1986). The California court rejected their claim that imposition of that condition violates the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as incorporated against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. Ibid. We noted probable jurisdiction. 479 U. S. 913 (1986).
I
The Nollans own a beachfront lot in Ventura County, California. A quarter-mile north of their property is Faria County Park, an oceanside public park with a public beach and recreation area. Another public beach area, known locally as “the Cove,” lies 1,800 feet south of their lot. A concrete seawall approximately eight feet high separates the beach portion of the Nollans’ property from the rest of the lot. The historic mean high tide line determines the lot’s oceanside boundary.
The Nollans originally leased their property with an option to buy. The building on the lot was a small bungalow, totaling 504 square feet, which for a time they rented to summer vacationers. After years of rental use, however, the building had fallen into disrepair, and could no longer be rented out.
The Nollans’ option to purchase was conditioned on their promise to demolish the bungalow and replace it. In order to do so, under Cal. Pub. Res. Code Ann. §§ 30106, 30212, and 30600 (West 1986), they were required to obtain a coastal development permit from the California Coastal Commission. On February 25,1982, they submitted a permit application to the Commission in which they proposed to demolish the existing structure and replace it with a three-bedroom house in keeping with the rest of the neighborhood.
The Nollans were informed that their application had been placed on the administrative calendar, and that the Commission staff had recommended that the permit be granted subject to the condition that they allow the public an easement to pass across a portion of their property bounded by the mean high tide line on one side, and their seawall on the other side. This would make it easier for the public to get to Faria County Park and the Cove. The Nollans protested imposition of the condition, but the Commission overruled their objections and granted the permit subject to their recordation of a deed restriction granting the easement. App. 31, 34.
On June 3, 1982, the Nollans filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus asking the Ventura County Superior Court to invalidate the access condition. They argued that the condition could not be imposed absent evidence that their proposed development would have a direct adverse impact on public access to the beach. The court agreed, and remanded the case to the Commission for a full evidentiary hearing on that issue. Id., at 36.
On remand, the Commission held a public hearing, after which it made further factual findings and reaffirmed its imposition of the condition. It found that the new house would increase blockage of the view of the ocean, thus contributing to the development of “a ‘wall’ of residential structures” that would prevent the public “psychologically . . . from realizing a stretch of coastline exists nearby that they have every right to visit.” Id., at 58. The new house would also increase private use of the shorefront. Id., at 59. These effects of construction of the house, along with other area development, would cumulatively “burden the public’s ability to traverse to and along the shorefront.” Id., at 65-66. Therefore the Commission could properly require the Nollans to offset that burden by providing additional lateral access to the public beaches in the form of an easement across their property. The Commission also noted that it had similarly conditioned 43 out of 60 coastal development permits along the same tract of land, and that of the 17 not so conditioned, 14 had been approved when the Commission did not have administrative regulations in place allowing imposition of the condition, and the remaining 3 had not involved shorefront property. Id., at 47-48.
The Nollans filed a supplemental petition for a writ of administrative mandamus with the Superior Court, in which they argued that imposition of the access condition violated the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment, as incorporated against the States by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Superior Court ruled in their favor on statutory grounds, finding, in part to avoid “issues of constitutionality,” that the California Coastal Act of 1976, Cal. Pub. Res. Code Ann. § 30000 et seq. (West 1986), authorized the Commission to impose public access conditions on coastal development permits for the replacement of an existing single-family home with a new one only where the proposed development would have an adverse impact on public access to the sea. App. 419. In the court’s view, the administrative record did not provide an adequate factual basis for concluding that replacement of the bungalow with the house would create a direct or cumulative burden on public access to the sea. Id., at 416-417. Accordingly, the Superior Court granted the writ of mandamus and directed that the permit condition be struck.
The Commission appealed to the California Court of Appeal. While that appeal was pending, the Nollans satisfied the condition on their option to purchase by tearing down the bungalow and building the new house, and bought the property. They did not notify the Commission that they were taking that action.
The Court of Appeal reversed the Superior Court. 177 Cal. App. 3d 719, 223 Cal. Rptr. 28 (1986). It disagreed with the Superior Court’s interpretation of the Coastal Act, finding that it required that a coastal permit for the construction of a new house whose floor area, height or bulk was more than 10% larger than that of the house it was replacing be conditioned on a grant of access. Id., at 723-724, 223 Cal. Rptr., at 31; see Cal. Pub. Res. Code Ann. § 30212. It also ruled that that requirement did not violate the Constitution under the reasoning of an earlier case of the Court of Appeal;, Grupe v. California Coastal Comm’n, 166 Cal. App. 3d 148, 212 Cal. Rptr. 578 (1985). In that case, the court had found that so long as a project contributed to the need for public access, even if the project standing alone had not created the need for access, and even if there was only an indirect relationship between the access exacted and the need to which the project contributed, imposition of an access condition on a development permit was sufficiently related to burdens created by the project to be constitutional. 177 Cal. App. 3d, at 723, 223 Cal. Rptr., at 30-31; see Grupe, supra, at 165-168, 212 Cal. Rptr., at 587-590; see also Remmenga v. California Coastal Comm’n, 163 Cal. App. 3d 623, 628, 209 Cal. Rptr. 628, 631, appeal dism’d, 474 U. S. 915 (1985). The Court of Appeal ruled that the record established that that was the situation with respect to the Nollans’ house. 177 Cal. App. 3d, at 722-723, 223 Cal. Rptr., at 30-31. It ruled that the Nollans’ taking claim also failed because, although the condition diminished the value of the Nollans’ lot, it did not deprive them of all reasonable use of their property. Id., at 723, 223 Cal. Rptr., at 30; see Grupe, supra, at 175-176, 212 Cal. Rptr., at 595-596. Since, in the Court of Appeal’s view, there was no statutory or constitutional obstacle to imposition of the access condition, the Superior Court erred in granting the writ of mandamus. The Nollans appealed to this- Court, raising only the constitutional question.
II
Had California simply required the Nollans to make an easement across their beachfront available to the public on a permanent basis in order to increase public access to the beach, rather than conditioning their permit to rebuild their house on their agreeing to do so, we have no doubt there would have been a taking. To say that the appropriation of a public easement across a landowner’s premises does not constitute the taking of a property interest but rather (as Justice Brennan contends) “a mere restriction on its use,” post, at 848-849, n. 3, is to use words in a manner that deprives them of all their ordinary meaning. Indeed, one of the principal uses of the eminent domain power is to assure that the government be able to require conveyance of just such interests, so long as it pays for them. J. Sackman, 1 Nichols on Eminent Domain §2.1[1] (Rev. 3d ed. 1985), 2 id., § 5.01[5]; see 1 id., §1.42[9], 2 id., § 6.14. Perhaps because the point is so obvious, we have never been confronted with a controversy that required us to rule upon it, but our cases’ analysis of the effect of other governmental action leads to the same conclusion. We have repeatedly held that, as to property reserved by its owner for private use, “the right to exclude [others is] ‘one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property.’” Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U. S. 419, 433 (1982), quoting Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U. S. 164, 176 (1979). In Loretto we observed that where governmental action results in “[a] permanent physical occupation” of the property, by the government itself or by others, see 458 U. S., at 432-433, n. 9, “our cases uniformly have found a taking to the extent of the occupation, without regard to whether the action achieves an important public benefit or has only minimal economic impact on the owner,” id., at 434-435. We think a “permanent physical occupation” has occurred, for purposes of that rule, where individuals are given a permanent and continuous right to pass to and fro, so that the real property may continuously be traversed, even though no particular individual is permitted to station himself permanently upon the premises.
Justice Brennan argues that while this might ordinarily be the case, the California Constitution’s prohibition on any individual’s “excluding] the right of way to [any navigable] water whenever it is required for any public purpose,” Art. X, §4, produces a different result here. Post, at 847-848, see also post, at 855, 857. There are a number of difficulties with that argument. Most obviously, the right of way sought here is not naturally described as one to navigable water (from the street to the sea) but along it; it is at least highly questionable whether the text of the California Constitution has any prima facie application to the situation before us. Even if it does, however, several California cases suggest that Justice Brennan’s interpretation of the effect of the clause is erroneous, and that to obtain easements of access across private property the State must proceed through its eminent domain power. See Bolsa Land Co. v. Burdick, 151 Cal. 254, 260, 90 P. 532, 534-535 (1907); Oakland v. Oakland Water Front Co., 118 Cal. 160, 185, 50 P. 277, 286 (1897); Heist v. County of Colusa, 163 Cal. App. 3d 841, 851, 213 Cal. Rptr. 278, 285 (1984); Aptos Seascape Corp. v. Santa Cruz, 138 Cal. App. 3d 484, 505-506, 188 Cal. Rptr. 191, 204-205 (1982). (None of these cases specifically addressed the argument that Art. X, § 4, allowed the public to cross private property to get to navigable water, but if that provision meant what Justice Brennan believes, it is hard to see why it was not invoked.) See also 41 Op. Cal. Atty. Gen. 39, 41 (1963) (“In spite of the sweeping provisions of [Art. X, § 4], and the injunction therein to the Legislature to give its provisions the most liberal interpretation, the few reported cases in California have adopted the general rule that one may not trespass on private land to get to navigable tidewaters for the purpose of commerce, navigation or fishing”). In light of these uncertainties, and given the fact that, as Justice Blackmun notes, the Court of Appeal did not rest its decision on Art. X, § 4, post, at 865, we should assuredly not take it upon ourselves to resolve this question of California constitutional law in the first instance. See, e. g., Jenkins v. Anderson, 447 U. S. 231, 234, n. 1 (1980). That would be doubly inappropriate since the Commission did not advance this argument in the Court of Appeal, and the Nollans argued in the Superior Court that any claim that there was a pre-existing public right of access had to be asserted through a quiet title action, see Points and Authorities in Support of Motion for Writ of Administrative Mandamus, No. SP50805 (Super. Ct. Cal.), p. 20, which the Commission, possessing, no claim to the easement itself, probably would not have had standing under California law to bring. See Cal. Code Civ. Proc. Ann. § 738 (West 1980).
Given, then, that requiring uncompensated conveyance of the easement outright would violate the Fourteenth Amendment, the question becomes whether requiring it to be conveyed as a condition for issuing a land-use permit alters the outcome. We have long recognized that land-use regulation does not effect a taking if it “substantially advance[s] legitimate state interests” and does not “den[y] an owner economically viable use of his land,” Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U. S. 255, 260 (1980). See also Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104, 127 (1978) (“[A] use restriction may constitute a 'taking’ if not reasonably necessary to the effectuation of a substantial government purpose”). Our cases have not elaborated on the standards for determining what constitutes a “legitimate state interest” or what type of connection between the regulation and the state interest satisfies the requirement that the former “substantially advance” the latter. They have made clear, however, that a broad range of governmental purposes and regulations satisfies these requirements. See Agins v. Tiburon, supra, at 260-262 (scenic zoning); Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, supra (landmark preservation); Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U. S. 365 (1926) (residential zoning); Laitos & Westfall, Government Interference with Private Interests in Public Resources, 11 Harv. Envtl. L. Rev. 1, 66 (1987). The Commission argues that among these permissible purposes are protecting the public’s ability to see the beach, assisting the public in overcoming the “psychological barrier” to using the beach created by a developed shore-front, and preventing congestion on the public beaches. We assume, without deciding, that this is so — in which case the Commission unquestionably would be able to deny the Nollans their permit outright if their new house (alone, or by reason of the cumulative impact produced in conjunction with other construction) would substantially impede these purposes, unless the denial would interfere so drastically with the Nollans’ use of their property as to constitute a taking. See Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, supra.
The Commission argues that a permit condition that serves the same legitimate police-power purpose as a refusal to issue the permit should not be found to be a taking if the refusal to issue the permit would not constitute a taking. We agree. Thus, if the Commission attached to the permit some condition that would have protected the public’s ability to see the beach notwithstanding construction of the new house — for example, a height limitation, a width restriction, or a ban on fences — so long as the Commission could have exercised its police power (as we have assumed it could) to forbid construction of the house altogether, imposition of the condition would also be constitutional. Moreover (and here we come closer to the facts of the present case), the condition would be constitutional even if it consisted of the requirement that the Nollans provide a viewing spot on their property for passersby with whose sighting of the ocean their new house would interfere. Although such a requirement, constituting a permanent grant of continuous access to the property, would have to be considered a taking if it were not attached to a development permit, the Commission’s assumed power to forbid construction of the house in order to protect the public’s view of the beach must surely include the power to condition construction upon some concession by the owner, even a concession of property rights, that serves the same end. If a prohibition designed to accomplish that purpose would be a legitimate exercise of the police power rather than a taking, it would be strange to conclude that providing the owner an alternative to that prohibition which accomplishes the same purpose is not.
The evident constitutional propriety disappears, however, if the condition substituted for the prohibition utterly fails to further the end advanced as the justification for the prohibition. When that essential nexus is eliminated, the situation becomes the same as if California law forbade shouting fire in a crowded theater, but granted dispensations to those willing to contribute $100 to the state treasury. While a ban on shouting fire can be a core exercise of the State’s police power to protect the public safety, and can thus meet even our stringent standards for regulation of speech, adding the unrelated condition alters the purpose to one which, while it may be legitimate, is inadequate to sustain the ban.' Therefore, even though, in a sense, requiring a $100 tax contribution in order to shout fire is a lesser restriction on speech than an outright ban, it would not pass constitutional muster. Similarly here, the lack of nexus between the condition and the original purpose of the building restriction converts that purpose to something other than what it was. The purpose then becomes, quite simply, the obtaining of an easement to serve some valid governmental purpose, but without payment of compensation. Whatever may be the outer limits of “legitimate state interests” in the takings and land-use context, this is not one of them. In short, unless the permit condition serves the same governmental purpose as the development ban, the building restriction is not a valid regulation of land use but “an out-and-out plan of extortion.” J. E. D. Associates, Inc. v. Atkinson, 121 N. H. 581, 584, 432 A. 2d 12, 14-15 (1981); see Brief for United States as Amicus Curiae 22, and n. 20. See also Loretto v. Teleprompter Manhattan CATV Corp., 458 U. S., at 439, n. 17.
Ill
The Commission claims that it concedes as much, and that we may sustain the condition at issue here by finding that it is reasonably related to the public need or burden that the Nollans’ new house creates or to which it contributes. We can accept, for purposes of discussion, the Commission’s proposed test as to how close a “fit” between the condition and the burden is required, because we find that this case does not meet even the most untailored standards. The Commission’s principal contention to the contrary essentially turns on a play on the word “access.” The Nollans’ new house, the Commission found, will interfere with “visual access” to the beach. That in turn (along with other shorefront development) will interfere with the desire of people who drive past the Nollans’ house to use the beach, thus creating a “psychological barrier” to “access.” The Nollans’ new house will also, by a process not altogether clear from the Commission’s opinion but presumably potent enough to more than offset the effects of the psychological barrier, increase the use of the public beaches, thus creating the need for more “access.” These burdens on “access” would be alleviated by a requirement that the Nollans provide “lateral access” to the beach.
Rewriting the argument to eliminate the play on words makes clear that there is nothing to it. It is quite impossible to understand how a requirement that people already on the public beaches be able to walk across the Nollans’ property reduces any obstacles to viewing the beach created by the new house. It is also impossible to understand how it lowers any “psychological barrier” to using the public beaches, or how it helps to remedy any additional congestion on them caused by construction of the Nollans’ new house. We therefore find that the Commission’s imposition of the permit condition cannot be treated as an exercise of its land-use power for any of these purposes. Our conclusion on this point is consistent with the approach taken by every other court that has considered the question, with the exception of the California state courts. See Parks v. Watson, 716 F. 2d 646, 651-653 (CA9 1983); Bethlehem Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Lakewood, 626 P. 2d 668, 671-674 (Colo. 1981); Aunt Hack Ridge Estates, Inc. v. Planning Comm’n, 160 Conn. 109, 117-120, 273 A. 2d 880, 885 (1970); Longboat Key v. Lands End, Ltd., 433 So. 2d 574 (Fla. App. 1983); Pioneer Trust & Savings Bank v. Mount Prospect, 22 Ill. 2d 375, 380, 176 N. E. 2d 799, 802 (1961); Lampton v. Pinaire, 610 S. W. 2d 915, 918-919 (Ky. App. 1980); Schwing v. Baton Rouge, 249 So. 2d 304 (La. App.), application denied, 259 La. 770, 252 So. 2d 667 (1971); Howard County v. JJM, Inc., 301 Md. 256, 280-282, 482 A. 2d 908, 920-921 (1984); Collis v. Bloomington, 310 Minn. 5, 246 N. W. 2d 19 (1976); State ex rel. Noland v. St. Louis County, 478 S. W. 2d 363 (Mo. 1972); Billings Properties, Inc. v. Yellowstone County, 144 Mont. 25, 33-36, 394 P. 2d 182, 187-188 (1964); Simpson v. North Platte, 206 Neb. 240, 292 N. W. 2d 297 (1980); Briar West, Inc. v. Lincoln, 206 Neb. 172, 291 N. W. 2d 730 (1980); J. E. D. Associates v. Atkinson, 121 N. H. 581, 432 A. 2d 12 (1981); Longridge Builders, Inc. v. Planning Bd. of Princeton, 52 N. J. 348, 350-351, 245 A. 2d 336, 337-338 (1968); Jenad, Inc. v. Scarsdale, 18 N. Y. 2d 78, 218 N. E. 2d 673 (1966); MacKall v. White, 85 App. Div. 2d 696, 445 N. Y. S. 2d 486 (1981), appeal denied, 56 N. Y. 2d 503, 435 N. E. 2d 1100 (1982); Frank Ansuini, Inc. v. Cranston, 107 R. I. 63, 68-69, 71, 264 A. 2d 910, 913, 914 (1970); College Station v. Turtle Rock Corp., 680 S. W. 2d 802, 807 (Tex. 1984); Call v. West Jordan, 614 P. 2d 1257, 1258-1259 (Utah 1980); Board of Supervisors of James City County v. Rowe, 216 Va. 128, 136-139, 216 S. E. 2d 199, 207-209 (1975); Jordan v. Menomonee Falls, 28 Wis. 2d 608, 617-618, 137 N. W. 2d 442, 447-449 (1965), appeal dism’d, 385 U. S. 4 (1966). See also Littlefield v. Afton, 785 F. 2d 596, 607 (CA8 1986); Brief for National Association of Home Builders et al. as Amici Curiae 9-16.
Justice Brennan argues that imposition of the access requirement is not irrational. In his version of the Commission’s argument, the reason for the requirement is that in its absence, a person looking toward the beach from the road will see a street of residential structures including the Nollans’ new home and conclude that there is no public beach nearby. If, however, that person sees people passing and repassing along the dry sand behind the Nollans’ home, he will realize that there is a public beach somewhere in the vicinity. Post, at 849-850. The Commission’s action, however, was based on the opposite factual finding that the wall of houses completely blocked the view of the beach and that a person looking from the road would not be able to see it at all. App. 57-59.
Even if the Commission had made the finding that Justice Brennan proposes, however, it is not certain that it would suffice. We do not share Justice Brennan’s confidence that the Commission “should have little difficulty in the future in utilizing its expertise to demonstrate a specific connection between provisions for access and burdens on access,” post, at 862, that will avoid the effect of today’s decision. We view the Fifth Amendment’s Property Clause to be more than a pleading requirement, and compliance with it to be more than an exercise in cleverness and imagination. As indicated earlier, our cases describe the condition for abridgment of property rights through the police power as a “substantial advancing]” of a legitimate state interest. We are inclined to be particularly careful about the adjective where the actual conveyance of property is made a condition to the lifting of a land-use restriction, since in that context there is heightened risk that the purpose is avoidance of the compensation requirement, rather than the stated police-power objective.
We are left, then, with the Commission’s justification for the access requirement unrelated to land-use regulation:
“Finally, the Commission notes that there are several existing provisions of pass and repass lateral access benefits already given by past Faria Beach Tract applicants as a result of prior coastal permit decisions. The access required as a condition of this permit is part of a comprehensive program to provide continuous public access along Faria Beach as the lots undergo development or redevelopment.” App. 68.
That is simply an expression of the Commission’s belief that the public interest will be served by a continuous strip of publicly accessible beach along the coast. The Commission may well be right that it is a good idea, but that does not establish that the Nollans (and other coastal residents) alone can be compelled to contribute to its realization. Rather, California is free to advance its “comprehensive program,” if it wishes, by using its power of eminent domain for this “public purpose,” see U. S. Const., Amdt. 5; but if it wants an easement across the Nollans’ property, it must pay for it.
Reversed.
The holding of PruneYard Shopping Center v. Robins, 447 U. S. 74 (1980), is not inconsistent with this analysis, since there the owner had already opened his property to the general public, and in addition permanent access was not required. The analysis of Kaiser Aetna v. United States, 444 U. S. 164 (1979), is not inconsistent because it was affected by traditional doctrines regarding navigational servitudes. Of course neither of those cases involved, as this one does, a classic right-of-way easement.
Justice Brennan also suggests that the Commission’s public announcement of its intention to condition the rebuilding of houses on the transfer of easements of access caused the Nollans to have “no reasonable claim to any expectation of being able to exclude members of the public” from walking across their beach. Post, at 857-860. He cites our opinion in Ruekelshaus v. Monsanto Co., 467 U. S. 986 (1984), as support for the peculiar proposition that a unilateral claim of entitlement by the government can alter property rights. In Monsanto, however, we found merely that the Takings Clause was not violated by giving effect to the Government’s announcement that application for “the right to [the] valuable Government benefit,” id., at 1007 (emphasis added), of obtaining registration of an insecticide would confer upon the Government a license to use and disclose the trade secrets contained in the application. Id., at 1007-1008. See also Bowen v. Gilliard, ante, at 605. But the right to build on one’s own property — even though its exercise can be subjected to legitimate permitting requirements — cannot remotely be described as a “governmental benefit.” And thus the announcement that the application for (or granting of) the permit will entail the yielding of a property interest cannot be regarded as establishing the voluntary “exchange,” 467 U. S., at 1007, that we found to have occurred in Monsanto. Nor are the Nollans’ rights altered because they acquired the land well after the Commission had begun to implement its policy. So long as the Commission could not have deprived the prior owners of the easement without compensating them, the prior owners must be understood to have transferred their full property rights in conveying the lot.
Contrary to Justice Brennan’s claim, post, at 843, our opinions do not establish that these standards are the same as those applied to due process or equal protection claims. To the contrary, our verbal formulations in the takings field have generally been quite different. We have required that the regulation “substantially advance” the “legitimate state interest” sought to be achieved, Agins v. Tiburon, 447 U. S. 255, 260 (1980), not that “the State ‘could rationally have decided? that the measure adopted might achieve the State’s objective.” Post, at 843, quoting Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., 449 U. S. 456, 466 (1981). Justice Brennan relies principally on an equal protection case, Minnesota v. Clover Leaf Creamery Co., supra, and two substantive due process eases, Williamson v. Lee Optical of Oklahoma, Inc., 348 U. S. 483, 487-488 (1955), and Day-Brite Lighting, Inc. v. Missouri, 342 U. S. 421, 423 (1952), in support of the standards he would adopt. But there is no reason to believe (and the language of our cases gives some reason to disbelieve) that so long as the regulation of property is at issue the standards for takings challenges, due process challenges, and equal protection challenges are identical; any more than there is any reason to believe that so long as the regulation of speech is at issue the standards for due process challenges, equal protection challenges, and First Amendment challenges are identical. Goldblatt v. Hempstead, 369 U. S. 590 (1962), does appear to assume that the inquiries are the same, but that assumption is inconsistent with the formulations of our later eases.
If the Nollans were being singled out to bear the burden of California’s attempt to remedy these problems, although they had not contributed to it more than other coastal landowners, the State’s action, even if otherwise valid, might violate either the incorporated Takings Clause or the Equal Protection Clause. One of the principal purposes of the Takings Clause is “to bar Government from forcing some people alone to bear public burdens which, in all fairness and justice, should be borne by the public as a whole.” Armstrong v. United States, 364 U. S. 40, 49 (1960); see also San Diego Gas & Electric Co. v. San Diego, 450 U. S. 621, 656 (1981) (Brennan, J., dissenting); Penn Central Transportation Co. v. New York City, 438 U. S. 104, 123 (1978). But that is not the basis of the Nollans’ challenge here.
One would expect that a regime in which this kind of leveraging of the police power is allowed would produce stringent land-use regulation which the State then waives to accomplish other purposes, leading to lesser realization of the land-use goals purportedly sought to be served than would result from more lenient (but nontradeable) development restrictions. Thus, the importance of the purpose underlying the prohibition not only does not justify the imposition of unrelated conditions for eliminating the prohibition, but positively militates against the practice.
As Justice Brennan notes, the Commission also argued that the construction of the new house would “ ‘increase private use immediately adjacent to public tidelands,’” which in turn might result in more disputes between the Nollans and the public as to the location of the boundary. Post, 851, quoting App. 62. That risk of boundary disputes, however, is inherent in the right to exclude others from one’s property, and the construction here can no more justify mandatory dedication of a sort of “buffer zone” in order to avoid boundary disputes than can the construction of an addition to a single-family house near a public street. Moreover, a buffer zone has a boundary as well, and unless that zone is a “no-man’s land” that is off limits for both neighbors (which is of course not the case here) its creation achieves nothing except to shift the location of the boundary dispute further on to the private owner’s land. It is true that in the distinctive situation of the Nollans’ property the seawall could be established as a clear demarcation of the public easement. But since not all of the lands to which this land-use condition applies have such a convenient reference point, the avoidance of boundary disputes is, even more obviously than the others, a made-up purpose of the regulation.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Souter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case is' the scope of a bankruptcy court’s power of equitable subordination under 11 U. S. C. § 510(c). Here, in the absence of any finding of inequitable conduct on the part of the Government, the Bankruptcy Court subordinated the Government’s claim for a postpetition, noncom-pensatory tax penalty, which would normally receive first priority in bankruptcy as an “administrative expense,” §§ 503(b)(1)(C), 507(a)(1). We hold that the bankruptcy court may not equitably subordinate claims on a categorical basis in derogation of Congress’s scheme of priorities.
In April 1986, First Truck Lines, Inc., voluntarily filed for relief under Chapter 11 of the Bankruptcy Code, and in the subsequent operation of its business as a debtor-in-possession incurred, but failed to discharge, tax liabilities to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). First Truck moved to convert the case to a Chapter 7 liquidation in June 1988, and in August 1988 the Bankruptcy Court granted that motion and appointed respondent Thomas R. Noland as trustee. The liquidation of the estate’s assets raised insufficient funds to pay all of the creditors.
After the conversion, the IRS filed claims for taxes, interest, and penalties that accrued after the Chapter 11 filing but before the Chapter 7 conversion, and although the parties agreed that the claims for taxes and interest were entitled to priority as administrative expenses, §§ 503(b), 507(a)(1), and 726(a)(1), they disagreed about the priority to be given tax penalties. The Bankruptcy Court determined that the penalties (like the taxes and interest) were administrative expenses under § 503(b) but held them to be subject to equitable subordination under § 510(c). In so doing, the court read that section to provide authority not only to deal with inequitable conduct on the Government’s part, but also to adjust a statutory priority of a category of claims. The Bankruptcy Court accordingly weighed the relative equities that seemed to flow from what it described as “the Code’s preference for compensating actual loss claims,” and subordinated the tax penalty claim to those of the general unsecured creditors. In re First Truck Lines, Inc., 141 B. R. 621, 629 (SD Ohio 1992). The District Court affirmed. Internal Revenue Service v. Noland, 190 B. R. 827 (SD Ohio 1993).
After reviewing the legislative history of the 1978 revision to the Bankruptcy Code and several recent appeals cases on equitable subordination of tax penalties, the Sixth Circuit affirmed, as well. In re First Truck Lines, Inc., 48 F. 3d 210 (1995). The Sixth Circuit stated that it did
“not see the fairness or the justice in permitting the Commissioner’s claim for tax penalties, which are not being assessed because of pecuniary losses to the Internal Revenue Service, to enjoy an equal or higher priority with claims based on the extension of value to the debtor, whether secured or not. Further, assessing tax penalties against the estate of a debtor no longer in existence serves no punitive purpose. Because of the nature of postpetition, nonpecuniary loss tax penalty claims in a Chapter 7 case, we believe such claims are susceptible to subordination. To hold otherwise would be to allow creditors who have supported the business during its attempt to reorganize to be penalized once that effort has failed and there is not enough to go around.” Id., at 218.
See also Burden v. United States, 917 F. 2d 115, 120 (CA3 1990); Schultz Broadway Inn v. United States, 912 F. 2d 230, 234 (CA8 1990); In re Virtual Network Services Corp., 902 F. 2d 1246, 1250 (CA7 1990). We granted certiorari to determine the appropriate scope of the power under the Bankruptcy Code (Code) to subordinate a tax penalty, 516 U. S. 1005 (1995), and we now reverse.
The judge-made doctrine of equitable subordination predates Congress’s revision of the Code in 1978. Relying in part on our earlier cases, see, e.g., Comstock v. Group of Institutional Investors, 335 U. S. 211 (1948); Pepper v. Litton, 308 U. S. 295 (1939); Taylor v. Standard Gas & Elec. Co., 306 U. S. 307 (1939), the Fifth Circuit, in its influential opinion in In re Mobile Steel Co., 563 F. 2d 692, 700 (1977), observed that the application of the doctrine was generally triggered by a showing that the creditor had engaged in “some type of inequitable conduct.” Mobile Steel discussed two further conditions relating to the application of the doctrine: that the misconduct have “resulted in injury to the creditors of the bankrupt or conferred an unfair advantage on the claimant,” and that the subordination “not be inconsistent with the provisions of the Bankruptcy Act.” Ibid. This last requirement has been read as a “reminder to the bankruptcy court that although it is a court of equity, it is not free to adjust the legally valid claim of an innocent party who asserts the claim in good faith merely because the court perceives that the result is inequitable.” DeNatale & Abram, The Doctrine of Equitable Subordination as Applied to Nonmanagement Creditors, 40 Bus. Law. 417, 428 (1985). The District Courts and Courts of Appeals have generally followed the Mobile Steel formulation, In re Baker & Getty Financial Services, Inc., 974 F. 2d 712, 717 (CA6 1992).
Although Congress included no explicit criteria for equitable subordination when it enacted § 510(c)(1), the reference in § 510(c) to “principles of equitable subordination” clearly indicates congressional intent at least to start with existing doctrine. This conclusion is confirmed both by principles of statutory construction, see Midlantic Nat. Bank v. New Jersey Dept. of Environmental Protection, 474 U. S. 494, 501 (1986) (“The normal rule of statutory construction is that if Congress intends for legislation to change the interpretation of a judicially created concept, it makes that intent specific. The Court has followed this rule with particular care in construing the scope of bankruptcy codifications”) (citation omitted), and by statements in the legislative history that Congress “intended that the term ‘principles of equitable subordination’ follow existing case law and leave to the courts development of this principle,” 124 Cong. Rec. 32398 (1978) (Rep. Edwards); see also id., at 33998 (Sen. DeConcini). In keeping with pre-1978 doctrine, many Courts of Appeals have continued to require inequitable conduct before allowing the equitable subordination of most claims, see, e. g., In re Fabricators, Inc., 926 F. 2d 1458, 1464 (CA5 1991); In re Bellanca Aircraft Corp., 850 F. 2d 1275, 1282-1283 (CA8 1988), although several have done away with the requirement when the claim in question was a tax penalty. See, e. g., Burden, supra, at 120; Schultz, supra, at 234; In re Virtual Network, supra, at 1250.
Section 510(c) may of course be applied to subordinate a tax penalty, since the Code’s requirement that a Chapter 7 trustee must distribute assets “in the order specified in . . . section 507” (which gives a first priority to administrative expense tax penalties) is subject to the qualification, “[e]xcept as provided in section 510 of this title . . . 11 U. S. C. § 726(a). Thus, “principles of equitable subordination” may allow a bankruptcy court to reorder a tax penalty in a given case. It is almost as clear that Congress meant to give courts some leeway to develop the doctrine, 124 Cong. Rec. 33998 (1978), rather than to freeze the pre-1978 law in place. The question is whether that leeway is broad enough to allow subordination at odds with the congressional ordering of priorities by category.
The answer turns on Congress’s probable intent to preserve the distinction between the relative levels of generality at which trial courts and legislatures respectively function in the normal course. Hence, the adoption in § 510(c) of “principles of equitable subordination” permits a court to make exceptions to a general rule when justified by particular facts, cf. Hecht Co. v. Bowles, 321 U. S. 321, 329 (1944) (“The essence of equity jurisdiction has been the power of the Chancellor to do equity and to mould each decree to the necessities of the particular case”). But if the provision also authorized a court to conclude on a general, categorical level that tax penalties should not be treated as administrative expenses to be paid first, it would empower a court to modify the operation of the priority statute at the same level at which Congress operated when it made its characteristically general judgment to establish the hierarchy of claims in the first place. That is, the distinction between characteristic legislative and trial court functions would simply be swept away, and the statute would delegate legislative revision, not authorize equitable exception. We find such a reading improbable in the extreme. “Decisions about the treatment of categories of claims in bankruptcy proceedings ... are not dictated or illuminated by principles of equity and do not fall within the judicial power of equitable subordination . . . .” Burden, 917 F. 2d, at 122 (Alito, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Just such a legislative type of decision, however, underlies the Bankruptcy Court’s reordering of priorities in question here, as approved by the District Court and the Court of Appeals. Despite language in its opinion about requiring a balancing of the equities in individual cases, the Court of Appeals actually concluded that “postpetition, nonpecuniary loss tax penalty claims” are “susceptible to subordination” by their very “nature.” 48 F. 3d, at 218. And although the court said that not every tax penalty would be equitably subordinated, ibid., that would be the inevitable result of consistent applications of the rule employed here, which depends not on individual equities but on the supposedly general unfairness of satisfying “postpetition, nonpecuniary loss tax penalty claims” before the claims of a general creditor.
The Court of Appeals’s decision thus runs directly counter to Congress’s policy judgment that a postpetition tax penalty should receive the priority of an administrative expense, 11 U. S. C. §§ 503(b)(1)(C), 507(a)(1), and 726(a)(1). This is true regardless of Noland’s argument that the Bankruptcy Court made a distinction between compensatory and noncompensa-tory tax penalties, for this was itself a categorical distinction at a legislative level of generality. Indeed, Congress recognized and employed that distinction elsewhere in the priority provisions: Congress specifically assigned 8th priority to certain compensatory tax penalties, see § 507(a)(8)(G), and 12th priority to prepetition, noncompensatory penalties, see §§ 726(a)(1) and (4).
The Sixth Circuit, to be sure, invoked a more modest authority than legislative revision when it relied on statements by the congressional leaders of the 1978 Code revisions, see 48 F. 3d, at 215, 217-218, and it is true that Representative Edwards and Senator DeConcini stated that “under existing law, a claim is generally subordinated only if [the] holder of such claim is guilty of inequitable conduct, or the claim itself is of a status susceptible to subordination, such as a penalty or a claim for damages arising from the purchase or sale of a security of the debtor.” 124 Cong. Rec. 32398 (1978) (Rep. Edwards); see also id., at 33998 (Sen. DeConcini). But their remarks were not statements of existing law and the Sixth Circuit’s reliance on the unexplained reference to subordinated penalties ran counter to this Court’s previous endorsement of priority treatment for postpetition tax penalties. See Nicholas v. United States, 384 U. S. 678, 692-695 (1966). More fundamentally, statements in legislative history cannot be read to convert statutory leeway for judicial development of a rule on particularized exceptions into delegated authority to revise statutory categorization, untethered to any obligation to preserve the coherence of substantive congressional judgments.
Given our conclusion that the Sixth Circuit’s rationale was inappropriately categorical in nature, we need not decide today whether a bankruptcy court must always find creditor misconduct before a claim may be equitably subordinated. We do hold that (in the absence of a need to reconcile conflicting congressional choices) the circumstances that prompt a court to order equitable subordination must not occur at the level of policy choice at which Congress itself operated in drafting the Code. Cf. In re Ahlswede, 516 F. 2d 784, 787 (CA9) (“[TJhe [equity] chancellor never did, and does not now, exercise unrestricted power to contradict statutory or common law when he feels a fairer result may be obtained by application of a different rule”), cert. denied sub nom. Stebbins v. Crocker Citizens Nat. Bank, 423 U. S. 913 (1975); In re Columbia Ribbon Co., 117 F. 2d 999, 1002 (CA3 1941) (court cannot “set up a subclassification of claims . . . and fix an order of priority for the sub-classes according to its theory of equity”).
In this instance, Congress could have, but did not, deny noncompensatory, postpetition tax penalties the first priority given to other administrative expenses, and bankruptcy courts may not take it upon themselves to make that categorical determination under the guise of equitable subordination. 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.
Section 507(a)(1) provides, in relevant part: “(a) The following expenses and claims have priority in the following order: (1) First, administrative expenses allowed under section 503(b) of this title . . . .” Under § 503(b)(1), administrative expenses include “any tax . . . incurred by the estate” (with certain exceptions not relevant here), as well as “any fine [or] penalty ... relating to [such] a tax ...Section 726(a)(1) adopts the order of payment specified in § 507 for Chapter 7 proceedings.
Section 510(c) provides that “the court may . . . under principles of equitable subordination, subordinate for purposes of distribution all or part of an allowed claim ....”
Noland argues that “although the penalties at issue arose postpetition,” this claim should be viewed as a prepetition penalty because a “reorganized debtor is in many respects similar to a prepetition debtor ... [and] the conversion of [this] case to chapter 7 was tantamount to the filing of a new petition.” Brief for Respondent 16, n. 7. But we agree with the Sixth Circuit, see In re First Truck Lines, Inc., 48 F. 3d 210, 214 (1995), that the penalties at issue here are postpetition administrative expenses pursuant to 11 U. S. C. §§ 348(d), 503(b)(1). Although § 348(d) provides that a “claim against the estate or the debtor that arises after the order for relief but before conversion in a case that is converted under section 1112, 1208, or 1307 of this title, other than a claim specified in section 503(b) of this title, shall be treated for all purposes as if such claim had arisen immediately before the date of the filing of the petition,” the claim for priority here is “specified in section 503(b)” and Congress has already determined that it is not to be treated like prepetition penalties. Noland may or may not have a valid policy argument, but it is up to Congress, not this Court, to revise the determination if it so chooses.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Murphy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Like Labor Board v. Atkins & Co., ante, p. 398, this case involves the rights of militarized plant guards under the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U. S. C. § 151 et seq. But certain problems are raised here which are not present in the Atkins case.
Respondent owns and operates several large steel manufacturing works and was engaged in the production of war materials during the recent war. At respondent’s Otis Works at Cleveland, Ohio, about 4,700 individuals are employed. Production and maintenance employees constitute the great bulk of these workers. But there is also included in the total a group of guards and watchmen, numbering about sixty men normally.
A union affiliated with the United Steelworkers of America, C. I. 0., has been the exclusive bargaining agent for the production and maintenance employees. Under a contract made with respondent late in 1942, this union disclaimed any representation of “Foremen or Assistant Foremen in charge of any classes of labor, watchmen, salaried employees and nurses.” On March 15,1943, this union filed a petition for investigation and certification of representatives pursuant to § 9 (c) of the Act, in which it sought to be certified as the collective bargaining representative of the guard force. A hearing was then held. Respondent claimed that a unit composed of these guards was inappropriate because they “perform certain assigned work that is strictly representative of management.” Respondent also claimed that any allegation by the union that a unit including watchmen is appropriate was “a direct contravention” of the 1942 contract. And it was further alleged that any unionization of watchmen or guards was particularly inappropriate during a time of war, that their duties “do not differ greatly from the duties performed by members of a city, county or state police force” and that these guards had been sworn in as auxiliary military police of the United States Army.
The testimony at the hearing showed that there were currently 72 plant protection employees. Of these, 58 were patrolmen whose sole duty was to protect and guard the Otis Works; there were 2 firemen to maintain the fire equipment; 2 dump laborers were assigned to work at a refuse dump while watching that section of the plant; and there were 8 lieutenants and 2 fire captains supervising the others. All of them were carried on respondent’s payroll and were under respondent’s control as to pay, benefits and conditions of employment. And, as respondent had alleged, they had been sworn in as civilian auxiliaries to the military police of the United States Army, in the same manner and under the same conditions as detailed in the Atkins case.
On May 3,1943, the Board issued its decision and direction of election. 49 N. L. R. B. 390. It found that “all patrolmen, watchmen, and firemen, including dump laborers employed by the Company at its Otis Works, but excluding lieutenants, captains, and supervisors” constituted an appropriate unit and that an election should be held by the employees in this unit to determine if they desired to be represented by the Steelworkers union. It rejected all of respondent’s contentions, pointing out among other things that the union, while representing production and maintenance employees, intended to bargain for the plant guards and watchmen as a separate unit.
The election resulted in the selection of the Steelworkers union as the bargaining representative of the unit in question. The union was certified as the exclusive representative of the unit, respondent refused to bargain with the union and the Board issued its complaint based upon that refusal. On December 2, 1943, the Board reaffirmed the appropriateness of the unit and found that respondent had committed unfair labor practices in refusing to bargain. The usual order was entered. 53 N. L. R. B. 1046.
The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals denied the Board’s petition for a decree enforcing its order. 146 F. 2d 718. While upholding the Board’s determination that the militarized guard forces were employees within the meaning of the National Labor Relations Act, the court felt that the unit selected for bargaining purposes was inappropriate and reflected a disregard by the Board of the national welfare. In the eyes of that court, the Board’s fatal error was its authorizing the militarized guards to join the same union which represented the production and maintenance employees because “when they were inducted into the Unions and became subject to their orders, rules and decisions, the plant protection employees assumed obligations to the Unions and their fellow workers, which might well in given circumstances bring them in conflict with their obligation to their employers, and with their paramount duty as militarized police of the United States Government.” 146 F. 2d at 722.
The Board filed a petition in this Court for a writ of certiorari. As in the Atkins case, the Board pointed out that the plant protection employees had been demilitarized at a date (May 29, 1944) subsequent to the refusals to bargain, but urged that this fact did not make the case moot. We granted the writ of certiorari at the same time as we granted the writ in the Atkins case, vacated the judgment below and remanded the cause to the Circuit Court of Appeals “for further consideration of the alleged changed circumstances with respect to the demilitarization of the employees involved, and the effect thereof on the Board’s orders.” 325 U. S. 838.
The Board and the respondent then entered into a stipulation relative to the dates and circumstances of the demilitarization of the guards. From this stipulation it appeared that the qualifications, strength, functions and duties of the guards continued to be the same after demilitarization as before. Also included in the stipulation were facts showing that both before and after the period of militarization, August 5,1942, to May 29,1944, the guards were commissioned, sworn and bonded as private policemen of the City of Cleveland and exercised “the legal powers of peace officers in their work as plant guards.” It was further stipulated that because of “the magnitude and other characteristics of the Otis Works, its police protection by the ordinary police of the City of Cleveland is not practical or feasible; and, as a result, for a great many years, the police protection of the Works and the enforcement of law, peace and good order therein has been delegated wholly to the plant guard force. For similar reasons, the work of preventing and extinguishing fires has been in large part the responsibility of the guard force, rather than that of the municipal fire department.”
The Board filed a motion in the Circuit Court of Appeals for a decree enforcing its order. That court denied the motion and held that the facts concerning both the demilitarization and the deputization were to be considered as though they had been presented at the hearing before the Board; on that basis, the court reaffirmed its belief that the guards were employees within the meaning of the Act, but concluded that in view of the “drastic police powers” exercised by the guards, it was “improper for the Board to permit their organization by the same union which represents the production employees.” 154 F. 2d 932,934.
Our decision in the Atkins case makes clear that the demilitarization of the guards did not render this case moot. The order was a continuing command which may be effectuated in the future. But unless the order was valid when it was issued, there is no basis whatever for it and no court can decree its enforcement in the future. Hence its validity must be judged as of the time when it was issued, a time when the guards were still militarized. This is not to say, however, that events subsequent to demilitarization are irrelevant in deciding whether the order should be enforced. All that we hold is that demilitarization in and of itself is not enough to render the order or the case moot.
The Atkins decision likewise disposes of any issues relating to the effect of militarization upon the status of the guards as employees within the meaning of § 2 (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. To that extent, the Board’s order here was plainly valid. Unanswered by the Atkins decision, however, is the question whether the militarization of the plant guards precluded the Board from grouping the guards in a separate unit and permitting them to choose as their bargaining representative a union which also represented production and maintenance employees. To that issue, which is the primary one raised by this case, we now turn.
The Board, of course, has wide discretion in performing its statutory function under § 9 (b) of deciding “the unit appropriate for the purposes of collective bargaining . . . .” Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v. Labor Board, 313 U. S. 146. It likewise has discretion to place appropriate limitations on the choice of bargaining representatives should it find that public or statutory policies so dictate. Its determinations in these respects are binding upon reviewing courts if grounded in reasonableness. May Stores Co. v. Labor Board, 326 U. S. 376, 380. A proper determination as to any of these matters, of course, necessarily implies that the Board has given due consideration to all the relevant factors and that it has correlated the policies of the Act with whatever public or private interests may allegedly or actually be in conflict.
Thus, in determining the proper unit for militarized guards and in deciding whether they should be permitted to choose the same union that represents production and maintenance employees, the Board must be guided not alone by the wishes of the guards or the union or by what is appropriate in the case of non-militarized guards. It must also give due consideration to the military duties and obligations of the guards and their possible relationships to a union representing other employees; it must consider what limitations, if any, on the normal freedom to choose whatever representative the guards may desire are necessitated by the war effort.
It is clear that the Board has given these matters due consideration. It has not acted in this case in disregard of the national welfare. Sanctioning the creation of a separate unit of respondent’s guards and permitting them to select a union of their own choosing, a union which happened to be the representative of the production and maintenance employees, are indicative of a considered, mature judgment on the Board’s part. The problem has been raised in many cases before the Board and its conclusion is in accord with that reached by the War Department.
In Chrysler Corp., 44 N. L. R. B. 881, Dravo Corp., 52 N. L. R. B. 322, and Armour and Co., 63 N. L. R. B. 1200, the Board has spelled out the various considerations that have led it to adopt the policy applied in this case. Those cases reveal the Board’s belief that freedom to choose a bargaining agent includes the right to select an agent which represents other employees in a different bargaining unit. This principle may safely be applied to militarized guards, in the Board’s opinion, since the collective bargaining process is flexible enough to allow for the increased responsibilities placed upon the militarized guards. And the Board has concluded that the remedy for inefficiency or wilful disregard or neglect of duty on the part of such guards lies in the power of the employer to discipline or discharge them and in the power of the military authorities to take whatever steps may be necessary to protect the public interest. Moreover, the Board has discovered no serious question as to any conflict between loyalties to the Army and to the union, the Board finding no basis to assume that membership in a union tends to undermine the patriotism of militarized guards or that loyalty to the United States would be secondary in their minds to loyalty to the union. But one restriction is placed upon the statutory freedom of the militarized guards. The Board insists that they be placed in separate bargaining units so that they may be better able to function within the military sphere and so that the military authorities may be able to exercise greater control over them.
This policy of the Board coincides with that expressed in the regulations of the War Department. As we pointed out in the Atkins case, ante, p. 398, the military authorities have given full sanction to collective bargaining on the part of militarized guards, provided only that such action does not interfere with their military obligations. Paragraph 6h (2) of Circular No. 15, issued on March 17, 1943, by Headquarters, Army Service Forces, acknowledges with approval the Board’s policy of permitting militarized guards to be represented in collective bargaining with the management by a bargaining unit other than that composed of the production and maintenance workers, even though both bargaining units may be affiliated with the same labor organization. A clarifying memorandum of the War Department, dated July 10, 1943, reiterates the War Department attitude still further: “In the event that plant guards enrolled as Auxiliary Military Police desire to be represented in collective bargaining with the management, they should be represented by a bargaining unit other than that representing the production and maintenance workers. However, in such event, both bargaining units may be affiliated with the same trade-union local, provided they are, in fact, separate bargaining units.”
We are unable to say that the policy formulated by the Board is without reason. When the employer retains unfettered power to fix the wages, hours or other working conditions of militarized guards, the guards stand in the same relation to the employer regarding those matters as do production and maintenance employees. In disputes with the employer over those matters, they suffer from the same inequality of bargaining power as suffered by other unorganized employees; the appropriateness and need of collective bargaining on their part through freely chosen representatives are equally as great. But to prevent them from choosing a union which also represents production and maintenance employees is to make the collective bargaining rights of the guards distinctly second-class. Such a union may be the only one willing and able to deal with the employer. Its experience and acquaintance with the employer and the plant may make it specially qualified to bargain for the guards. The guards might thus be deprived of effective bargaining rights if they are denied the right to choose such a union. Freedom to choose, in this statutory setting, must mean complete freedom to choose any qualified representative unless limited by a valid contrary policy adopted by the Board.
After deliberation, the Board has concluded that this freedom can safely be recognized to the fullest extent as to militarized guards, provided only that they be placed in separate bargaining units. We cannot say that this conclusion is one so lacking in an appreciation of the military necessities of the situation that we should voice our disapproval and substitute our own views of public policy. It is significant that the Board, in weighing the military requirements against the normal policies of the Act, has arrived at a result which coincides with that reached by the War Department. The latter agency has been satisfied that militarized guards can safely join and choose unions representing other employees without impairing their loyalty to the United States or their ability to perform their military duties satisfactorily. We assume that attitude was adopted after a full consideration of all the military necessities, matters which are peculiarly within the competence and knowledge of the War Department. In light of. that fact, it is impossible to say that a civilian agency erred in failing to insist upon what the military experts found to be unnecessary. To prohibit militarized guards from joining or choosing unions representing production and maintenance workers on grounds of military necessity is to erect limitations which not even those most familiar with the military situation thought essential or desirable. And in this nation, the statutory rights of citizens are not to be readily cut down on pleas of military necessity, especially pleas that are unsupported by military authorities. Certainly it would take more than the speculation and theories advanced by the court below to undermine the foundation of the policy adopted in this respect by the Board.
Moreover, the experience of the Board has revealed none of the dire consequences which the court below feared might flow from the application of the policy in question. 146 F. 2d at 722-723. In its brief before us, the Board has stated that it has certified bargaining representatives for units of militarized guards in more than 105 cases; in more than 80 of these cases, the certified union also represented a separate bargaining unit of other employees of the same employer. Employer recognition of the unions, collective bargaining and contractual relations have resulted in many instances. Yet the Board states that it has received “no indication from any source that the dangers to the public interest and particularly to the war effort which the courts below thought to inhere in that policy have in fact materialized in any case.”
One final matter remains. After the Board’s order was issued and after the guards at respondent’s Otis Works were demilitarized, the guards were deputized by the police authorities of the City of Cleveland. The Board claims that since this matter was not raised before it, the court below was precluded by § 10 (e) of the Act from considering the effect of the deputization upon the propriety of enforcing the Board’s order. Labor Board v. Newport News Co., 308 U. S. 241, 249-250; Marshall Field & Co. v. Labor Board, 318 U. S. 253; Labor Board v. Cheney Lumber Co., 327 U. S. 385.
But the provision of § 10 (e), that “No objection that has not been urged before the Board, its member, agent or agency, shall be considered by the court, unless the failure or neglect to urge such objection shall be excused because of extraordinary circumstances,” quite obviously refers to objections that might have been but were not raised in the original proceeding before the Board. In this case, however, the deputization of the guards occurred after the Board had concluded its hearing and issued its order and after the court below had refused the first time 4o enforce the order. It was thus a matter which could not have been raised before the Board. And the failure of respondent to raise the then non-existent issue before the Board could not deprive the court below of power to consider the issue once it did come into existence. See Labor Board v. Blanton Co., 121 F. 2d 564, 571.
When circumstances do arise after the Board’s order has been issued which may affect the propriety of enforcement of the order, the reviewing court has discretion to decide the matter itself or to remand it to the Board for further consideration. For example, where the order obviously has become moot, the court can deny enforcement without further ado; but where the matter is one involving complicated or disputed facts or questions of statutory policy, a remand to the Board is ordinarily in order. In this case, however, the Board and the respondent have stipulated the facts concerning the deputization of the guards. The only issue is whether the deputization is so inconsistent with the policies of the Act that the statutory guarantees must be denied to the guards and the enforcement of the Board’s order refused. That issue is one normally to be determined by the Board in the first instance, it being the function of the Board rather than the courts initially to correlate the policies of the Act with conflicting interests. But we do not believe that a remand is necessary under the special circumstances of this case.
The Board has frequently considered the status of plant guards who have been deputized as deputy sheriffs or special police. Where the private employer retains the right to fix the wages, hours or other working conditions of such guards, the Board’s uniform conclusion has been that they are employees of the private employer and that they retain their rights under the National Labor Relations Act. See, e. g., Luckenbach Steamship Co., 2 N. L. R. B. 181, 189; American-Hawaiian Steamship Co., 10 N. L. R. B. 1355, 1363-1364; American Brass Co., 41 N. L. R. B. 783, 785; Bethlehem-Fair field Shipyard, Inc., 61 N. L. R. B. 901, 905-906; Standard Steel Spring Co., 62 N. L. R. B. 660, 662-663. As in the case of militarized guards, the Board has found no evidence that when deputized guards join unions or engage in collective bargaining through freely chosen representatives their honesty, their loyalty to police authorities, or their competence to execute their police duties satisfactorily is undermined. It is sufficient, in the Board’s judgment, to protect the special status of these guards by segregating them in separate bargaining units.
We find it impossible to say that the Board is wrong in adopting this policy as to deputized guards. It is a common practice in this country for private watchmen or guards to be vested with the powers of policemen, sheriffs or peace officers to protect the private property of their private employers. And when they are performing their police functions, they are acting as public officers and assume all the powers and liabilities attaching thereto. Thornton v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 42 Mo. App. 58; Dempsey v. New York Central & Hudson River R. Co., 146 N. Y. 290, 40 N. E. 867; McKain v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 65 W. Va. 233, 64 S. E. 18; Neallus v. Hutchinson Amusement Co., 126 Me. 469, 139 A. 671. But it has never been assumed that such deputized guards thereby cease to be employees of the company concerned or that they become municipal employees for all purposes. See Chicago & N. W. R. Co. v. McKenna, 74 F. 2d 155. Wages, hours, benefits and various other conditions of work normally remain subject to determination by the private employers. At least as to those matters, the deputized guards remain employees of the private employers. See Walling v. Merchants Police Service, 59 F. Supp. 873. Hence they may be held to be employees within the meaning of § 2 (3) of the National Labor Relations Act. Labor Board v. Hearst Publications, 322 U. S. 111.
Deputized guards bear the same relationship to management that non-deputized guards bear, a relationship that we discussed in the Atkins case, ante, p. 398, and that we found to be adequate for the Board to find the existence of an employer-employee status. Likewise, their relationship to police or municipal authorities is not one that is necessarily inconsistent with their status as employees under the Act. Union membership and collective bargaining are capable of being molded to fit the special responsibilities of deputized plant guards and we cannot assume, as a proposition of law, that they will not be so molded. If there is any danger that particular deputized guards may not faithfully perform their obligations to the public, the remedy is to be found other than in the wholesale denial to all deputized guards of their statutory right to join unions and to choose freely their bargaining agents. The state and municipal authorities, in short, have adequate means of punishing infidelity and assuring full police protection.
We find nothing in the instant case which would make inapplicable the Board’s policy with respect to deputized guards, and the Board has so argued before us. The stipulated facts reveal that the guards at respondent’s Otis Works were commissioned as private policemen of the City of Cleveland under § 188 of the Cleveland Municipal Code (1924), and as such are members of the municipal police force and exercise the legal powers of peace officers in their work as plant guards. They are under the control of a police captain and his lieutenants, the police captain being directly responsible to respondent’s director of plant security at Pittsburgh and to respondent’s executive officer in general charge of the Otis Works. The police captain is also a deputy sheriff of Cuyahoga County, Ohio. It is not denied that the guards continue to be paid by respondent and that their hours, benefits and other conditions of work remain the responsibility of respondent.
The court below pointed out that the Ohio law on the status and duties of special policemen is in accord with the general rule which we have noted. In other words, special policemen are public officers when performing their public duties. New York, Chicago & St. Louis R. Co. v. Fieback, 87 Ohio St. 254, 100 N. E. 889; Pennsylvania R. Co. v. Deal, 116 Ohio St. 408, 156 N. E. 502. But none of the Ohio cases attempts to say that the public status of special policemen destroys completely their private status as employees of individual companies. Nor is there any basis for the intimation that their public duties are such as to render incompatible the recognition of rights under the National Labor Relations Act.
We therefore conclude that the facts and the law are sufficiently clear to justify a determination that the guards at respondent’s Otis Works are employees within the meaning of the Act despite their deputization as municipal policemen. And they have as much right to select as their bargaining agent a union which represents production and maintenance workers as have militarized guards, the same considerations being applicable. It is obvious that the Board would apply such a policy to this case, thereby making a remand to the Board a mere formality and a needless addition to an already over-prolonged proceeding. Under such circumstances, a remand to the Board is unnecessary.
It follows that the court below should have enforced the Board’s order.
Reversed.
The Chief Justice, Mr. Justice Frankfurter, Mr. Justice Jackson and Mr. Justice Burton dissent substantially for the reasons set forth in the opinion of the court below, 154 F. 2d 932.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted. The judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the Supreme Court of North Carolina for further consideration in light of Gideon v. Wainwright, 372 U. S. 335.
Mr. Justice Harlan, for the reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Pickelsimer v. Wainwright, ante, p. 3, would have withheld disposition of this petition for certiorari until the disposition, after argument, of that case.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner accumulated fines of $425 on nine convictions in the Corporation Court of Houston, Texas, for traffic offenses. He was unable to pay the fines because of indigency and the Corporation Court, which otherwise has no jurisdiction to impose prison sentences, committed him to the municipal prison farm according to the provisions of a state statute and municipal ordinance which required that he remain there a sufficient time to satisfy the fines at the rate of five dollars for each day; this required that he serve 85 days at the prison farm. After 21 days in custody, petitioner was released on bond when he applied to the County Criminal Court of Harris County for a writ of habeas corpus. He alleged that: “Because I am too poor, I am, therefore, unable to pay the accumulated fine of $425.” The county court held that “legal cause has been shown for the imprisonment,” and denied the application. The Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas affirmed, stating: “We overrule appellant’s contention that because he is too poor to pay the fines his imprisonment is unconstitutional.” 445 S. W. 2d 210 (1969). We granted certiorari, 399 U. S. 925 (1970). We reverse on the authority of our decision in Williams v. Illinois, 399 U. S. 235 (1970).
The Illinois statute involved in Williams authorized both a fine and imprisonment. Williams was given the maximum sentence for petty theft of one year’s imprisonment and a $500 fine, plus $5 in court costs. The judgment, as permitted by the Illinois statute, provided that if, when the one-year sentence expired, Williams did not pay the fine and court costs, he was to remain in jail a sufficient length of time to satisfy the total amount at the rate of $5 per day. We held that the Illinois statute as applied to Williams worked an invidious discrimination solely because he was too poor to pay the fine, and therefore violated the Equal Protection Clause.
Although the instant case involves offenses punishable by fines only, petitioner’s imprisonment for nonpayment constitutes precisely the same unconstitutional discrimination since, like Williams, petitioner was subjected to imprisonment solely because of his indigency. In Morris v. Schoonfield, 399 U. S. 508, 509 (1970), four members of the Court anticipated the problem of this case and stated the view, which we now adopt, that
“the same constitutional defect condemned in Williams also inheres in jailing an indigent for failing to make immediate payment of any fine, whether or not the fine is accompanied by a jail term and whether or not the jail term of the indigent extends beyond the maximum term that may be imposed on a person willing and able to pay a fine. In each case, the Constitution prohibits the State from imposing a fine as a sentence and then automatically converting it into a jail term solely because the defendant is indigent and cannot forthwith pay the fine in full.”
Our opinion in Williams stated the premise of this conclusion in saying that “the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that the statutory ceiling placed on imprisonment for any substantive offense be the same for all defendants irrespective of their economic status.” 399 U. S., at 244. Since Texas has legislated a “fines only” policy for traffic offenses, that statutory ceiling cannot, consistently with the Equal Protection Clause, limit the punishment to payment of the fine if one is able to pay it, yet convert the fine into a prison term for an indigent defendant without the means to pay his fine. Imprisonment in such a case is not imposed to further any penal objective of the State. It is imposed to augment the State’s revenues but obviously does not serve that purpose; the defendant cannot pay because he is indigent and his imprisonment, rather than aiding collection of the revenue, saddles the State with the cost of feeding and housing him for the period of his imprisonment.
There are, however, other alternatives to which the State may constitutionally resort to serve its concededly valid interest in enforcing payment of fines. We repeat our observation in Williams in that regard, 399 U. S., at 244-245 (footnotes omitted):
“The State is not powerless to enforce judgments against those financially unable to pay a fine; indeed, a different result would amount to inverse discrimination since it would enable an indigent to avoid both the fine and imprisonment for nonpayment whereas other defendants must always suffer one or the other conviction.
“It is unnecessary for us to canvass the numerous alternatives to which the State by legislative enactment — or judges within the scope of their authority — may resort in order to avoid imprisoning an indigent beyond the statutory maximum for involuntary nonpayment of a fine or court costs. Appellant has suggested several plans, some of which are already utilized in some States, while others resemble those proposed by various studies. The State is free to choose from among the variety of solutions already proposed and, of course, it may devise new ones.”
We emphasize that our holding today does not suggest any constitutional infirmity in imprisonment of a defendant with the means to pay a fine who refuses or neglects to do so. Nor is our decision to be understood as precluding imprisonment as an enforcement method when alternative means are unsuccessful despite the defendant’s reasonable efforts to satisfy the fines by those means; the determination of the constitutionality of imprisonment in that circumstance must await the presentation of a concrete case.
The judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Mr. Justice Black concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice Harlan concurs in the judgment of the Court on the basis of the considerations set forth in his opinion concurring in the result in Williams v. Illinois, 399 U. S. 235, 259 (1970).
At the habeas corpus hearing the assistant district attorney appearing for the State stipulated: “We would stipulate he is poverty stricken, and that his whole family has been for all periods of time therein, and probably always will be.” Petitioner’s uncontradicted testimony at the hearing was that, prior to his imprisonment, he earned between $25 and $60 a week in casual employment. He also received a monthly Veterans Administration check of $104. He has a wife and two children dependent on him for support. We were advised on oral argument that under Texas law his automobile was not subject to execution to collect the fines.
Tex. Code Crim. Proc., Art. 4.14 (1966) provides:
“The corporation court in each incorporated city, town or village of this State shall have jurisdiction within the corporate limits in all criminal cases arising under the ordinances of such city, town or village, and shall have concurrent jurisdiction with any justice of the peace in any precinct in which said city, town or village is situated in all criminal cases arising under the criminal laws of this State, in which punishment is by fine only, and where the maximum of such fine may not exceed two hundred dollars, and arising within such corporate limits.”
Tex. Code Crim. Proc., Art. 45.53 (1966), provides in pertinent part:
“A defendant placed in jail on account of failure to pay the fine and costs can be discharged on habeas corpus by showing:
“1. That he is too poor to pay the fine and costs; and
“2. That he has remained in jail a sufficient length of time to satisfy the fine and costs, at the rate of $5 for each day.”
Houston Code §35-8 provides:
“Each person committed to the county jail or to the municipal prison farm for non-payment of their fine arising out of his conviction of a misdemeanor in the corporation court shall receive a credit against such fine of five dollars ($5.00) for each day or fraction of a day that he has served.”
Houston Code § 35-9 provides:
“[Additional credit against the fine of each prisoner may be granted by the superintendent of the municipal prison farm for good conduct, industry and obedience; provided, however, that such additional credit shall not exceed in time more than one-half (%) day credit on his fine for each day’s work.”
An implementing regulation of the Fines Bureau Division of the Houston Corporation Court interprets this provision as follows:
“If a person appears in court and is found guilty and does not have money to pay his fine, he is committed to jail to serve the amount of the fine at the rate of $5.00 per day. In certain cases a person may be allowed $7.50 credit per day.”
It does not appear that petitioner was granted the increased credit for any of the 21 days he served before his release.
Several States have a procedure for paying fines in installments. E. g., Cal. Penal Code § 1205 (1970) (misdemeanors); Del. Code Ann., Tit. 11, § 4332 (c) (Supp. 1968); Md. Ann. Code, Art. 38, § 4 (a) (2) (Supp. 1970)Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., c. 279, § 1A (1959); N. Y. Code Crim. Proc. § 470-d (1) (b) (Supp. 1970); Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 19, §953 (1964); Wash. Rev. Code §9.92.070.
This procedure has been widely endorsed as effective not only to collect the fine but also to save the expense of maintaining a prisoner and avoid the necessity of supporting his family under the state welfare program while he is confined. See, e. g., Final Report of the National Commission on Reform of Federal Criminal Laws, Proposed New Federal Criminal Code § 3302 (2) (1971); American Bar Association, Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Sentencing Alternatives and Procedures §2.7 (b), pp. 119-122 (Approved Draft 1968); President’s Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, Task Force Report: The Courts 18 (1967); ALI, Model Penal Code §302.1 (1) (Proposed Ofiieial Draft 1962). See also Comment, Equal Protection and the Use of Fines as Penalties for Criminal Offenses, 1966 U. Ill. L. F. 460; Note, The Equal Protection Clause and Imprisonment of the Indigent for Nonpayment of Fines, 64 Mich. L. Rev. 938 (1966); Note, Imprisonment for Nonpayment of Fines and Costs: A New Look at the Law and the Constitution, 22 Yand. L. Rev. 611 (1969); Note, Fines and Fining — An Evaluation, 101 U. Pa. L. Rev. 1013 (1953); J. Sellin, Recent Penal Legislation in Sweden 14 (1947); Cordes, Fines and Their Enforcement, 2 J. Crim. Sci. 46 (1950); S. Rubin, H. Weihofen, G. Edwards, & S. Rosenzweig, The Law of Criminal Correction 253 and n. 154 (1963); E. Sutherland & D. Cressey, Principles of Criminology 276 (6th ed. 1960). See also Williams v. Illinois, 399 U. S., at 244-245, n. 21.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
“It is a principle of general application in Anglo-American jurisprudence that one is not bound by a judgment in personam in a litigation in which he is not designated as a party or to which he has not been made a party by service of process.” Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U. S. 32,40 (1940). Several exceptions, recognized in this Court’s decisions, temper this basic rule. In a class action, for example, a person not named as a party may be bound by a judgment on the merits of the action, if she was adequately represented by a party who actively participated in the litigation. See id., at 41. In this case, we consider for the first time whether there is a “virtual representation” exception to the general rule against precluding nonparties. Adopted by a number of courts, including the courts below in the case now before us, the exception so styled is broader than any we have so far approved.
The virtual representation question we examine in this opinion arises in the following context. Petitioner Brent Taylor filed a lawsuit under the Freedom of Information Act seeking certain documents from the Federal Aviation Administration. Greg Herrick, Taylor’s friend, had previously brought an unsuccessful suit seeking the same records. The two men have no legal relationship, and there is no evidence that Taylor controlled, financed, participated in, or even had notice of Herrick’s earlier suit. Nevertheless, the D. C. Circuit held Taylor’s suit precluded by the judgment against Herrick because, in that court’s assessment, Herrick qualified as Taylor’s “virtual representative.”
We disapprove the doctrine of preclusion by “virtual representation,” and hold, based on the record as it now stands, that the judgment against Herrick does not bar Taylor from maintaining this suit.
The Freedom of Information Act (FOIA or Act) accords “any person” a right to request any records held by a federal agency. 5 U. S. C. § 552(a)(3)(A) (2006 ed.). No reason need be given for a FOIA request, and unless the requested materials fall within one of the Act’s enumerated exemptions, see § 552(a)(3)(E), (b), the agency must “make the records promptly available” to the requester, § 552(a)(3)(A). If an agency refuses to furnish the requested records, the requester may file suit in federal court and obtain an injunction “order[ing] the production of any agency records improperly withheld.” § 552(a)(4)(B).
I
The courts below held the instant FOIA suit barred by the judgment in earlier litigation seeking the same records. Because the lower courts’ decisions turned on the connection between the two lawsuits, we begin with a full account of each action.
A
The first suit was filed by Greg Herrick, an antique aircraft enthusiast and the owner of an F-45 airplane, a vintage model manufactured by the Fairchild Engine and Airplane Corporation (FEAC) in the 1930’s. In 1997, seeking information that would help him restore his plane to its original condition, Herrick filed a FOIA request asking the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) for copies of any technical documents about the F-45 contained in the agency’s records.
To gain a certificate authorizing the manufacture and sale of the F-45, FEAC had submitted to the FAA’s predecessor, the Civil Aeronautics Authority, detailed specifications and other technical data about the plane. Hundreds of pages of documents produced by FEAC in the certification process remain in the FAA’s records. The FAA denied Herrick’s request, however, upon finding that the documents he sought are subject to FOIA’s exemption for “trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential,” § 552(b)(4). In an administrative appeal, Herrick urged that FEAC and its successors had waived any trade-secret protection. The FAA thereupon contacted FEAC’s corporate successor, respondent Fairchild Corporation (Fairchild). Because Fairchild objected to release of the documents, the agency adhered to its original decision.
Herrick then filed suit in the U. S. District Court for the District of Wyoming. Challenging the FAA’s invocation of the trade-secret exemption, Herrick placed heavy weight on a 1955 letter from FEAC to the Civil Aeronautics Authority. The letter authorized the agency to lend any documents in its files to the public “for use in making repairs or replacement parts for aircraft produced by Fairchild.” Herrick v. Garvey, 298 F. 3d 1184,1193 (CA10 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted). This broad authorization, Herrick maintained, showed that the F-45 certification records held by the FAA could not be regarded as “secre[t]” or “confidential” within the meaning of § 552(b)(4).
Rejecting Herrick’s argument, the District Court granted summary judgment to the FAA. Herrick v. Garvey, 200 F. Supp. 2d 1321, 1328-1329 (Wyo. 2000). The 1955 letter, the court reasoned, did not deprive the F-45 certification documents of trade-secret status, for those documents were never in fact released pursuant to the letter’s blanket authorization. See id., at 1329. The court also stated that even if the 1955 letter had waived trade-secret protection, Fairchild had successfully “reversed” the waiver by objecting to the FAA’s release of the records to Herrick. Ibid.
On appeal, the Tenth Circuit agreed with Herrick that the 1955 letter had stripped the requested documents of trade-secret protection. See Herrick, 298 F. 3d, at 1194. But the Court of Appeals upheld the District Court’s alternative determination — i. e., that Fairchild had restored trade-secret status by objecting to Herrick’s FOIA request. Id., at 1195. On that ground, the appeals court affirmed the entry of summary judgment for the FAA.
In so ruling, the Tenth Circuit noted that Herrick had failed to challenge two suppositions underlying the District Court’s decision. First, the District Court assumed trade-secret status could be “restored” to documents that had lost protection. Id., at 1194, n. 10. Second, the District Court also assumed that Fairchild had regained trade-secret status for the documents even though the company claimed that status only “after Herrick had initiated his request” for the F-45 records. Ibid. The Court of Appeals expressed no opinion on the validity of these suppositions. See id., at 1194-1195, n. 10.
B
The Tenth Circuit’s decision issued on July 24,2002. Less than a month later, on August 22, petitioner Brent Taylor— a friend of Herrick’s and an antique aircraft enthusiast in his own right — submitted a FOIA request seeking the same documents Herrick had unsuccessfully sued to obtain. When the FAA failed to respond, Taylor filed a complaint in the U. S. District Court for the District of Columbia. Like Herrick, Taylor argued that FEAC’s 1955 letter had stripped the records of their trade-secret status. But Taylor also sought to litigate the two issues concerning recapture of protected status that Herrick had failed to raise in his appeal to the Tenth Circuit.
After Fairchild intervened as a defendant, the District Court in D. C. concluded that Taylor’s suit was barred by claim preclusion; accordingly, it granted summary judgment to Fairchild and the FAA. The court acknowledged that Taylor was not a party to Herrick’s suit. Relying on the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Tyus v. Schoemehl, 93 F. 3d 449 (1996), however, it held that a nonparty may be bound by a judgment if she was “virtually represented” by a party. App. to Pet. for Cert. 30a-31a.
The Eighth Circuit’s seven-factor test for virtual representation, adopted by the District Court in Taylor’s case, requires an “identity of interests” between the person to be bound and a party to the judgment. See id., at 31a. See also Tyus, 93 F. 3d, at 455. Six additional factors counsel in favor of virtual representation under the Eighth Circuit’s test, but are not prerequisites: (1) a “close relationship” between the present party and a party to the judgment alleged to be preclusive; (2) “participation in the prior litigation” by the present party; (3) the present party’s “apparent acquiescence” to the preclusive effect of the judgment; (4) “deliberate] maneuvering]” to avoid the effect of the judgment; (5) adequate representation of the present party by a party to the prior adjudication; and (6) a suit raising a “public law” rather than a “private law” issue. App. to Pet. for Cert. 31a (citing Tyus, 93 F. 3d, at 454-456). These factors, the D. C. District Court observed, “constitute a fluid test with imprecise boundaries” and call for “a broad, case-by-case inquiry.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 32a.
The record before the District Court in Taylor’s suit revealed the following facts about the relationship between Taylor and Herrick: Taylor is the president of the Antique Aircraft Association, an organization to which Herrick belongs; the two men are “close associate^],” App. 54; Herrick asked Taylor to help restore Herrick’s F-45, though they had no contract or agreement for Taylor’s participation in the restoration; Taylor was represented by the lawyer who represented Herrick in the earlier litigation; and Herrick apparently gave Taylor documents that Herrick had obtained from the FAA during discovery in his suit.
Fairchild and the FAA conceded that Taylor had not participated in Herrick’s suit. App. to Pet. for Cert. 32a. The D. C. District Court determined, however, that Herrick ranked as Taylor’s virtual representative because the facts fit each of the other six indicators on the Eighth Circuit’s list. See id., at 32a-35a. Accordingly, the District Court held Taylor’s suit, seeking the same documents Herrick had requested, barred by the judgment against Herrick. See id., at 35a.
The D. C. Circuit affirmed. It observed, first, that other Circuits “vary widely” in their approaches to virtual representation. Taylor v. Blakey, 490 F. 3d 965, 971 (2007). In this regard, the D. C. Circuit contrasted the multifactor balancing test applied by the Eighth Circuit and the D. C. District Court with the Fourth Circuit’s narrower approach, which “treats a party as a virtual representative only if the party is ‘accountable to the nonparties who file a subsequent suit’ and has ‘the tacit approval of the court’ to act on the nonpart[ies’] behalf.” Ibid, (quoting Klugh v. United States, 818 F. 2d 294, 300 (CA4 1987)).
Rejecting both of these approaches, the D. C. Circuit announced its own five-factor test. The first two factors— “identity of interests” and “adequate representation” — are necessary but not sufficient for virtual representation. 490 F. 3d, at 971-972. In addition, at least one of three other factors must be established: “a close relationship between the present party and his putative representative,” “substantial participation by the present party in the first case,” or “tactical maneuvering on the part of the present party to avoid preclusion by the prior judgment.” Id., at 972.
Applying this test to the record in Taylor’s case, the D. C. Circuit found both of the necessary conditions for virtual representation well met. As to identity of interests, the court emphasized that Taylor and Herrick sought the same result — release of the F-45 documents. Moreover, the D. C. Circuit observed, Herrick owned an F-45 airplane, and therefore had, “if anything, a stronger incentive to litigate” than Taylor, who had only a “general interest in public disclosure and the preservation of antique aircraft heritage.” Id., at 973 (internal quotation marks omitted).
Turning to adequacy of representation, the D. C. Circuit acknowledged that some other Circuits regard notice of a prior suit as essential to a determination that a nonparty was adequately represented in that suit. See id., at 973-974 (citing Perez v. Volvo Car Corp., 247 F. 3d 303, 312 (CA1 2001), and Tice v. American Airlines, Inc., 162 F. 3d 966, 973 (CA7 1998)). Disagreeing with these courts, the D. C. Circuit deemed notice an “important” but not an indispensable element in the adequacy inquiry. The court then concluded that Herrick had adequately represented Taylor even though Taylor had received no notice of Herrick’s suit. For this conclusion, the appeals court relied on Herrick’s “strong incentive to litigate” and Taylor’s later engagement of the same attorney, which indicated to the court Taylor’s satisfaction with that attorney’s performance in Herrick’s case. See 490 F. 3d, at 974-975.
The D. C. Circuit also found its “close relationship” criterion met, for Herrick had “asked Taylor to assist him in restoring his F-45” and “provided information to Taylor that Herrick had obtained through discovery”; furthermore, Taylor “did not oppose Fairchild’s characterization of Herrick as his ‘close associate.’” Id., at 975. Because the three above-described factors sufficed-to establish virtual representation under the D. C. Circuit’s five-factor test, the appeals court left open the question whether Taylor had engaged in “tactical maneuvering.” See id., at 976 (calling the facts bearing on tactical maneuvering “ambigu[ous]”).
We granted certiorari, 552 U. S. 1136 (2008), to resolve the disagreement among the Circuits over the permissibility and scope of preclusion based on “virtual representation.”
II
The preclusive effect of a federal-court judgment is determined by federal common law. See Semtek Int’l Inc. v. Lockheed Martin Corp., 531 U. S. 497, 507-508 (2001). For judgments in federal-question cases — for example, Herrick’s FOIA suit — federal courts participate in developing “uniform federal rule[s]” of res judicata, which this Court has ultimate authority to determine and declare. Id., at 508. The federal common law of preclusion is, of course, subject to due process limitations. See Richards v. Jefferson County, 517 U. S. 793, 797 (1996).
Taylor’s case presents an issue of first impression in this sense: Until now, we have never addressed the doctrine of “virtual representation” adopted (in varying forms) by several Circuits and relied upon by the courts below. Our inquiry, however, is guided by well-established precedent regarding the propriety of nonparty preclusion. We review that precedent before taking up directly the issue of virtual representation.
A
The preclusive effect of a judgment is defined by claim preclusion and issue preclusion, which are collectively referred to as “res judicata.” Under the doctrine of claim preclusion, a final judgment forecloses “successive litigation of the very same claim, whether or not relitigation of the claim raises the same issues as the earlier suit.” New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U. S. 742, 748 (2001). Issue preclusion, in contrast, bars “successive litigation of an issue of fact or law actually litigated and resolved in a valid court determination essential to the prior judgment,” even if the issue recurs in the context of a different claim. Id., at 748-749. By “precluding] parties from contesting matters that they have had a full and fair opportunity to litigate,” these two doctrines protect against “the expense and vexation attending multiple lawsuits, conserv[e] judicial resources, and foste[r] reliance on judicial action by minimizing the possibility of inconsistent decisions.” Montana v. United States, 440 U. S. 147, 153-154 (1979).
A person who was not a party to a suit generally has not had a “full and fair opportunity to litigate” the claims and issues settled in that suit. The application of claim and issue preclusion to nonparties thus runs up against the “deep-rooted historic tradition that everyone should have his own day in court.” Rickards, 517 U. S., at 798 (internal quotation marks omitted). Indicating the strength of that tradition, we have often repeated the general rule that “one is not bound by a judgment in personam in a litigation in which he is not designated as a party or to which he has not been made a party by service of process.” Hansberry, 311 U. S., at 40. See also, e. g., Richards, 517 U. S., at 798; Martin v. Wilks, 490 U. S. 755, 761 (1989); Zenith Radio Corp. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 395 U. S. 100, 110 (1969).
B
Though hardly in doubt, the rule against nonparty preclusion is subject to exceptions. For present purposes, the recognized exceptions can be grouped into six categories.
First, “[a] person who agrees to be bound by the determination of issues in an action between others is bound in accordance with the terms of his agreement.” 1 Restatement (Second) of Judgments §40, p. 390 (1980) (hereinafter Restatement). For example, “if separate actions involving the same transaction are brought by different plaintiffs against the same defendant, all the parties to all the actions may agree that the question of the defendant’s liability will be definitely determined, one way or the other, in a ‘test case.’” D. Shapiro, Civil Procedure: Preclusion in Civil Actions 77-78 (2001) (hereinafter Shapiro). See also California v. Texas, 459 U. S. 1096, 1097 (1983) (dismissing certain defendants from a suit based on a stipulation “that each of said defendants... will be bound by a final judgment of this Court” on a specified issue).
Second, nonparty preclusion may be justified based on a variety of pre-existing “substantive legal relationship[s]” between the person to be bound and a party to the judgment. Shapiro 78. See also Richards, 517 U. S., at 798. Qualifying relationships include, but are not limited to, preceding and succeeding owners of property, bailee and bailor, and assignee and assignor. See 2 Restatement §§43-44, 52, 55. These exceptions originated “as much from the needs of property law as from the values of preclusion by judgment.” 18A C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §4448, p. 329 (2d ed. 2002) (hereinafter Wright & Miller).
Third, we have confirmed that, “in certain limited circumstances,” a nonparty may be bound by a judgment because she was “adequately represented by someone with the same interests who [wa]s a party” to the suit. Richards, 517 U. S., at 798 (internal quotation marks omitted). Representative suits with preclusive effect on nonparties include properly conducted class actions, see Martin, 490 U. S., at 762, n. 2 (citing Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 23), and suits brought by trustees, guardians, and other fiduciaries, see Sea-Land Services, Inc. v. Gaudet, 414 U. S. 573,593 (1974). See also 1 Restatement §41.
Fourth, a nonparty is bound by a judgment if she “assumed] control” over the litigation in which that judgment was rendered. Montana, 440 U. S., at 154. See also Schnell v. Peter Eckrich & Sons, Inc., 365 U. S. 260,262, n. 4 (1961); 1 Restatement § 39. Because such a person has had “the opportunity to present proofs and argument,” he has already “had his day in court” even though he was not a formal party to the litigation. Id., Comment a, at 382.
Fifth, a party bound by a judgment may not avoid its preclusive force by relitigating through a proxy. Preclusion is thus in order when a person who did not participate in a litigation later brings suit as the designated representative of a person who was a party to the prior adjudication. See Chicago, R. I. & P. R. Co. v. Schendel, 270 U. S. 611, 620, 623 (1926); 18A Wright & Miller §4454, at 433-434. And although our decisions have not addressed the issue directly, it also seems clear that preclusion is appropriate when a non-party later brings suit as an agent for a party who is bound by a judgment. See id., §4449, at 335.
Sixth, in certain circumstances a special statutory scheme may “expressly foreclos[e] successive litigation by non-litigants... if the scheme is otherwise consistent with due process.” Martin, 490 U. S., at 762, n. 2. Examples of such schemes include bankruptcy and probate proceedings, see ibid., and quo warranto actions or other suits that, “under [the governing] law, [may] be brought only on behalf of the public at large,” Richards, 517 U. S., at 804.
Ill
Reaching beyond these six established categories, some lower courts have recognized a “virtual representation” exception to the rule against nonparty preclusion. Decisions of these courts, however, have been far from consistent. See 18A Wright & Miller § 4457, at 513 (virtual representation lacks a “clear or coherent theory”; decisions applying it have “an episodic quality”). Some Circuits use the label, but define “virtual representation” so that it is no broader than the recognized exception for adequate representation. See, e. g., Becherer v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc., 193 F. 3d 415, 423,427 (CA6 1999) (en banc). But other courts, including the Eighth, Ninth, and D. C. Circuits, apply multifactor tests for virtual representation that permit non-party preclusion in cases that do not fit within any of the established exceptions. See supra, at 888-891, and n. 3.
The D. C. Circuit, the FAA, and Fairchild have presented three arguments in support of an expansive doctrine of virtual representation. We find none of them persuasive.
A
The D. C. Circuit purported to ground its virtual representation doctrine in this Court’s decisions stating that, in some circumstances, a person may be bound by a judgment if she was adequately represented by a party to the proceeding yielding that judgment. See 490 F. 3d, at 970-971. But the D. C. Circuit’s definition of “adequate representation” strayed from the meaning our decisions have attributed to that term.
In Richards, we reviewed a decision by the Alabama Supreme Court holding that a challenge to a tax was barred by a judgment upholding the same tax in a suit filed by different taxpayers. 517 U. S., at 795-797. The plaintiffs in the first suit “did not sue on behalf of a class,” their complaint “did not purport to assert any claim against or on behalf of any nonparties,” and the judgment “did not purport to bind” non-parties. Id., at 801. There was no indication, we emphasized, that the court in the first suit “took care to protect the interests” of absent parties, or that the parties to that litigation “understood their suit to be on behalf of absent [parties].” Id., at 802. In these circumstances, we held, the application of claim preclusion was inconsistent with “the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Id., at 797.
The D. C. Circuit stated, without elaboration, that it did not “read Richards to hold a nonparty... adequately represented only if special procedures were followed [to protect the nonparty] or the party to the prior suit understood it was representing the nonparty.” 490 F. 3d, at 971. As the D. C. Circuit saw this case, Herrick adequately represented Taylor for two principal reasons: Herrick had a strong incentive to litigate; and Taylor later hired Herrick’s lawyer, suggesting Taylor’s “satisfaction with the attorney’s performance in the prior case.” Id., at 975.
The D. C. Circuit misapprehended Richards. As just recounted, our holding that the Alabama Supreme Court’s application of res judicata to nonparties violated due process turned on the lack of either special procedures to protect the nonparties’ interests or an understanding by the concerned parties that the first suit was brought in a representative capacity. See Richards, 517 U. S., at 801-802. Richards thus established that representation is “adequate” for purposes of nonparty preclusion only if (at a minimum) one of these two circumstances is present.
We restated Richards’ core holding in South Central Bell Telephone Co. v. Alabama, 526 U. S. 160 (1999). In that case, as in Richards, the Alabama courts had held that a judgment rejecting a challenge to a tax by one group of taxpayers barred a subsequent suit by a different taxpayer. See 526 U. S., at 164-165. In South Central Bell, however, the nonparty had notice of the original suit and engaged one of the lawyers earlier employed by the original plaintiffs. See id., at 167-168. Under the D. C. Circuit’s decision in Taylor’s case, these factors apparently would have sufficed to establish adequate representation. See 490 F. 3d, at 973-975. Yet South Central Bell held that the application of res judicata in that case violated due process. Our inquiry came to an end when we determined that the original plaintiffs had not understood themselves to be acting in a representative capacity and that there had been no special procedures to safeguard the interests of absentees. See 526 U. S., at 168.
Our decisions recognizing that a nonparty may be bound by a judgment if she was adequately represented by a party to the earlier suit thus provide no support for the D. C. Circuit’s broad theory of virtual representation.
B
Fairchild and the FAA do not argue that the D. C. Circuit’s virtual representation doctrine fits within any of the recognized grounds for nonparty preclusion. Rather, they ask us to abandon the attempt to delineate discrete grounds and clear rules altogether. Preclusion is in order, they contend, whenever “the relationship between a party and a non-party is ‘close enough’ to bring the second litigant within the judgment.” Brief for Respondent Fairchild 20. See also Brief for Respondent FAA 22-24. Courts should make the “close enough” determination, they urge, through a “heavily fact-driven” and “equitable” inquiry. Brief for Respondent Fair-child 20. See also Brief for Respondent FAA 22 (“there is no clear test” for nonparty preclusion; rather, an “equitable and fact-intensive” inquiry is demanded (internal quotation marks omitted)). Only this sort of diffuse balancing, Fair-child and the FAA argue, can account for all of the situations in which nonparty preclusion is appropriate.
We reject this argument for three reasons. First, our decisions emphasize the fundamental nature of the general rule that a litigant is not bound by a judgment to which she was not a party. See, e. g., Richards, 517 U. S., at 798-799; Martin, 490 U. S., at 761-762. Accordingly, we have endeavored to delineate discrete exceptions that apply in “limited circumstances.” Id., at 762, n. 2. Respondents’ amorphous balancing test is at odds with the constrained approach to nonparty preclusion our decisions advance.
Resisting this reading of our precedents, respondents call up three decisions they view as supportive of the approach they espouse. Fairchild quotes our statement in Coryell v. Phipps, 317 U. S. 406, 411 (1943), that privity “turns on the facts of particular cases.” See Brief for Respondent Fair-child 20. That observation, however, scarcely implies that privity is governed by a diffuse balancing test. Fairchild also cites Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of III. Foundation, 402 U. S. 313, 334 (1971), which stated that estoppel questions turn on “the trial courts’ sense of justice and equity.” See Brief for Respondent Fairchild 20. This passing statement, however, was not made with non-party preclusion in mind; it appeared in a discussion recognizing district courts’ discretion to limit the use of issue preclusion against persons who were parties to a judgment. See Blonder-Tongue, 402 U. S., at 334.
The FAA relies on United States v. Des Moines Valley R. Co., 84 F. 40 (CA8 1897), an opinion we quoted with approval in Schendel, 270 U. S., at 619-620. Des Moines Valley was a quiet title action in which the named plaintiff was the United States. The Government, however, had “no interest in the land” and had “simply permitted [the landowner] to use its name as the nominal plaintiff.” 84 F., at 42. The suit was therefore barred, the appeals court held, by an earlier judgment against the landowner. As the court explained: “[W]here the government lends its name as a plaintiff... to enable one private person to maintain a suit against another,” the government is “subject to the same defenses which exist... against the real party in interest.” Id., at 43. Des Moines Valley, the FAA contended at oral argument, demonstrates that it is sometimes appropriate to bind a nonparty in circumstances that do not fit within any of the established grounds for nonparty preclusion. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 31-33. Properly understood, however, Des Moines Valley is simply an application of the fifth basis for nonparty preclusion described above: A party may not use a representative or agent to relitigate an adverse judgment. See swpra, at 895-896. We thus find no support in our precedents for the lax approach to nonparty preclusion advocated by respondents.
Our second reason for rejecting a broad doctrine of virtual representation rests on the limitations attending nonparty preclusion based on adequate representation. A party’s representation of a nonparty is “adequate” for preclusion purposes only if, at a minimum: (1) The interests of the non-party and her representative are aligned, see Hansberry, 311 U. S., at 43; and (2) either the party understood herself to be acting in a representative capacity or the original court took care to protect the interests of the nonparty, see Richards, 517 U. S., at 801-802; supra, at 897-898. In addition, adequate representation sometimes requires (3) notice of the original suit to the persons alleged to have been represented, see Richards, 517 U. S., at 801. In the class-action context, these limitations are implemented by the procedural safeguards contained in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.
An expansive doctrine of virtual representation, however, would “recogniz[e], in effect, a common-law kind of class action.” Tice, 162 F. 3d, at 972 (internal quotation marks omitted). That is, virtual representation would authorize preclusion based on identity of interests and some kind of relationship between parties and nonparties, shorn of the procedural protections prescribed in Hansberry, Rickards, and Rule 23. These protections, grounded in due process, could be circumvented were we to approve a virtual representation doctrine that allowed courts to “create de facto class actions at will.” Tice, 162 F. 3d, at 973.
Third, a diffuse balancing approach to nonparty preclusion would likely create more headaches than it relieves. Most obviously, it could significantly complicate the task of district courts faced in the first instance with preclusion questions. An all-things-considered balancing approach might spark wide-ranging, time-consuming, and expensive discovery tracking factors potentially relevant under seven- or five-prong tests. And after the relevant facts are established, district judges would be called upon to evaluate them under a standard that provides no firm guidance. See Tyus, 93 F. 3d, at 455 (conceding that “there is no clear test for determining the applicability of” the virtual representation doctrine announced in that case). Preclusion doctrine, it should be recalled, is intended to reduce the burden of litigation on courts and parties. Cf. Montana, 440 U. S., at 153-154. “In this area of the law,” we agree, “ ‘crisp rules with sharp corners’ are preferable to a round-about doctrine of opaque standards.” Bittinger v. Tecumseh Products Co., 123 F. 3d 877, 881 (CA6 1997).
c
Finally, relying on the Eighth Circuit’s decision in Tyus, 93 F. 3d, at 456, the FAA maintains that nonparty preclusion should apply more broadly in “public law” litigation than in “private law” controversies. To support this position, the FAA offers two arguments. First, the FAA urges, our decision in Richards acknowledges that, in certain cases, the plaintiff has a reduced interest in controlling the litigation “because of the public nature of the right at issue.” Brief for Respondent FAA 28. When a taxpayer challenges “an alleged misuse of public funds” or “other public action,” we observed in Richards, the suit “has only an indirect impact on [the plaintiff’s] interests.” 517 U. S., at 803. In actions of this character, the Court said, “we may assume that the States have wide latitude to establish procedures... to limit the number of judicial proceedings that may be entertained.” Ibid.
Taylor’s FOIA action falls within the category described in Richards, the FAA contends, because “the duty to disclose under FOIA is owed to the public generally.” Brief for Respondent FAA 34. The opening sentence of FOIA, it is true, states that agencies “shall make [information] available to the public.” 5 U. S. C. § 552(a) (2006 ed.). Equally true, we have several times said that FOIA vindicates a “public” interest. E. g., National Archives and Records Admin, v. Favish, 541 U. S. 157, 172 (2004). The Act, however, instructs agencies receiving FOIA requests to make the information available not to the public at large, but rather to the “person” making the request. § 552(a)(3)(A). See also § 552(a)(3)(B) (“In making any record available to a person under this paragraph, an agency shall provide the record in any [readily reproducible] form or format requested by
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Chief Justice Vinson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases present for our consideration questions relating to the validity of court enforcement of private agreements, generally described as restrictive covenants, which have as their purpose the exclusion of persons of designated race or color from the ownership or. occupancy of real property. Basic constitutional issues of obvious importance have been raised.
The first of these cases comes to this Court on certiorari to the Supreme Court of Missouri. On February 16, 1911, thirty out of a total of thirty-nine owners of property fronting both sides of Labadie Avenue between Taylor Avenue and Cora Avenue in the city of St. Louis, signed an agreement, which was subsequently recorded, providing in part:
“... the said property is hereby restricted to the use and occupancy for the term of Fifty (50) years from this date, so that it shall be a condition all the time and whether recited and referred to as [sic] not in subsequent conveyances and shall attach to the land as a condition precedent to the sale of the same, that hereafter no part of said property or any portion thereof shall be, for said term of Fifty-years, occupied by any person not of the Caucasian race, it being intended hereby to restrict the use of said property for said period of time against the occupancy as owners or tenants of any portion of said property for resident or other purpose by people of the Negro or Mongolian Race.”
The entire district described in the agreement included fifty-seven parcels of land. The thirty owners who signed the agreement held title to forty-seven parcels, including the particular parcel involved in this case. At the time the agreement was signed, five of the parcels in the district were owned by Negroes. One of those had been occupied by Negro families since 1882, nearly thirty years before the restrictive agreement was executed. The trial court found that owners of seven out of nine homes on the south side of Labadie Avenue, within the restricted district and “in the immediate vicinity” of the premises in question, had failed to sign the restrictive agreement in 1911. At the time this action was brought, four of the premises were occupied by Negroes, and had been so occupied for periods ranging from twenty-three to sixty-three years. A fifth parcel had been occupied by Negroes until a year before this suit was instituted.
On August 11, 1945, pursuant to a contract of sale, petitioners Shelley, who are Negroes, for valuable consideration received from one Fitzgerald a warranty deed to the parcel in question. The trial court found that petitioners had no actual knowledge of the restrictive agreement at the time of the purchase.
On October 9, 1945, respondents, as owners of other property subject to the terms of the restrictive covenant, brought suit in the Circuit Court of the city of St. Louis praying that petitioners Shelley be restrained from taking possession of the property and that judgment be entered divesting title out of petitioners Shelley and revest-ing title in the immediate grantor or in such other person as the court should direct. The trial court denied the requested relief on the ground that the restrictive agreement, upon which respondents based their action, had never become final and complete because it was the intention of the parties to that agreement that it was not to become effective until signed by all property owners in the district, and signatures of all the owners had never been obtained.
The Supreme Court of Missouri sitting en banc reversed and directed the trial court to grant the relief for which respondents had prayed. That court held the agreement effective and concluded that enforcement of its provisions violated no rights guaranteed to petitioners by the Federal Constitution. At the time the court rendered its decision, petitioners were occupying the property in question.
The second of the cases under consideration comes to this Court from the Supreme Court of Michigan. The circumstances presented do not differ materially from the Missouri case. In June, 1934, one Ferguson and his wife, who then owned the property located in the city of Detroit which is involved in this case, executed a contract providing in part:
“This property shall not be used or occupied by any person or persons except those of the Caucasian race.
“It is further agreed that this restriction shall not be effective unless at least eighty percent of the property fronting on both sides of the street in the block where our land is located is subjected to this or a similar restriction.”
The agreement provided that the restrictions were to remain in effect until January 1, 1960. The contract was subsequently recorded; and similar agreements were executed with respect to eighty percent of the lots in the block in which the property in question is situated.
By deed dated November 30, 1944, petitioners, who were found by the trial court to be Negroes, acquired title to the property and thereupon entered into its occupancy. On January 30, 1945, respondents, as owners of property subject to the terms of the restrictive agreement, brought suit against petitioners in the Circuit Court of Wayne County. After a hearing, the court entered a decree directing petitioners to move from the property within ninety days. Petitioners were further enjoined and restrained from using or occupying the premises in the future. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Michigan affirmed, deciding adversely to petitioners’ contentions that they had been denied rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
Petitioners have placed primary reliance on their contentions, first raised in the state courts, that judicial enforcement of the restrictive agreements in these cases has violated rights guaranteed to petitioners by the Fourteenth Amendment of the Federal Constitution and Acts of Congress passed pursuant to that Amendment. Spe-eifically, petitioners urge that they have been denied the equal protection of the laws, deprived of property without due process of law, and have been denied privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States. We pass to a consideration of those issues.
I.
Whether the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment inhibits judicial enforcement by state courts of restrictive covenants based on race or color is a question which this Court has not heretofore been called upon to consider. Only two cases have been decided by this Court which in any way have involved the enforcement of such agreements. The first of these was the case of Corrigan v. Buckley, 271 U. S. 323 (1926). There, suit was brought in the courts of the District of Columbia to enjoin a threatened violation of certain restrictive covenants relating to lands situated in the city of Washington. Relief was granted, and the case was brought here on appeal. It is apparent that that case, which had originated in the federal courts and involved the enforcement of covenants on land located in the District of Columbia, could present no issues under the Fourteenth Amendment; for that Amendment by its terms applies only to the States. Nor was the question of the validity of court enforcement of the restrictive covenants under the Fifth Amendment properly before the Court, as the opinion of this Court specifically recognizes. The only constitutional issue which the appellants had raised in the lower courts, and hence the only constitutional issue before this Court on appeal, was the validity of the covenant agreements as such. This Court concluded that since the inhibitions of the constitutional provisions invoked apply only to governmental action, as contrasted to action of private individuals, there was no showing that the covenants, which were simply agreements between private property owners, were invalid. Accordingly, the appeal was dismissed for want of a substantial question. Nothing in the opinion of this Court, therefore, may properly be regarded as an adjudication on the merits of the constitutional issues presented by these cases, which raise the question of the validity, not of the private agreements as such, but of the judicial enforcement of those agreements.
The second of the cases involving racial restrictive covenants was Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U. S. 32 (1940). In that case, petitioners, white property owners, were enjoined by the state courts from violating the terms of a restrictive agreement. The state Supreme Court had held petitioners bound by an earlier judicial determination, in litigation in which petitioners were not parties, upholding the validity of the restrictive agreement, although, in fact, the agreement had not been signed by the number of owners necessary to make it effective under state law. This Court reversed the judgment of the state Supreme Court upon the ground that petitioners had been denied due process of law in being held estopped to challenge the validity of the agreement on the theory, accepted by the state court, that the earlier litigation, in which petitioners did not participate, was in the nature of a class suit. In arriving at its result, this Court did not reach the issues presented by the cases now under consideration.
It is well, at the outset, to scrutinize the terms of the restrictive agreements involved in these cases. In the Missouri case, the covenant declares that no part of the affected property shall be “occupied by any person not of the Caucasian race, it being intended hereby to restrict the use of said property... against the occupancy as owners or tenants of any portion of said property for resident or other purpose by people of the Negro or Mongolian Race.” Not only does the restriction seek to proscribe use and occupancy of the affected properties by members of the excluded class, but as construed by the Missouri courts, the agreement requires that title of any person who uses his property in violation of the restriction shall be divested. The restriction of the covenant in the Michigan case seeks to bar occupancy by persons of the excluded class. It provides that “This property shall not be used or occupied by any person or persons except those of the Caucasian race.”
It should be observed that these covenants do not seek to proscribe any particular use of the affected properties. Use of the properties for residential occupancy, as such, is not forbidden. The restrictions of these agreements, rather, are directed toward a designated class of persons and seek to determine who may and who may not own or make use of the properties for residential purposes. The excluded class is defined wholly in terms of race or color; “simply that and nothing more.”
It cannot be doubted that among the civil rights intended to be protected from discriminatory state action by the Fourteenth Amendment are the rights to acquire, enjoy, own and dispose of property. Equality in the enjoyment of property rights was regarded by the framers of that Amendment as an essential pre-condition to the realization of other basic civil rights and liberties which the Amendment was intended to guarantee. Thus, § 1978 of the Revised Statutes, derived from § 1 of the Civil Rights Act of 1866 which was enacted by Congress while the Fourteenth Amendment was also under consideration, provides:
“All citizens of the United States shall have the same right, in every State and Territory, as is enjoyed by white citizens thereof to inherit, purchase, lease, sell, hold, and convey real and personal property.”
This Court has given specific recognition to the same principle. Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60 (1917).
It is likewise clear that restrictions on the right of occupancy of the sort sought to be created by the private agreements in these cases could not be squared with the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment if imposed by state statute or local ordinance. We do not understand respondents to urge the contrary. In the case of Buchanan v. Warley, supra, a unanimous Court declared unconstitutional the provisions of a city ordinance which denied to colored persons the right to occupy houses in blocks in which the greater number of houses were occupied by white persons, and imposed similar restrictions on white persons with respect to blocks in which the greater number of houses were occupied by colored persons. During the course of the opinion in that case, this Court stated: “The Fourteenth Amendment and these statutes enacted in furtherance of its purpose operate to qualify and entitle a colored man to acquire property without state legislation discriminating against him solely because of color.”
In Harmon v. Tyler, 273 U. S. 668 (1927), a unanimous court, on the authority of Buchanan v. Warley, supra, declared invalid an ordinance which forbade any Negro to establish a home on any property in a white community or any white person to establish a home in a Negro community, “except on the written consent of a majority of the persons of the opposite race inhabiting such community or portion of the City to be affected.”
The precise question before this Court in both the Buchanan and Harmon cases involved the rights of white sellers to dispose of their properties free from restrictions as to potential purchasers based on considerations of race or color. But that such legislation is also offensive to the rights of those desiring to acquire and occupy property and barred on grounds of race or color is clear, not only from the language of the opinion in Buchanan v. Warley, supra, but from this Court’s disposition of the case of Richmond v. Deans, 281 U. S. 704 (1930). There, a Negro, barred from the occupancy of certain property by the terms of an ordinance similar to that in the Buchanan case, sought injunctive relief in the federal courts to enjoin the enforcement of the ordinance on the grounds that its provisions violated the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment. Such relief was granted, and this Court affirmed, finding the citation of Buchanan v. Warley, supra, and Harmon v. Tyler, supra, sufficient to support its judgment.
But the present cases, unlike those just discussed, do not involve action by state legislatures or city councils. Here the particular patterns of discrimination and the areas in which the restrictions are to operate, are determined, in the first instance, by the terms of agreements among private individuals. Participation of the State consists in the enforcement of the restrictions so defined. The crucial issue with which we are here confronted is whether this distinction removes these cases from the operation of the prohibitory provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment.
Since the decision of this Court in the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3 (1883), the principle has become firmly embedded in our constitutional law that the action inhibited by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment is only such action as may fairly be said to be that of the States. That Amendment erects no shield against merely private conduct, however discriminatory or wrongful.
We conclude, therefore, that the restrictive agreements standing alone cannot be regarded as violative of any rights guaranteed to petitioners by the Fourteenth Amendment. So long as the purposes of those agreements are effectuated by voluntary adherence to their terms, it would appear clear that there has been no action by the State and the provisions of the Amendment have not been violated. Cf. Corrigan v. Buckley, supra.
But here there was more. These are cases in which the purposes of the agreements were secured only by judicial enforcement by state courts of the restrictive terms of the agreements. The respondents urge that judicial enforcement of private agreements does not amount to state action; or, in any event, the participation of the State is so attenuated in character as not to amount to state action within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment. Finally, it is suggested, even if the States in these cases may be deemed to have acted in the constitutional sense, their action did not deprive petitioners of rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. We move to a consideration of these matters.
1 — 1 1
That the action of state courts and judicial officers in their official capacities is to be regarded as action of the State within the meaning of the Fourteenth Amendment, is a proposition which has long been established by decisions of this Court. That principle was given expression in the earliest cases involving the construction of the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment. Thus, in Virginia v. Rives, 100 U. S. 313, 318 (1880), this Court stated: “It is doubtless true that a State may act through different agencies,- — either by its legislative, its executive, or its judicial authorities; and the prohibitions of the amendment extend to all action of the State denying equal protection of the laws, whether it be action by one of these agencies or by another.” In Ex parte Virginia, 100 U. S. 339, 347 (1880), the Court observed: “A State acts by its legislative, its executive, or its judicial authorities. It can act in no other way.” In the Civil Rights Cases, 109 U. S. 3,11,17 (1883), this Court pointed out that the Amendment makes void “State action of every kind” which is inconsistent with the guaranties therein contained, and extends to manifestations of “State authority in the shape of laws, customs, or judicial or executive proceedings.” Language to like effect is employed no less than eighteen times during the course of that opinion.
Similar expressions, giving specific recognition to the fact that judicial action is to be regarded as action of the State for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, are to be found in numerous cases which have been more recently decided. In Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U. S. 78, 90-91 (1908), the Court said: “The judicial act of the highest court of the State, in authoritatively construing and enforcing its laws, is the act of the State.” In Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. Hill, 281 U. S. 673, 680 (1930), the Court, through Mr. Justice Brandéis, stated: “The federal guaranty of due process extends to state action through its judicial as well as through its legislative, executive or administrative branch of government.” Further examples of such declarations in the opinions of this Court are not lacking.
One of the earliest applications of the prohibitions contained in the Fourteenth Amendment to action of state judicial officials occurred in cases in which Negroes had been excluded from jury service in criminal prosecutions by reason of their race or color. These cases demonstrate, also, the early recognition by this Court that state action in violation of the Amendment’s provisions is equally repugnant to the constitutional commands whether directed by state statute or taken by a judicial official in the absence of statute. Thus, in Strauder v. West Virginia, 100 U. S. 303 (1880), this Court declared invalid a state statute restricting jury service to white persons as amounting to a denial of the equal protection of the laws to the colored defendant in that case. In the same volume of the reports, the Court in Ex parte Virginia, supra, held that a similar discrimination imposed by the action of a state judge denied rights protected by the Amendment, despite the fact that the language of the state statute relating to jury service contained no such restrictions.
The action of state courts in imposing penalties or depriving parties of other substantive rights without providing adequate notice and opportunity to defend, has, of course, long been regarded as a denial of the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Brinkerhoff-Faris Trust & Savings Co. v. Hill, supra. Cf. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714 (1878).
In numerous cases, this Court has reversed criminal convictions in state courts for failure of those courts to provide the essential ingredients of a fair hearing. Thus it has been held that convictions obtained in state courts under the domination of a mob are void. Moore v. Dempsey, 261 U. S. 86 (1923). And see Frank v. Mangum, 237 U. S. 309 (1915). Convictions obtained by coerced confessions, by the use of perjured testimony known by the prosecution to be such, or without the effective assistance of counsel, have also been held to be exertions of state authority in conflict with the fundamental rights protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
But the examples of state judicial action which have been held by this Court to violate the Amendment's commands are not restricted to situations in which the judicial proceedings were found in some manner to be procedurally unfair. It has been recognized that the action of state courts in enforcing a substantive common-law rule formulated by those courts, may result in the denial of rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, even though the judicial proceedings in such cases may have been in complete accord with the most rigorous conceptions of procedural due process. Thus, in American Federation of Labor v. Swing, 312 U. S. 321 (1941), enforcement by state courts of the common-law policy of the State, which resulted in the restraining of peaceful picketing, was held to be state action of the sort prohibited by the Amendment’s guaranties of freedom of discussion. In Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296 (1940), a conviction in a state court of the common-law crime of breach of the peace was, under the circumstances of the case, found to be a violation of the Amendment’s commands relating to freedom of religion. In Bridges v. California, 314 U. S. 252 (1941), enforcement of the state’s common-law rule relating to contempts by publication was held to be state action inconsistent with the prohibitions of the Fourteenth Amendment. And cf. Chicago, Burlington and Quincy R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U.S. 226 (1897).
The short of the matter is that from the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment until the present, it has been the consistent ruling of this Court that the action of the States to which the Amendment has reference includes action of state courts and state judicial officials. Although, in construing the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment, differences have from time to time been expressed as to whether particular types of state action may be said to offend the Amendment’s prohibitory provisions, it has never been suggested that state court action is immunized from the operation of those provisions simply because the act is that of the judicial branch of the state government.
III.
Against this background of judicial construction, extending over a period of some three-quarters of a century, we are called upon to consider whether enforcement by state courts of the restrictive agreements in these cases may be deemed to be the acts of those States; and, if so, whether that action has denied these petitioners the equal protection of the laws which the Amendment was intended to insure.
We have no doubt that there has been state action in these cases in the full and complete sense of the phrase. The undisputed facts disclose that petitioners were willing purchasers of properties upon which they desired to establish homes. The owners of the properties were willing sellers; and contracts of sale were accordingly consummated. It is clear that but for the active intervention of the state courts, supported by the full panoply of state power, petitioners would have been free to occupy the properties in question without restraint.
These are not cases, as has been suggested, in which the States have merely abstained from action, leaving private individuals free to impose such discriminations as they see fit. Rather, these are cases in which the States have made available to such individuals the full coercive power of government to deny to petitioners, on the grounds of race or color, the enjoyment of property rights in premises which petitioners are willing and financially able to acquire and which the grantors are willing to sell. The difference between judicial enforcement and non-enforcement of the restrictive covenants is the difference to petitioners between being denied rights of property available to other members of the community and being-accorded full enjoyment of those rights on an equal footing.
The enforcement of the restrictive agreements by the state courts in these cases was directed pursuant to the common-law policy of the States as formulated by those courts in earlier decisions. In the Missouri case, enforcement of the covenant was directed in the first instance by the highest court of the State after the trial court had determined the agreement to be invalid for want of the requisite number of signatures. In the Michigan case, the order of enforcement by the trial court was affirmed by the highest state court. The judicial action in each case bears the clear and unmistakable imprimatur of the State. We have noted that previous decisions of this Court have established the proposition that judicial action is not immunized from the operation of the Fourteenth Amendment simply because it is taken pursuant to the state’s common-law policy. Nor is the Amendment ineffective simply because the particular pattern of discrimination, which the State has enforced, was defined initially by the terms of a private agreement. State action, as that phrase is understood for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment, refers to exertions of state power in all forms. And when the effect of that action is to deny rights subject to the protection of the Fourteenth Amendment, it is the obligation of this Court to enforce the constitutional commands.
We hold that in granting judicial enforcement of the restrictive agreements in these cases, the States have denied petitioners the equal protection of the laws and that, therefore, the action of the state courts cannot stand. We have noted that freedom from discrimination by the States in the enjoyment of property rights was among the basic objectives sought to be effectuated by the framers of the Fourteenth Amendment. That such discrimination has occurred in these cases is clear. Because of the race or color of these petitioners they have been denied rights of ownership or occupancy enjoyed as a matter of course by other citizens of different race or color. The Fourteenth Amendment declares “that all persons, whether colored or white, shall stand equal before the laws of the States, and, in regard to the colored race, for whose protection the amendment was primarily designed, that no discrimination shall be made against them by law because of their color.” Strauder v. West Virginia, supra at 307. Only recently this Court had occasion to declare that a state law which denied equal enjoyment of property rights to a designated class of citizens of specified race and ancestry, was not a legitimate exercise of the state’s police power but violated the guaranty of the equal protection of the laws. Oyama v. California, 332 U. S. 633 (1948). Nor may the discrimina-tions imposed by the state courts in these cases be justified as proper exertions of state police power. Cf. Buchanan v. Warley, supra.
Respondents urge, however, that since the state courts stand ready to enforce restrictive covenants excluding white persons from the ownership or occupancy of property covered by such agreements, enforcement of covenants excluding colored persons may not be deemed a denial of equal protection of the laws to the colored persons who are thereby affected. This contention does not bear scrutiny. The parties have directed our attention to no case in which a court, state or federal, has been called upon to enforce a covenant excluding members of the white majority from ownership or occupancy of real property on grounds of race or color. But there are more fundamental considerations. The rights created by the first section of the Fourteenth Amendment are, by its terms, guaranteed to the individual. The rights established are personal rights. It is, therefore, no answer to these petitioners to say that the courts may also be induced to deny white persons rights of ownership and occupancy on grounds of race or color. Equal protection of the laws is not achieved through indiscriminate imposition of inequalities.
Nor do we find merit in the suggestion that property owners who are parties to these agreements are denied equal protection of the laws if denied access to the courts to enforce the terms of restrictive covenants and to assert property rights which the state courts have held to be created by such agreements. The Constitution confers upon no individual the right to demand action by the State which results in the denial of equal protection of the laws to other individuals. And it would appear beyond question that the power of the State to create and enforce property interests must be exercised within the boundaries defined by the Fourteenth Amendment. Cf. Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U S. 501 (1946).
The problem of defining the scope of the restrictions which the Federal Constitution imposes upon exertions of power by the States has given rise to many of the most persistent and fundamental issues which this Court has been called upon to consider. That problem was foremost in the minds of the framers of the Constitution, and, since that early day, has arisen in a multitude of forms. The task of determining whether the action of a State offends constitutional provisions is one which may not be undertaken lightly. Where, however, it is clear that the action of the State violates the terms of the fundamental charter, it is the obligation of this Court so to declare.
The historical context in which the Fourteenth Amendment became a part of the Constitution should not be forgotten. Whatever else the framers sought to achieve, it is clear that the matter of primary concern was the establishment of equality in the enjoyment of basic civil and political rights and the preservation of those rights from discriminatory action on the part of the States based on considerations of race or color. Seventy-five years ago this Court announced that the provisions of the Amendment are to be construed with this fundamental purpose in mind. Upon full consideration, we have concluded that in these cases the States have acted to deny petitioners the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Having so decided, we find it unnecessary to consider whether petitioners have also been deprived of property without due process of law or denied privileges and immunities of citizens of the United States.
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Supreme Court of Missouri and the judgment of the Supreme Court of Michigan must be reversed.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Reed, Mr. Justice Jackson, and Mr. Justice Rutledge took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
The trial court found that title to the property which petitioners Shelley sought to purchase was held by one Bishop, a real estate dealer, who placed the property in the name of Josephine Fitzgerald. Bishop, who acted as agent for petitioners in the purchase, concealed the fact of his ownership.
Kraemer v. Shelley, 355 Mo. 814, 198 S. W. 2d 679 (1946).
Sipes v. McGhee, 316 Mich. 614, 25 N. W. 2d 638 (1947).
The first section of the Fourteenth Amendment provides: “All persons bom or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
Corrigan v. Buckley, 271 U. S. 323, 330-331 (1926).
Buchanan v. Worley, 245 U. S. 60, 73 (1917).
Slaughter-House Cases, 16 Wall. 36, 70, 81 (1873). See Flack, The Adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment.
In Oyama v. California, 332 U. S. 633, 640 (1948) the section of the Civil Rights Act herein considered is described as the federal statute, “enacted before the Fourteenth Amendment but vindicated by it.” The Civil Rights Act of 1866 was reenacted in § 18 of the Act of May 31, 1870, subsequent to the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment. 16 Stat. 144.
14 Stat. 27,8 U. S. C.§42.
Buchanan v. Warley, 245 U. S. 60, 79 (1917).
Courts of Georgia, Maryland, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Texas, and Virginia have also declared similar statutes invalid as being in contravention of the Fourteenth Amendment. Glover v. Atlanta, 148 Ga. 285, 96 S. E. 562 (1918); Jackson v. State, 132 Md. 311, 103 A. 910 (1918); Clinard v. Winston-Salem, 217 N. C. 119, 6 S. E. 2d 867 (1940); Allen v. Oklahoma City, 175 Okla. 421, 52 P. 2d 1054 (1936); Liberty Annex Corp. v. Dallas, 289 S. W. 1067 (Tex. Civ. App. 1927); Irvine v. Clifton Forge, 124 Va. 781, 97 S. E. 310 (1918).
And see United States v. Harris, 106 U. S. 629 (1883); United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 (1876).
Among the phrases appearing in the opinion are the following: “the operation of State laws, and the action of State officers executive or judicial”; “State laws and State proceedings”; “State law... or some State action through its officers or agents”; “State laws and acts done under State authority”; “State laws, or State action of some kind”; “such laws as the States may adopt or enforce”; “such acts and proceedings as the States may commit or take”; “State legislation or action”; “State law or State authority.”
Neal v. Delaware, 103 U. S. 370, 397 (1881); Scott v. McNeal, 154 U. S. 34, 45 (1894); Chicago, Burlington and Quincy R. Co. v. Chicago, 166 U. S. 226, 233-235 (1897); Hovey v. Elliott, 167 U. S. 409, 417-418 (1897); Carter v. Texas, 177 U. S. 442, 447 (1900); Martin v. Texas, 200 U. S. 316, 319 (1906); Raymond v. Chicago Union Traction Co., 207 U. S. 20, 35-36 (1907); Home Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Los Angeles, 227 U. S. 278, 286-287 (1913); Prudential Insurance Co. v. Cheek, 259 U. S. 530, 548 (1922); American Railway Express Co. v. Kentucky, 273 U. S. 269, 274 (1927); Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103, 112-113 (1935); Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U. S. 32, 41 (1940).
And see Standard Oil Co. v. Missouri, 224 U. S. 270, 281-282 (1912); Hansberry v. Lee, 311 U. S. 32 (1940).
Brown v. Mississippi, 297 U. S. 278 (1936); Chambers v. Florida, 309 U. S. 227 (1940); Ashcraft v. Tennessee, 322 U. S. 143 (1944); Lee v. Mississippi, 332 U. S. 742 (1948).
See Mooney v. Holohan, 294 U. S. 103 (1935); Pyle v. Kansas, 317 U.S. 213 (1942).
Powell v. Alabama, 287 U. S. 45 (1932); Williams v. Kaiser, 323 U. S. 471 (1945); Tomkins v. Missouri, 323 U. S. 485 (1945); De Meerleer v. Michigan, 329 U. S. 663 (1947).
In applying the rule of Erie R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U. S. 64 (1938), it is clear that the common-law rales enunciated by state courts in judicial opinions are to be regarded as a part of the law of the State.
And see Bakery Drivers Local v. Wohl, 315 U. S. 769 (1942); Cafeteria Employees Union v. Angelos, 320 U. S. 293 (1943).
And see Pennekamp v. Florida, 328 U. S. 331 (1946); Craig v. Harney, 331 U. S. 367 (1947).
See Swain v. Maxwell, 355 Mo. 448, 196 S. W. 2d 780 (1946); Koehler v. Rowland, 275 Mo. 573, 205 S. W. 217 (1918). See also Parmalee v. Morris, 218 Mich. 625, 188 N. W. 330 (1922). Cf. Porter v. Barrett, 233 Mich. 373, 206 N. W. 532 (1925).
Cf.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The three respondent railroads each sued in the Court of Claims to recover from the United States as shipper the difference between the tariff rates actually paid and those allegedly due on 211 Army shipments of steel aerial bomb cases filled with napalm gel. Approximately 200 of the shipments were made over the lines of respondents Bangor and Seaboard in 1944; the remainder were carried by respondent Western Pacific in 1948 and 1950.
Napalm gel is gasoline .which has been thickened by the addition of aluminum soap powder. The mixture is inflammable but not self-igniting. In a completed incendiary bomb the napalm gel is ignited by white phosphorus contained in a burster charge, which in turn is fired by a fuse. These shipments, however, involved only the steel casings and the napalm gel; burster and fuse had not yet been added.
The carriers billed the Government at the high first-class rates established in Item 1820 of Consolidated Freight Classification No. 17 for “incendiary bombs.” Pursuant to § 322 of the Transportation Act of 1940, the Government paid the bills of the Bangor and the Seaboard as presented; on post-audit, however, the General Accounting Office made deductions against these respondents’ subsequent bills on other shipments, on the ground that the shipments in question should have been carried at the lower, fifth-class, rate applicable to gasoline in steel drums. The bills of the Western Pacific were initially paid at the lower rate. Respondents thereupon brought the present suits to recover the difference between the bills as rendered and as paid in the case of the Western Pacific, and the amount of the deductions in the other two cases.
The Government defended on three grounds: (1) that Item 1820 was inapplicable because absence of burster and fuse deprived these bombs of the essential characteristics of “incendiary bombs,” and hence no additional sums were due; (2) that if this tariff item was held to govern, the tariff would be unreasonable as applied to these shipments, and that as to this issue the court proceedings should be suspended and the matter referred to the Interstate Commerce Commission; and (3) that in any event the Bangor and Seaboard were estopped from charging the “1820” rate.
The Court of Claims, relying on its earlier decision in Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 125 Ct. Cl. 390, 111 F. Supp. 266, entered summary judgment for respondents, two judges dissenting. It held that the shipments in question were “incendiary bombs” within the meaning of Item 1820 of the tariff and thus entitled to the higher rate. In addition, while seemingly recognizing the Government's right to have the defense of unreasonableness determined by the Interstate Commerce Commission, the court ruled that the running of the two-year period of limitations provided by § 16 (3) of the Interstate Commerce Act cut off the right of referral to the Commission. Lastly, the court overruled the defense of estoppel as to the respondents Bangor and Seaboard. Because of the importance of these questions in the administration of the Interstate Commerce Act, and alleged conflict among the lower courts on the issue of limitations, we granted certiorari. 350 U. S. 953.
I.
We are met at the outset with the question of whether the Court of Claims properly applied the doctrine of primary jurisdiction in this case; that is, whether it correctly allocated the issues in the suit between the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission and that of the court. In the view of the court below, the case presented two entirely separate questions. One was the question of the construction of the tariff — whether Item 1820 was applicable to these shipments. The second was the question of the reasonableness of that tariff, if so applied. The Court of Claims assumed, as it had in the Union Pacific case, supra, that the first of these — whether the “1820” rate applied — was a matter simply of tariff construction and thus properly within the initial cognizance of the court. The second — the reasonableness of the tariff as applied to these shipments — it seemed to regard as being within the initial competence of the Interstate Commerce Commission. Before this Court neither side has questioned the validity of the lower court’s views in these respects. Nevertheless, because we regard the maintenance of a proper relationship between the courts and the Commission in matters affecting transportation policy to be of continuing public concern, we have been constrained to inquire into this aspect of the decision. We have concluded that in the circumstances here presented the question of tariff construction, as well as that of the reasonableness of the tariff as applied, was within the exclusive primary jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission.
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction, like the rule requiring exhaustion of administrative remedies, is concerned with promoting proper relationships between the courts and administrative agencies charged with particular regulatory duties. “Exhaustion” applies where a claim is cognizable in the first instance by an administrative agency alone; judicial interference is withheld until the administrative process has run its course. “Primary jurisdiction,” on the other hand, applies where a claim is originally cognizable in the courts, and comes into play whenever enforcement of the claim requires the resolution of issues which, under a regulatory scheme, have been placed within the special competence of an administrative body; in such a case the judicial process is suspended pending referral of such issues to the administrative body for its views. General American Tank Car Corp. v. El Dorado Terminal Co., 308 U. S. 422, 433.
No fixed formula exists for applying the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. In every case the question is whether the reasons for the existence of the doctrine are present and whether the purposes it serves will be aided by its application in the particular litigation. These reasons and purposes have often been given expression by this Court. In the earlier cases emphasis was laid on the desirable uniformity which would obtain if initially a specialized agency passed on certain types of administrative questions. See Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. Abilene Cotton Oil Co., 204 U. S. 426. More recently the expert and specialized knowledge of the agencies involved has been particularly stressed. See Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U. S. 570. The two factors are part of the same principle,
“now firmly established, that in cases raising issues of fact not within the conventional experience of judges or cases requiring the exercise of administrative discretion, agencies created by Congress for regulating the subject matter should not be passed over. This is so even though the facts after they have been appraised by specialized competence serve as a premise for legal consequences to be judicially defined. Uniformity and consistency in the regulation of business entrusted to a particular agency are secured, and the limited functions of review by the judiciary are more rationally exercised, by preliminary resort for ascertaining and interpreting the circumstances underlying legal issues to agencies that are better equipped than courts by specialization, by insight gained through experience, and by more flexible procedure.” Id., at 574-575.
The doctrine of primary jurisdiction thus does “more than prescribe the mere procedural time table of the lawsuit. It is a doctrine allocating the law-making power over certain aspects” of commercial relations. “It transfers from court to agency the power to determine” some of the incidents of such relations.
Thus the first question presented is whether effectuation of the statutory purposes of the Interstate Commerce Act requires that the Interstate Commerce Commission should first pass on the construction of the tariff in dispute here; this, in turn, depends on whether the question raises issues of transportation policy which ought to be considered by the Commission in the interests of a uniform and expert administration of the regulatory scheme laid down by that Act. Decision is governed by two earlier cases in this Court. In Texas & Pacific R. Co. v. American Tie & Timber Co., 234 U. S. 138, a shipper attempted to ship oak railroad ties under a tariff for “lumber.” . The carrier rejected them, urging that such ties were not lumber. In a damage action expert testimony was received on the question. This Court, however, held that the Interstate Commerce Commission alone could resolve the question. The effect of the holding is clear: the courts must not only refrain from making tariffs, but, under certain circumstances, must decline to construe them as well. A particularization of such circumstances emerged in Great Northern R. Co. v. Merchants Elevator Co., 259 U. S. 285. There the Court held that where the question is simply one of construction the courts may pass on it as an issue “solely of law.” But where words in a tariff are used in a peculiar or technical sense, and where extrinsic evidence is necessary to determine their meaning or proper application, so that “the enquiry is essentially one of fact and of discretion in technical matters,” then the issue of tariff application must first go to the Commission. The reason is plainly set forth: such a “determination is reached ordinarily upon voluminous and conflicting evidence, for the adequate appreciation of which acquaintance with many intricate facts of transportation is indispensable; and such acquaintance is commonly to be found only in a body of experts.” Id., at 291. We must therefore decide whether a determination of the meaning of the term “incendiary bomb” in Item 1820 involves factors “the adequate appreciation of which” presupposes an “acquaintance with many intricate facts of transportation.” We conclude that it does.
A tariff is not an abstraction. It embodies an analysis of the costs incurred in the transportation of a certain article and a decision as to how much should, therefore, be charged for the carriage of that article in order to produce a fair and reasonable return. Complex and technical cost-allocation and accounting problems must be solved in setting the tariff initially. In the case of “incendiary bombs,” since it is expensive to take the elaborate safety precautions necessary to carry such items in safety, evidently there must have been calculation of the costs of handling, supervising and insuring an inherently dangerous cargo. In other words, there were obviously commercial reasons why a higher tariff was set for incendiary bombs than for, say, lumber. It therefore follows that the decision whether a certain item was intended to be covered by the tariff for incendiary bombs involves an intimate knowledge of these very reasons themselves. Whether steel casings filled with napalm gel are incendiary bombs is, in this context, more than simply a question of reading the tariff language or applying abstract “rules” of construction. For the basic issue is how far the reasons justifying a high rate for the carriage of extra-hazardous objects were applicable to the instant shipment. Do the factors which make for high costs and therefore high rates on incendiary bombs also call for a high rate on steel casings filled with napalm gel? To answer that question there must be close familiarity with these factors. Such familiarity is possessed not by the courts but by the agency which had the exclusive power to pass on the rate in the first instance. And, on the other hand, to decide the question of the scope of this tariff without consideration of the factors and purposes underlying the terminology employed would make the process of adjudication little more than an exercise in semantics.
The main thrust of the Government’s argument on the construction question went to the fact that the shipments here involved were not as hazardous as contemplated by the term “incendiary bomb” as used in the tariff, and that therefore the tariff should not be construed to cover them. Similarly, the dissenting judges below emphasized the absence from the shipments of the commercial factors which call for a high rate on incendiary bombs: “If the reason for the high freight rate is the incendiary quality of the freight, and if the freight does not have the incendiary quality, the reason for the high rate vanishes and the rate should vanish with it.” 132 Ct. Cl., at 118, 131 F. Supp., at 921. The difficulty with this line of argument is that we do not know whether the “incendiary quality of the freight” was in fact the reason for the high rate, still less whether that was the only reason and how much weight should be assigned to it. Courts which do not make rates cannot know with exactitude the factors which go into the rate-making process. And for the court here to undertake to fix the limits of the tariff’s application without knowledge of such factors, and the extent to which they are present or absent in the particular case, is tantamount to engaging in judicial guesswork. It was the Commission and not the court which originally determined why incendiaries should be transported at a high rate. It is thus the Commission which should determine whether shipments of napalm gel bombs, minus bursters and fuses, meet those requirements; that is, whether the factors making for certain costs and thus a certain rate on incendiaries are present in the carriage of such incompleted bombs.
This conclusion is fortified by the artificiality of the distinction between the issues of tariff construction and of the reasonableness of the tariff as applied, the latter being recognized by all to be one for the Interstate Commerce Commission. For the Government’s thesis on the issue of reasonableness is not that the rate on incendiary bombs is, in general, too high. It argues only that the rate “as applied” to these particular shipments is too high — i. e., that since the expenses which have to be met in shipping incendiaries have not been incurred in this case, the carriers will be making an unreasonable profit on these shipments. This seems to us to be but another way of saying that the wrong tariff was applied. In both instances the issue is whether the factors which call for a high rate on incendiary bomb shipments are present in a shipment of bomb casings full of napalm gel but lacking bursters and fuses. And the mere fact that the issue is phrased in one instance as a matter of tariff construction and in the other as a matter of reasonableness should not be determinative on the jurisdictional issue. To hold otherwise would make the doctrine of primary jurisdiction an abstraction to be called into operation at the whim of the pleader.
By no means do we imply that matters of tariff construction are never cognizable in the courts. We adhere to the distinctions laid down in Great Northern R. Co. v. Merchants Elevator Co., supra, which call for decision based on the particular facts of each case. Certainly there would be no need to refer the matter of construction to the Commission if that body, in prior releases or opinions, has already construed the particular tariff at issue or has clarified the factors underlying it. See Crancer v. Lowden, 315 U. S. 631. And in many instances construing the tariff does not call for examination of the underlying cost-allocation which went into the making of the tariff in the first instance. We say merely that where, as here, the problem of cost-allocation is relevant, and where therefore the questions of construction and reasonableness are so intertwined that the same factors are determinative on both issues, then it is the Commission which must first pass on them.
We hold, therefore, that both the issues of tariff construction and the reasonableness of the tariff as applied were initially matters for the Commission’s determination.
II.
We come then to the question of whether referral of these issues to the Commission was barred by the two-year period of limitation contained in § 16 (3) of the Interstate Commerce Act. We hold that it was not.
Section 16 (3) (a) provides that "all actions at law by carriers subject to this chapter for recovery of their charges . . . shall be begun within two years from the time the cause of action accrues, and not after.” This provision makes it clear that where a carrier sues a private shipper the action must be brought within two years. However, the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. § 2501, provides that “every claim of which the Court of Claims has jurisdiction shall be barred unless the petition thereon is filed . . . within six years after such claim first accrues.” Relying on the broad language of the latter act, the Court of Claims has, since 1926, consistently held that § 16 (3) does not apply to suits by carriers to recover alleged undercharges from the United States as shipper. Southern Pac. Co. v. United States, 62 Ct. Cl. 391; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. United States, 113 Ct. Cl. 437, 83 F. Supp. 1012; Union Pacific R. Co. v. United States, 114 Ct. Cl. 714, 86 F. Supp. 907. The present suits were thus held timely brought, even though more than two years had elapsed since the accrual of the cause of action. However, the Court of Claims held that the two-year limitation of § 16 (3) did bar the Government from obtaining a reference of its defense of unreasonableness to the Interstate Commerce Commission. Presumably it would have ruled likewise as to the issue of tariff construction had it regarded that question as lying initially within the competence of the Commission. In other words, the holding below was that the United States can be sued for six years but can raise certain defenses only if the suit is brought in the first two of those years.
We may assume, without deciding, that the Government would have been barred by § 16 (3) from filing an affirmative suit before the Commission to recover overcharges from a carrier. Nevertheless we do not think that the statute operates to bar reference to the Commission of questions raised by way of defense in suits which are themselves timely brought. Respondents in effect ask us to hold that a suit may be brought for six years but that certain defenses thereto may be raised only for two years. Only the clearest congressional language could force us to a result which would allow a carrier to recover unreasonable charges with impunity merely by waiting two years before filing suit.
Section 16 (3) does not deal with referral of questions to the Commission incident to judicial proceedings. On its face it has to do only with the commencement of actions or reparation proceedings before the Commission. There is therefore no language which militates against the conclusion that the statute does not apply to referrals. More important, the basic policy behind statutes of limitations has no relevance to the situation here. The purpose of such statutes is to keep stale litigation out of the courts. They are aimed at lawsuits, not at the consideration of particular issues in lawsuits. Here the action was already in court and held to have been brought in time. To use the statute of limitations to cut off the consideration of a particular defense in the case is quite foreign to the policy of preventing the commencement of stale litigation. We think it would be incongruous to hold that once a lawsuit is properly before the court, decision must be made without consideration of all the issues in the case and without the benefit of all the applicable law. If this litigation is not stale, then no issue in it can be deemed stale.
It is argued that this Court has construed § 16 (3) as “jurisdictional” and that the Commission is therefore barred absolutely from hearing questions as to the reasonableness of rates arising in suits brought after two years, whether such questions come to the Commission by way of referral or in an original suit. Reliance is placed upon A. J. Phillips Co. v. Grand Trunk R. Co., 236 U. S. 662; William Danzer & Co. v. Gulf & S. I. R. Co., 268 U. S. 633; Midstate Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 320 U. S. 356. But these cases all dealt with affirmative claims for the recovery of transportation charges, and not with referrals incident to suits which were originally brought in time. The teaching of the Midstate case, for instance, is that the running of the statute destroys the right to affirmative recovery as well as the remedy, so that the period of limitations cannot be waived by the parties. But here the Government is not asserting a right to affirmative recovery. It is seeking only to have adjudicated questions raised by way of defense. It is therefore irrelevant whether the statute of limitations is “jurisdictional” or not; the question would still remain whether Congress intended it to apply to referrals as well as to affirmative suits. Nor does Morrisdale Coal Co. v. Pennsylvania R. Co., 230 U. S. 304, help the respondents. There again the statute of limitations was invoked against a plaintiff in order to bar an affirmative claim which was untimely filed. A coal shipper had sued a carrier for damages arising out of the alleged discriminatory allotment of railroad cars for its use. Stating that the propriety of the carrier’s method of allotment, even though incident to a damage action, was cognizable only by the Commission, and that redress there was governed by the two-year statute of limitations, the Court held that the statute could not be evaded by filing suit in the District Court, rather than before the Commission, and then having the barred claim adjudicated by referral to the latter. In effect the holding was that the plaintiff had invoked the wrong tribunal, and that since limitations barred suit before the correct tribunal no referral could be made to the latter. Morrisdale must be limited to its peculiar facts, and we shall not extend it to bar the referral of defenses in actions properly and timely brought, as the Court of Claims has held this one was.
We are told that the Government can protect itself, when it believes it has been charged an unreasonable rate, by filing an affirmative claim for reparations with the Commission within the two-year period provided by § 16 (3). But Congress has relieved the Government from filing such anticipatory suits by expressly authorizing the General Accounting Office to deduct overpay-ments from subsequent bills of the carrier if, on post-audit, it finds that the United States has been overcharged. This right was thought to be a necessary measure to protect the Government, since carriers’ bills must be paid on presentation and before audit. On respondents’ theory the Government could invoke this right only at the peril of losing its defenses in a later suit by the carrier. Evidently this was not tire purpose of Congress in authorizing unilateral set-off.
We hold, therefore, that the limitation of § 16 (3) does not bar a reference to the Interstate Commerce Commission of questions raised by way of defense and within the Commission’s primary jurisdiction, as were these questions relating to the applicable tariff.
III.
There remains the question of whether the Court of Claims properly dismissed the Government’s defense of estoppel as to the respondents Bangor and Seaboard. We deal with it now because that defense would be reached should the further proceedings below, which must follow in consequence of what we have already said, result in adherence to the view that Item 1820 applies to these shipments.
The Government’s claim is that the Bangor and Seaboard were estopped from charging the “1820” rate because of the Army’s reliance on a ruling of the Official Classification Committee, a railroad tariff agency to which these two respondents belonged, that this type of napalm gel bomb shipment would be carried at a lower rate. The Court of Claims rejected this defense because (1) the ruling was later withdrawn by the Committee; (2) the Government had shown no detrimental reliance on the ruling; (3) it had paid the high rate billed for all shipments; and (4) neither carrier had acquiesced in the Committee’s ruling.
We think that the Court of Claims erred in disposing of this defense by summary judgment. It appears to be undisputed that the ruling in question was not rescinded until after all of these shipments had been made. The Government’s affidavits in opposition to the motion for summary judgment were, in our opinion, sufficient to entitle it to an opportunity to prove reliance and detriment. The fact that the Government paid the carrier’s bills as rendered is without significance in light of § 322 of the Transportation Act, supra, requiring payment “upon presentation” of such bills and postponing final settlement until audit. And the question whether the Official Classification Committee had authority to bind these two carriers to acceptance of a lower rate presents issues of fact which must be tried. Nor, unlike the case of a private shipper, do we think that the defense of estoppel is unavailable to the Government. See 49 U. S. C. § 22. Cf. Oregon-Wash. R. & N. Co. v. United States, 255 U. S. 339; Western Pac. R. Co. v. United States, 255 U. S. 349. We conclude that the Government should have an opportunity to prove estoppel, without any intimation, of course, as to whether it will be able to establish the defense.
The judgment below must be reversed and the case remanded to the Court of Claims for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The suits were brought under the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1491.
54 Stat. 955, 49 U. S. C. § 66. This section provides: “Payment for transportation of the United States mail and of persons or property for or on behalf of the United States by any common carrier subject to the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended, or the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938, shall be made upon presentation of bills therefor, prior to audit or settlement by the General Accounting Office, but the right is hereby reserved to the United States Government to deduct the amount of any overpayment to any such carrier from any amount subsequently found to be due such carrier.”
It is not entirely clear from the record just what rate the Government believes is applicable to these shipments. It seems to concede that Item 1895 of Consolidated Freight Classification No. 17, covering “Empty Aerial Bombs,” does not apply, although this was the original classification assigned to such shipments by the Official Classification Committee, a railroad tariff agency. The essence of the Government’s position seems to be that these shipments, being nonincendiary, were a mere combination of gasoline, napalm thickener, and steel casings. Since these three items, standing alone, are all carried at the fifth-class rate, the Government urges that the “combination rule” should apply and the articles be carried at the same fifth-class rate under Rule 18 of Consolidated Freight Classification No. 17.
In that case the Court of Claims held Item 1820 applicable to shipments similar to those involved here. The Government did not seek review of that decision.
132 Ct. Cl. 115, 131 F. Supp. 919. The dissenters were Judge Madden and Chief Judge Jones.
24 Stat. 384, as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 16 (3).
The Court of Claims stated in the Union Pacific case, 125 Ct. Cl., at 393, 111 F. Supp., at 268: “At the outset, it should be noted that while this court has no rate-making functions . . . the construction and application of published rates and classifications are proper matters for the courts as well as for the Interstate Commerce Commission.”
Jaffe, Primary Jurisdiction Reconsidered, 102 Univ. Pa. L. Rev. 577, 583-584 (1954).
In response to the motion for summary judgment the Government presented affidavits by chemical engineers stating that napalm gel is not incendiary. But these affidavits become meaningful only if the court knows the precise relevance of the incendiary quality of the shipments to the setting of the rate.
The artificiality of trying to separate the issue of “construction” from that of “reasonableness as applied” is illustrated by the Court of Claims’ holding in the Union Pacific case, supra. There, after holding that the absence of bursters and fuses did “not affect the identity of the articles” as incendiary bombs, the court went on to say that “it may well be that a lower tariff rate should apply to the carriage of the less hazardous incendiary bomb [one without burster and fuse]. This question is not within our jurisdiction, however, as the question of the reasonableness of rates is a matter entrusted by Congress solely to the Interstate Commerce Commission.” 125 Ct. Cl., at 393, 394, 111 F. Supp., at 268. Similarly, the Government here concedes that the question of hazard “goes to the issue of reasonableness,” although arguing that it is “also relevant to the question of tariff interpretation, for, like any other instrument, a tariff is to be read in the light of its known purposes and in a manner which avoids unnecessary and gross unfairness.”
24 Stat. 384, as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 16 (3) (a).
The suits were instituted in 1954. In the Western Pacific case the carrier's claims accrued in 1948 and 1950, when the United States paid the lower rate instead of the “1820” rate for which it was billed. As to the Bangor and Seaboard cases, where the United States initially paid the “1820” rate as billed (presumably in 1944 when the shipments were made), and subsequently readjusted that rate on post-audit, it is impossible to say when the claims accrued as the record is silent as to when the post-audit readjustment was made.
Although questioning the soundness of this ruling which subjects carriers’ claims against the United States as shipper to a more lenient statute of limitations than that applicable to their claims against other shippers, the Government has not challenged it here. We therefore do not pass on it.
The opinion of the Court of Claims does not expressly refer to the two-year period of § 16 (3). The cases cited by the court, however, make it clear that it had in mind that provision, probably § 16 (3) (c), which reads: “For recovery of overcharges action at law shall be begun or complaint filed with the commission against carriers subject to this chapter within two years from the time the cause of action accrues, and not after . . . .”
The fact that in this instance the issues of tariff “construction” and “reasonableness” were both referrable to the Commission does not, of course, bring the ease within Morrisdale. Both of these questions were issues only by reason of the Government’s defense; neither was part of the carrier’s affirmative case. In other words, had the applicability of this tariff not been challenged by the Government, the carrier’s own ease would have presented nothing which was referrable to the Commission.
See n. 2, supra.
Statistics furnished by the Comptroller General show that since 1948 the General Accounting Office has post-audited 17,220,783 bills presented by carriers. In the same period post-audit revealed overpayment in 1,102,654 cases. The magnitude of these figures underscores the impossibility of requiring the Government to file anticipatory suits before the I. C. C. in every case where it thinks the carrier might later sue to recover the amount set off by the Government.
The estoppel defense is not asserted against the Western Pacific, so that this case must in any event go to the Commission. Hence adjudication of the estoppel defense as to the Bangor and Seaboard would no doubt await the Commission's determination as to whether the “1820” tariff was applicable to these shipments, and reasonable if so applied.
The ruling was made in 1943 and was confirmed in 1945. The Bangor and Seaboard shipments were made in 1944.
A private shipper may not invoke the defense of estoppel to prevent a carrier from collecting a higher applicable tariff rate than that which may have been actually quoted by the carrier. This results from § 6 (7) of the Interstate Commerce Act, 24 Stat. 380, as amended, 49 U. S. C. §6(7), forbidding departures from the published tariff. See Pittsburgh, Cincinnati, Chicago & St. Louis R. Co. v. Fink, 250 U. S. 577, 583. The same considerations do not obtain when the Government is the shipper, in view of § 22 of the Act, 24 Stat. 387, as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 22, providing that “nothing in this chapter shall prevent the carriage, storage, or handling of property free or at reduced rates for the United States.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Me. Justice Makshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Under § 7 (c) of the Natural Gas Act, producers who sell natural gas to pipelines for resale in interstate commerce must obtain a certificate of public convenience and necessity from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. Section 7 (b) of the Act obligates these producers to continue supplying gas in the interstate market until the Commission authorizes an “abandonment.” The principal issue presented by this case is whether a producer may, consistent with § 7 (b), ever terminate this service obligation without obtaining the agency’s express approval.
I
The natural gas involved in this case is produced from a 163-acre tract of land located in Karnes County, Tex., and known as the Butler B tract. In 1948, the owner of this land, B. C. Butler, Sr., executed an oil and gas lease with W. R. Quin as the lessee. Quin’s widow contracted in 1953 to sell petitioner United Gas Pipe Line Co. (United), for a 10-year period, all “merchantable natural gas . . . now or hereafter” produced from the Butler B tract. App. 7A. Because United was an interstate pipeline company, Ms. Quin applied to the Commission for a certificate of public convenience and necessity authorizing this sale. The certificate issued by the Commission contained neither a time limitation nor any designation of the depths from which the gas would be produced.
After United installed gathering facilities on the property and began receiving gas from a well 2,960 feet deep, the Butler B lease was assigned several times. H. A. Pagenkopf eventually obtained the leasehold, and in 1961, he agreed to extend the term of United’s gas purchase contract through February 7, 1981. Upon Pagenkopf’s application, the Commission issued a new certificate in 1963, authorizing continued service to United under the same terms as the earlier certificate. In March 1966, Pagenkopf assigned the Butler B. lease to a group headed by L. H. Haring, and shortly thereafter, the only successful well on the property stopped producing. Haring’s operator, Bay Rock Corp., notified United some months later that the existing wells were depleted and no other gas would be available at that time. United replied that it would remove its metering equipment for use elsewhere, but would reinstall the equipment “if, at some future date, you have further gas to deliver to us at the above delivery point, which will be subject to the terms of the above-captioned contract.” App. 8A-9A. Despite the Commission’s subsequent warning that § 7 (b) required the filing of an abandonment application if no further sales were contemplated, Haring never sought the Commission’s authorization for abandoning service to United.
During 1971 and 1972, Haring divided the Butler B leasehold horizontally and vertically, and he assigned to a group headed by respondent McCombs a working interest in the eastern 113 acres of the tract between the depths of 6,500 and 8,653 feet. A few months later, the group acquired a similar interest in the entire Butler B tract from depths of 8,700 to 9,700 feet. Drilling to these deeper horizons, the McCombs group discovered new gas reserves. In 1972, they contracted to sell this gas to respondent E. I. du Pont de Nemours & Co. for industrial uses in intrastate commerce. Upon learning of the renewed production, however, United asserted its rights under the 1953 contract, as extended in 1961, to purchase all gas produced from the property. When the McCombs group rejected this claim, United filed a complaint with the Commission.
The Commission upheld the Administrative Law Judge’s determination that the McCombs group could not sell the Butler B gas in intrastate commerce, at least through February 7, 1981. Opinion No. 740, App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 78-17, pp. A-32 to A-33. In particular, the Commission found that the certificates issued to the group’s predecessors covered all gas produced from the property, including the reserves discovered in 1971 and 1972. Because these predecessors had commenced deliveries pursuant to the certificates, the Commission ruled that all reserves embraced by the certificates were “dedicated” to interstate commerce and could not be diverted from that market without obtaining the agency’s approval under § 7 (b). Noting that it had not authorized abandonment during the 5-year interruption in service, the Commission refused to grant its approval retroactively where, as here, the supply of natural gas was not in fact depleted. Accordingly, the Commission declared the sales in intrastate commerce violative of the Act, and ordered delivery to United of all gas derived from the Butler B leasehold.
A divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit set aside the Commission’s order. 570 F. 2d 1376 (1978). The court did not dispute the Commission’s determination that all gas underlying the Butler B tract had. been dedicated to interstate commerce. However, while acknowledging that § 7 (b) expressly requires Commission approval before a producer may withdraw dedicated natural gas from the interstate market, the majority held that “strict compliance” with this requirement was unnecessary here. 570 F. 2d, at 1381. In the court’s view, “there was no need for the formality of a Section 7 (b) hearing,” ibid., because
“the abandonment of the service in the instant case was accomplished, as a matter of law, when all of the parties recognized that the then known natural gas reserves were depleted in 1966 followed by failure to provide any service under the certificates for a period of five years during which time there was no evidence of other estimated gas reserves recoverable from the subject leaseholds.” Id., at 1382.
In sum, the Court of Appeals considered the facts so clear that the abandonment issue was no longer “within the expertise of the Commission.” Id., at 1381. The dissenting judge found this conclusion “directly contrary to the plain terms of § 7 (b),” which mandate approval by the Commission as the sole means of effectuating a valid abandonment. Id., at 1382.
We granted certiorari, 439 U. S. 892 (1978), and now reverse.
II
Congress could not have been more explicit in establishing Commission approval as a prerequisite for lawful abandonment of service within its jurisdiction. Section 7 (b) provides:
“No natural-gas company shall abandon all or any portion of its facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, or any service rendered by means of such facilities, without the permission and approval of the Commission first had and obtained, after due hearing, and a finding by the Commission that the available supply of natural gas is depleted to the extent that the continuance of service is unwarranted, or that the present or future public convenience or necessity permit such abandonment.” 52 Stat. 824, 15 U. S. C. § 717f (b).
Not only does the statute require companies to obtain the “approval of the Commission . . . after due hearing,” but it also prohibits abandonment absent specific findings by the Commission. The language of § 7 (b) simply does not admit of any exception to the statutory procedure.
This plain meaning has been acknowledged in several of our previous decisions. Emphasizing that the Natural Gas Act’s fundamental purpose was to assure the public a reliable supply of gas at reasonable prices, the Court noted in Atlantic Refining Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 360 U. S. 378 (1959), that once gas has been dedicated to interstate commerce, “there can be no withdrawal of that supply from continued interstate movement without Commission approval.” Id., at 388, 389, 392 (emphasis added). The Court again addressed the necessity of obtaining the agency’s permission in Sunray Mid-Continent Oil Co. v. FPC, 364 U. S. 137 (1960). There, the Court upheld the Commission’s authority to insist upon issuing permanent certificates of convenience and necessity, reasoning that this power was essential to prevent companies from circumventing the regulatory scheme. For if producers could demand certificates of limited duration, and thereby escape federal regulation when the certificates expire, the abandonment procedures of § 7 (b) would be rendered meaningless. 364 U. S., at 142-144, 148. Of particular importance here, the Court specifically considered the impact that depletion of gas supplies would have on a company’s obligation to seek abandonment permission. Approving the Commission’s practice of issuing certificates that extend beyond the expected life of a given reserve, the Court stressed:
“[I]f the companies, failing to find new sources of gas supply, desired to abandon service because of a depletion of supply, they would have to make proof thereof before the Commission, under § 7 (b). The Commission thus, even though there may be physical problems beyond its control, [keeps] legal control over the continuation of service by the applicants.” Id., at 158 n. 25.
In short, Sunray makes clear that producers must secure Commission approval to abandon service even when there is little or no doubt that gas supplies are exhausted.
This Court expressed a similar understanding of the abandonment provision in United Gas Pipe Line Co. v. FPC, 385 U. S. 83 (1966), which upheld the Commission’s determination that a company had violated § 7 (b) of the Act by unilaterally abandoning jurisdictional facilities to avoid paying increased gas prices. In so holding, the Court reiterated that the “statutory necessity of prior Commission approval, with its underlying findings, cannot be escaped.” 385 U. S., at 89 (emphasis added). We reaffirmed this interpretation of § 7 (b) just last Term in California v. Southland Royalty Co., 436 U. S. 619 (1978). The lessees in Southland had dedicated to interstate commerce gas produced from a particular tract, but, when the lease expired, the lessors to whom the oil and gas rights had reverted arranged to sell the remaining gas in the intrastate market. This Court held that even expiration of the lease did not terminate the obligation to continue selling the gas in interstate commerce. To conclude otherwise, we reasoned, would enable private parties to circumvent the Commission’s authority over abandonments. And evasion of federal jurisdiction by this means could not be reconciled with the principle that “[o]nce the gas commenced to flow into interstate commerce from the facilities used by the lessees, § 7 (b) require[s] that the Commission’s permission be obtained prior to the discontinuance of 'any service rendered by means of such facilities.’ ” Id., at 527 (emphasis added).
Thus, we have consistently recognized that the Commission’s "legal control over the continuation of service,” Sunray, supra, at 158 n. 25, is a fundamental component of the regulatory scheme. To deprive the Commission of this authority, even in limited circumstances, would conflict with basic policies underlying the Act.
Requiring Commission approval, “after due hearing,” permits all interested parties to be heard and therefore facilitates full presentation of the facts necessary to determine whether § 7 (b)’s criteria have been met. Contrary to respondents’ assumption, see Brief for Respondents 20-21, the Commission does not automatically approve abandonments whenever production has ceased. Indeed, the agency recently refused to grant an application where the producer had not adequately tested for new gas reserves. Had the lessees in the instant case filed an application for abandonment between 1966 and 1971, United might well have demonstrated that exploration of the leasehold had been insufficient to justify finding “the available supply of natural gas . . . depleted to the extent that the continuance of service [was] unwarranted.” § 7 (b). And the Commission might have concluded that production from deeper reserves or other measures to restore service were feasible. Permitting natural gas companies to bypass abandonment proceedings simply .because known reserves appear depleted would obviously foreclose these factual inquiries. Consequently, the abandonment determination would rest, as a practical matter, in the producer’s control, a result clearly at odds with Congress’ purpose to regulate the supply and price of natural gas. See California v. Southland Royalty Co., supra, at 526-527, 529-530; Sunray Mid-Continent Oil Co. v. FPC, supra, at 142-147.
Moreover, the obligation to obtain Commission approval promotes certainty and reliability in the regulatory scheme. Knowledge that termination of service is lawful only if authorized by the Commission enables producers, prospective assignees, and other interested parties to determine with assurance whether a particular tract remains dedicated to interstate commerce. In contrast, the Court of Appeals’ test for de facto abandonment would invite speculation regarding the extent of the Commission’s jurisdiction. The confusion that would inevitably result from the lack of clear standards as to when producers must seek Commission approval fortifies our conclusion that Congress intended agency supervision of all abandonments.
Ill
Respondents maintain that even if producers must always obtain Commission approval for abandonment, the decision below should nevertheless be affirmed. In their view, the Court of Appeals actually concluded that the Commission had erred as a matter of law by refusing to authorize an abandonment retroactively. Assuming this was the true purport of the decision below, we believe the Court of Appeals lacked authority to set aside the Commission’s order on this ground.
Although respondents urged the agency to authorize an abandonment of service from Butler B, the Administrative Law Judge and the Commission rejected this suggestion in light of the clear evidence that the leasehold was still capable of production. Respondents, however, contend that because Haring acted in good faith in failing to seek agency approval, the Commission was obligated to treat their answer to United’s complaint as if it were an abandonment application filed in 1966. Thus, according to respondents, the Court of Appeals was entitled to conclude that the Commission should have ignored the evidence of subsequent production and authorized an abandonment based on the evidence available in 1966.
We need not determine whether § 7 (b) allows the Commission to approve an abandonment retroactively and disregard evidence of subsequent production. For the agency certainly did not abuse its discretion in declining to do so here. Authorizing abandonments retroactively would often deprive interested parties of the opportunity to be heard at a meaningful time and to present evidence on the likelihood of renewing gas production in the future. Thus, the Commission would be required to determine on a hypothetical set of facts what action it would have taken had an application been timely filed. Additionally, the jurisdictional status of all dedicated acreage would become uncertain, since the property would be subject to retroactive Commission pronouncements in the indefinite future. Frequent retroactive action would also undermine the statutory scheme by creating an incentive for producers to delay seeking agency approval in the hope that they could later establish good faith. Given this potential for disruption of § 7 (b)’s approval procedure, we believe it is within the Commission’s discretion to reject good faith alone as a sufficient justification for determining whether the evidence available in 1966 warranted granting an abandonment.
IY
Finally, respondents defend the judgment below on the ground that only the depleted shallow reserves underlying Butler B, as opposed to the newly discovered gas, were subject to the approval requirements of § 7 (b). In their view, the deliveries actually made in interstate commerce, rather than the certificates of public convenience and necessity, define the “service” that may not be abandoned without Commission approval. Although deliveries were once made from a reservoir approximately 2,900 feet deep, the “separate and distinct” gas from the deeper reservoirs was never delivered into interstate commerce. Thus, according to respondents, the current production is not subject to the requirements of § 7 (b), even though the certificates of public convenience and necessity cover all reservoirs located on Butler B.
Our prior decisions compel rejection of this narrow statutory interpretation. In California v. Southland Royalty Co., we expressly agreed with the Commission that the “initiation of interstate service pursuant to the certificate dedicated all fields subject to that certificate.” 436 U. S., at 525 (emphasis added). And as the Court emphasized in Sunray Mid-Continent Oil Co. v. FPC, “ 'once so dedicated there can be no withdrawal of that supply from continued interstate movement without Commission approval.’ ” 364 U. S., at 156, quoting Atlantic Refining Co. v. Public Service Comm’n, 360 U. S., at 389.
Applying these principles, the Commission determined that all reserves underlying Butler B were dedicated to interstate commerce pursuant to the certificates it had issued in 1954 and 1963, see supra, at 534, and n. 6, and therefore were subject to the requirements of § 7 (b). There being ample factual and legal justification for the Commission’s conclusions, see Sun Oil Co. v. FPC, 364 U. S. 170 (1960), we hold that § 7 (b) requires respondents to continue supplying in interstate commerce all gas produced from the leasehold until they properly obtain permission for abandonment.
• The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Stewart took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
52 Stat. 825, as amended, 15 U. S. C. §717f (e). See Phillips Petroleum Co. v. Wisconsin, 347 U. S. 672 (1954). Pursuant to the Department of Energy Organization Act, 91 Stat. 565, the regulatory functions at issue here were transferred from the Federal Power Commission to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, effective October 1, 1977.
Section 7 (b), 52 Stat. 824, 15 U. S. C. §717f (b), provides:
“No natural-gas company shall abandon all or any portion of its facilities subject to the jurisdiction of the Commission, or any service rendered by means of such facilities, without the permission and approval of the Commission first had and obtained, after due hearing, and a finding by the Commission that the available supply of natural gas is depleted to the extent that the continuance of service is unwarranted, or that the present or future public convenience or necessity permit such abandonment.”
Although Haring advised United that he would apply to the Commission for a successor producer certificate, no application was ever filed. App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 78-17, pp. A-6 to A-7.
The Secretary of tbe Commission wrote Bay Rock in January 1971 that it would be necessary to file an application for permission to abandon service and a notice of cancellation of rate schedule. Id., at A-100 to A-101. This letter also directed the lessee to submit either a copy of any agreement with United canceling the gas purchase contract or a statement from United “indicating its position with respect to the proposed abandonment.” Ibid. The Secretary had written a similar letter to Pagenkopf in August 1968, but he, too, failed to respond. Id., at A-97 to A-98.
In addition to the Butler B interests, the McCombs group also owned an interest in an adjoining tract of land. In order to operate both tracts as a single entity, the group “unitized,” or combined, their interests in Butler B with those in the corresponding depths of the adjacent tract. As a result, a fraction of the production from each of four successful wells located on the total unitized acreage is attributable to the Butler B leasehold for purposes of the gas purchase contract and the Commission’s certificates. Id., at A-8 to A-10. See generally 6 H. Williams & C. Meyers, Oil & Gas Law 2-3 (1977 ed.).
In determining the scope of Pagenkopf’s certificate, the Commission analyzed separately the depths covered and the duration of the obligation to sell gas in interstate commerce. The Commission based its conclusion that the certificates encompassed all reservoirs on the absence of any reference to particular depths in either the applications 'for certification, which incorporated the contract with United, or in the certificates issued Pagen-kopf and Ms. Quin. App. to Pet. for Cert, in No. 78-17, pp. A-29 to A-35. Referring to the same documents, the Commission interpreted Pagen-kopf’s certificate to encompass all gas produced from wells drilled before the contract’s expiration date, even if the gas is extracted after February 7, 1981. Ibid. However, the Commission refused to consider whether the certificate also covered gas produced from wells drilled after the contract’s expiration date. Id., at A-33, and n. 28; see Sun Oil Co. v. FPC, 364 U. S. 170 (1960). Since the parties have not challenged here these findings on duration, we express no view on the Commission’s ruling concerning production beyond 1981.
The Commission did not address the validity of United’s gas purchase contract. McCombs has raised that issue in a separate suit, which is being held in abeyance pending completion of this litigation. McCombs v. United Gas Pipe Line Co., No. SA-73-CA-210 (WD Tex., filed Aug. 2, 1973).
The Court of Appeals rendered this decision on rehearing after withdrawing an earlier opinion by a different panel. See 542 F. 2d 1144 (1976).
Although Congress has recently revised the federal scheme for regulating natural gas, see the Natural Gas Policy Act of 1978, 92 Stat. 3351, that legislation does not affect the outcome of this case. With certain exceptions not relevant here, gas reserves dedicated to interstate commerce before November 8, 1978, remain subject to § 7 (b) of the Natural Gas Act. See §§ 2 (18), 104, 106 (a), and 601 (a) of the Natural Gas Policy Act, 92 Stat. 3354, 3362, 3365, 3409,15 U. S. C. §§ 3301 (18), 3314, 3316 (a), 3431 (a) (1976 ed., Supp. Ill); S. Conf. Rep. No. 95-1126, pp. 71-72, 82, 84-85, 123-124 (1978); H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 95-1752, pp. 71-72, 82, 84-85, 123-124 (1978).
See Texaco, Inc., FERC Docket Nos. G-8820 et al, Order Granting Petition for Reconsideration and Modifying Prior Order (Nov. 1, 1977).
Respondents contend that the Commission recently approved a retroactive § 7 (b) abandonment in Arkansas Louisiana Gas Co., FPC Docket No. CP76-329 (Mar. 8, 1977). In that case, a certificated pipeline had agreed to sell excess gas, but its supply became depleted in 1971. Although the pipeline did not seek abandonment permission until 1977, the Commission approved the abandonment because the supply of excess gas was still depleted and there was no likelihood of obtaining additional gas. The agency's decision therefore had no retroactive impact.
Relying on four lower court decisions that did not involve § 7 (b), respondents argue that the Commission was required to approve abandonment retroactively here. None of these cases, however, supports respondents’ contention that the Commission abused its discretion in this suit. In Ellwood City v. FERC, 583 F. 2d 642 (CA3 1978), cert. denied, 440 U. S. 946 (1979), and Niagara Mohawk Power Cory. v. FPC, 126 U. S. App. D. C. 376, 379 F. 2d 153 (1967), the Courts of Appeals found no abuse of discretion in the Commission’s decision to give retroactive effect to certain rate schedules and licensing orders. Accordingly, neither decision addresses whether the Commission was required to exercise its discretion in this manner. Moreover, retrospective action was taken in Niagara Mohawk to prevent the utility from benefiting by its failure to comply with the law, a consideration that militates against granting retroactive approval in the instant action.
Plaquemines Oil & Gas Co. v. FPC, 146 U. S. App. D. C. 287, 450 F. 2d 1334 (1971), merely held that once the Commission chooses “to regard as being done that which should have been done,” id., at 290, 450 F. 2d, at 1337, it must apply this principle consistently within the same case. Finally, Highland Resources, Inc. v. FPC, 537 F. 2d 1336 (CA5 1976), involved a producer that, relying on a published order of the Commission, failed to submit certain rate applications. After the agency changed its filing requirements, the producer promptly tendered the appropriate papers. The Commission nevertheless refused to give the application retroactive effect. The Court of Appeals set aside this aspect of the Commission’s order, holding that a producer should not be penalized for its reliance on the agency’s own pronouncements. There was no such reliance, however, in the present litigation. See n. 4, supra.
Since the Commission and lower federal courts have held that § 7 (b) prohibits abandonment of service without agency approval even where the producer has not obtained a certificate, see, e. g., Cumberland Natural Gas Co., 34 F. P. C. 132 (1965); Mesa Petroleum Co. v. FPC, 441 F. 2d 182 (CA5 1971), respondents contend that §7 (b)’s reference to “service rendered” can never be measured by the certificate of public convenience and necessity. See n. 2, supra. Respondents, however, misperceive the basis for these decisions. Because a company may not circumvent the regulatory scheme by failing to comply' with the certification requirement, the Commission must, in such cases, rely on sources other than a certificate to ascertain the scope of a dedication in interstate commerce. These cases obviously do not preclude the agency from referring to certificates when they exist.
The agency’s decisions have reflected a similar understanding of §7 (b). For example, in Cumberland Natural Gas Co., supra, where the producer had not yet obtained a certificate of convenience and necessity, the Commission held that “dedication of reserves for sale in interstate commerce occur [red] at least as soon as deliveries commenc[ed]” from any part of the 9,000-acre leasehold contractually committed to an interstate pipeline. 34 F. P. C., at 136. Accordingly, the agency required that all gas subsequently produced from the entire dedicated leasehold, even if discovered after the dedication, be sold in interstate commerce until the Commission approved an abandonment. Id., at 136-137. See also Pioneer Gathering System, Inc., 23 F. P. C. 260, 263 (1960); Murphy Oil Corp. v. FERC, 589 F. 2d 944 (CA8 1978); Mitchell Energy Corp. v. FPC, 533 F. 2d 258 (CA5 1976).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
DECREE
On March 1, 1988, this Court granted leave to the State of Mississippi and the United States to file a complaint with the Court setting forth their respective claims to “any undecided portion of Chandeleur Sound.” United States v. Louisiana et al. (Alabama and Mississippi Boundary Case), 485 U. S. 88 (1988). Thereafter, the State of Mississippi filed the above-captioned litigation which was timely answered by the United States.
Pursuant to a stipulation executed by the parties in resolution of the above-styled action, and solely for the purpose of determining the parties’ respective rights under the Submerged Lands Act, 43 U. S. C. § 1301 et seq., in the vicinity of Chandeleur Sound, the parties have agreed to a line which shall permanently mark the base line from which Mississippi’s Submerged Lands Act grant is measured. That line is described in Paragraph 3 below. Accordingly, the parties’ joint motion for entry of decree is granted.
IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows:
1. As against the plaintiff State of Mississippi and all persons claiming under it, the United States has exclusive rights to explore the area of the Continental Shelf reserved to the United States by the Submerged Lands Act, 43 U. S. C. § 1302, and to exploit the natural resources of said area and the State of Mississippi is not entitled to any interest in such lands, minerals, and resources and said State, its privies, assigns, lessees and other persons claiming under it are hereby enjoined from interfering with the rights of the United States in such lands, minerals and resources. Solely for the purpose of determining each party’s rights under the Submerged Lands Act, the line described in Paragraph 3 hereof is stipulated by the parties to henceforth represent and permanently mark the line from which Mississippi’s Submerged Lands Act grant is measured.
2. As against the defendant United States and all persons claiming under it, the State of Mississippi has exclusive rights to explore the area of the Continental Shelf as provided by the Submerged Lands Act and to exploit the natural resources of said area, with the exceptions provided by § 5 of the Submerged Lands Act, 67 Stat. 32, 43 U. S. C. § 1313. The United States is not entitled to any interest in such lands, minerals, and resources and the United States, its privies, assigns, lessees and other persons claiming under it are hereby enjoined from interfering with the rights of the State of Mississippi in such lands, minerals and resources. Solely for the purpose of determining each party’s respective rights under the Submerged Lands Act, the line described in Paragraph 3 hereof is stipulated by the parties to henceforth represent and permanently mark the line from which Mississippi’s Submerged Lands Act grant is measured.
3. Solely for the purpose of determining each party’s respective rights under the Submerged Lands Act and in resolution of the above-captioned litigation, the following line is stipulated by the parties to henceforth represent and permanently mark the line from which Mississippi’s Submerged Lands Act grant is measured:
A straight line from a point on the southern shore of the most westerly segment of Ship Island where X = 463004.481 and Y = 196885.896 in the Mississippi plane coordinate system, east zone, and X = 2752646.58 and Y = 568331.88 in the Louisiana plane coordinate system, south zone, to a point near the northern tip of the most northerly of the Chandeleur Islands where X = 2775787 and Y = 513796 in the Louisiana plane coordinate system, south zone, so far as said line lies on the Mississippi side of the Mississippi-Louisiana boundary.
4. The Court retains jurisdiction to entertain such further proceedings, enter such orders and issue such writs as may from time to time be deemed necessary or advisable to give proper force and effect to its previous orders or decrees herein or to this Decree or to effectuate the rights of the parties in the premises.
5. Nothing in this Decree or in the proceedings leading to it sháll prejudice any rights, claims or defenses of the State of Mississippi as to its maritime lateral boundaries with the State of Louisiana, which boundary is not at issue in this litigation. Nor shall the United States in any way be prejudiced hereby as to such matters. Nothing in this Decree shall prejudice any rights, claims or defenses of the United States or the State of Mississippi as to the inland water status of Chandeleur Sound. Nor shall anything in this Decree prejudice or modify the rights and obligations under any contracts or agreements, not inconsistent with this Decree, between the parties or between a party and a third party.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Goldberg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case differs only slightly from Tilton v. Missouri Pac. R. Co. decided today. Ante, at 169. Petitioner here was hired by the railroad on July 5, 1951, to serve as an apprentice machinist in Monroe, Louisiana. After completing seven months of apprenticeship, he was drafted into military service. He was honorably discharged on November 7, 1953, and immediately returned to work as an apprentice in Monroe. On April 29, 1954, petitioner was laid off because of the termination of the apprenticeship program at Monroe. On July 6, 1954, he resumed his apprenticeship with the railroad in St. Louis, Missouri. On July 25, 1955, at his request and with the railroad’s approval, petitioner was transferred to the railroad’s shops in North Little Rock, Arkansas, where he completed his apprenticeship on January 23, 1958. He was immediately employed at the North Little Rock shops as a journeyman machinist and assigned a seniority rating as of that date and location.
Petitioner sought a North Little Rock seniority date of November 3, 1955. He claimed that but for his military service, he would have completed his apprenticeship on that date and at that location. The railroad offered him that seniority date, but only at the Monroe location. Petitioner declined this offer on the ground that there were no employment opportunities at that location.
Petitioner brought suit in the District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas. The court found, on the basis of adequate evidence, that “in practice . . . discretion had no play .... [Transition from the rank of apprentice to the rank of mechanic was automatic.” It also found that “in no event would plaintiff have completed his apprenticeship at Monroe.” But for his military service he “would have completed [his training] in 1955 . . . and ... as of that time he was employed in the North Little Rock shops and would have been hired there automatically as a journeyman mechanic. Had he been so employed at that time, his seniority point would have been fixed at North Little Rock under the actual practice of the railroad and the Union in connection with the initial employment of mechanics.” Accordingly, the District Court directed the railroad to grant him seniority as of November 3, 1955, at North Little Rock.
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed, 308 F. 2d 531, on the basis of its earlier decision in Tilton v. Missouri Pac. R. Co., 306 F. 2d 870. The court held that the advancement from apprentice to journeyman lacked the predictable certainty required by the Tilton decision, because “[t]he balance between supply and demand of a particular category of workmen at a designated point at a future date cannot be foreseen or predicted with any degree of certainty.” 308 F. 2d, at 533. We granted certiorari, 372 U. S. 904.
We reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the reasons stated in Tilton, ante, at 169. As we said in that case:
“In every veteran seniority case the possibility exists that work of the particular type might not have been available; that the veteran would not have worked satisfactorily during the period of his absence; that he might not have elected to accept the higher position; or that sickness might have prevented him from continuing his employment. In light of the purpose and history of this statute, however, we cannot assume that Congress intended possibilities of this sort to defeat the veteran’s seniority rights.” Ante, at 180-181.
We think that the foregoing analysis is dispositive of the problem here. The possibility that the “balance between supply and demand” would have prevented petitioner’s otherwise automatic promotion should not defeat his seniority claim. This possibility, like the possibilities discussed in Tilton, always exists.
We accept the conclusion of the District Court that but for petitioner’s military service, he probably would have achieved, by virtue of continued satisfactory employment, seniority status as a journeyman mechanic in North Little Rock on November 3, 1955. It follows, therefore, that he is entitled to this status under the relevant statutes. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the cause remanded for proceedings in conformity with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
The opinion of the District Court is not reported.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Burton
delivered the opinion of the Court.
A jury in a Utah court found petitioner, Mrs. Ashdown, guilty of the first-degree murder of her husband and recommended a life sentence. The question before us is whether petitioner’s oral confession was obtained in such a manner as to make its use in evidence a violation of the due process of law required by the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States. This issue was thoroughly considered by the trial court which made findings in relation to it. The Supreme Court of Utah reviewed the record in detail and upheld the admission of the confession. 5 Utah 2d 59, 296 P. 2d 726. We granted certiorari. 353 U. S. 981. Our independent review of the record brings us to the same conclusion.
On July 5, 1955, Ray Ashdown, petitioner’s husband, died suddenly in his home in Cedar City, Utah. Petitioner had summoned a doctor who arrived shortly before Ray Ashdown’s death. The doctor testified that the deceased gave the appearance of having been poisoned and that he told the doctor just before he died that he had taken some bitter-tasting lemon juice about a half hour earlier. On being called, the sheriff made a thorough search of the Ashdown home but found no trace of any poison. An autopsy was performed, and the contents of the deceased’s stomach was sent to the state chemist’s office for analysis. The report, received by the sheriff on July 9, stated that the stomach of the deceased contained strychnine.
July 9 was the day of the funeral. Promptly after receipt of the chemist’s report, the sheriff went to the cemetery, arriving just after the interment. Through petitioner’s brother-in-law, the sheriff asked that petitioner come to the County and City Building. At about 4 p. m. she and her sister arrived at the sheriff’s office. The sheriff asked to talk with petitioner privately and she consented. They went across the hall to an empty courtroom where the sheriff, a deputy sheriff and the district attorney, all people known by the petitioner, talked with her for the next five and one-half hours.
The sheriff told petitioner the results of the autopsy and the chemist’s report. Within the first half hour, the district attorney advised her that she did not have to answer any questions and that she was entitled to consult with an attorney. She made no request for an attorney at that time. She said she did not think she could add anything to help the investigation, but she mentioned her husband had been despondent on several occasions. The officers let her talk freely on family matters without interruption and such conversation consumed about half the time spent in the interview. The sheriff attempted to direct her attention to discovering whether her husband’s death might have been due to an accident. To impress her with the importance of the distinction between murder and manslaughter, the district attorney read her some of the statutes relating to those crimes. In addition, he told her about an experience he had in the Army in Europe. He said he had been accused of killing five men but, by cooperating with investigating officials, he had been cleared of all blame for those deaths.
The officers reviewed in detail the events of July 5. Petitioner admitted giving her husband a cup of lemon juice about a half hour before his death. She said she had put salt in the juice and denied that she might have mistakenly used poison instead of salt. The sheriff asked whether the deceased drank all of the lemon juice offered him. Petitioner replied that he had not, and that she had thrown out the remainder and put the cup, unwashed, on top of the Frigidaire. In their search of the house, the officers found the cup, washed, standing on the drainboard. When asked about it, petitioner said that, after she had gone for the second time to a neighbor’s house to call the doctor (who arrived before she returned), she had washed the cup and placed it where the officers found it. Petitioner could not explain why she had walked past the doctor and her husband, who was at that moment in the last extremity, to wash a cup. Petitioner several times asked whether the officers wanted her to confess to something she had not done, and they repeatedly told her they did not.
Petitioner, at one point, stated that her husband had put the strychnine in the lemon juice. After a brief interrogation as to how he had done it, the sheriff told her he did not believe her husband had poisoned himself. Petitioner then confessed that she had put five or six grains of strychnine in the cup. She said she had planned to take it herself but later decided to give it to her husband. The sheriff testified that she was emotionally upset, crying and sobbing. The confession came about four and one-half hours after the questioning began. Petitioner hesitated to say where she had obtained the strychnine and suggested she should have an attorney. The sheriff did not respond to this request. He said merely that she had told them everything except where the poison came from, and she might as well tell that "and get this over with.” She then told where she had obtained the strychnine.
Meanwhile, petitioner’s father and uncle had come to the County and City Building. They asked to see petitioner and their request was denied, pending completion of the interview. They waited in the sheriff’s office and, at his request, made several trips to the Ashdown home. From their position in the hall outside the courtroom, they heard petitioner crying and sobbing. After petitioner had confessed, the sheriff asked her whether she wanted to see her relatives. At first she refused, saying she was ashamed to face them, but the sheriff persisted and she eventually consented.
On the 10th, the sheriff prepared a written statement of what petitioner had said the day before and took it to her cell. She was told she could sign the statement or not as she wished, and she could make changes. She examined the statement carefully, made numerous changes, and signed it.
At the trial, the court held an extended hearing in the absence of the jury on the admissibility of petitioner’s confessions. Petitioner took°the stand during the preliminary hearing but testified only as to what the district attorney had said. She did not challenge any other statements of the sheriff, the deputy sheriff or the district attorney. The trial court ruled that all statements made by petitioner after her request for an attorney, including the written statement, should be excluded. Thus, only the oral confession was introduced in evidence before the jury.
Petitioner emphasizes the statement of the district attorney that he had once avoided a criminal charge by cooperating with the investigating officers. Petitioner argues that this statement was an implied promise of immunity or leniency to be exercised in return for a confession. We agree with the Supreme Court of Utah that, under the circumstances, this statement was not improper. It was made long before petitioner confessed and in connection with the search for an accidental explanation of the death. Moreover, petitioner was repeatedly told not to confess to something she had not done.
A study of the record as a whole convinces us that the interview with petitioner was temperaté and courteous. The sheriff proceeded cautiously and acted with consideration for the feelings of petitioner. For example, he explained that the reason he did not seek a written statement until the day after the interview was that “We thought we would talk to her on the 10th, she would be calm and wouldn’t be excited and she would know what she was doing. We didn’t want to feel like taking advantage of her.” Petitioner’s emotional distress during the interview may be attributed to her remorse, rather than to any coercive conduct of the officers. There is nothing in the record which indicates that the sheriff chose to question petitioner immediately after her husband’s funeral in order to capitalize on her feelings. Rather, he appears to have taken the first opportunity to talk with her after it had been established that her husband’s death was caused by poisoning. The questioning was done by officers whom petitioner knew. She was not questioned in relays or made to repeat a story over and over while the interrogators searched for an inconsistency or flaw. She was allowed to talk without interruption about such matters as she chose. In sum, we find ample support in this record for a finding that the officers did not intend to take advantage of petitioner and that nothing they did had the effect of overbearing her will.
Accordingly, the judgment is
Affirmed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
I
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petition for writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment is vacated and the case is remanded to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California for reconsideration in light of Sanders v. United States, 373 U. S. 1.
Mr. Justice Clark and Mr. Justice Harlan would deny certiorari on the basis of their dissent in Sanders v. United States, 373 U. S., at 23.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 in this case in order to determine whether Exemption 3 of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U. S. C. § 552 (b)(3), permits nondisclosure to respondents of certain reports in the files of the Federal Aviation Administration. This exemption provides that material need not be disclosed if “specifically-exempted from disclosure by statute.” The reports are known as Systems Worthiness Analysis Program (SWAP) Reports. They consist of analyses made by representatives of the FAA concerning the operation and maintenance performance of commercial airlines. Oversight and regulation of air travel safety is the responsibility of the FAA, § 601 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 72 Stat. 775, as amended, 49 U. S. C. § 1421. The FAA claims the documents are protected from disclosure by virtue of § 1104 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, 49 U. S. C. § 1504.
The facts of the case, in its present posture, are quite simple. During the summer of 1970, in connection with a study of airline safety being conducted by them, the respondents, associated with the Center for the Study of Responsive Law, requested that the FAA make available certain SWAP Reports. The FAA declined to produce the documents. In accordance with established procedures adopted by the FAA, the respondents then filed timely notice of administrative appeal in August 1970. Several months later, while this administrative appeal was pending, the Air Transport Association, on behalf of its airline members, requested that the FAA make no public disclosure of the SWAP Reports. The Association noted that, in a prior memorandum of its own staff, the FAA had pointed out that “ ‘[t]he SWAP Program requires a cooperative effort on both the part of the company and FAA if it is to work effectively,’ ” and argued that “[t]he present practice of non-public submissions, which includes even tentative findings and opinions as well as certain factual material, encourages a spirit of openness on the part of airline management which is vital to the promotion of aviation safety — the paramount consideration of airlines and government alike in this area.” In February 1971, the FAA formally denied respondents’ request for the SWAP Reports. It took the position that the reports are exempt from public disclosure under 5 U. S. C. § 552 (b)(3), the section at issue here. As previously noted, that section provides that such material need not be disclosed under the Freedom of Information Act when the material is specifically exempted from disclosure by statute. The FAA noted that § 1104 of the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 permits the Administrator to withhold information, public disclosure of which, in his judgment, would adversely affect the interests of the objecting party and is not required to be disclosed in the interest of the public. The FAA also based its denial of these data on the exemption for intra-agency memoranda (5 U. S. C. § 552 (b)(5)), the exemption for investigatory files compiled for law enforcement purposes (§ 552 (b)(7)), and, finally, the exemption for documentation containing trade secrets and commercial or financial information of a privileged or confidential nature (§ 552 (b)(4)). The FAA’s answer also explained its view of the need for confidentiality in SWAP Reports:
“The effectiveness of the in-depth analysis that is the essence of SWAP team investigation depends, to a great extent, upon the full, frank and open cooperation of the operator himself during the inspection period. His assurance by the FAA that the resulting recommendations are in the interest of safety and operational efficiency and will not be disclosed to the public are the major incentives impelling the operator to hide nothing and to grant free access to procedures, system of operation, facilities, personnel, as well as management and operational records in order to exhibit his normal course of operations to the SWAP inspectors.”
Respondents then sued in the District Court, seeking, inter alia, the requested documents. The District Court held that “the documents sought by plaintiffs . . . are, as a matter of law, public and non-exempt within the meaning of 5 United States Code [§] 552, and plaintiffs are entitled to judgment ... as a matter of law.”
A divided Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the District Court “insofar as appellants rely upon Exemption (3),” but remanded the case for consideration of other exemptions which the FAA might wish to assert. 162 U. S. App. D. C. 298, 498 F. 2d 1031 (1974). Examining first what it felt was the ordinary meaning of the language of Exemption 3, the Court of Appeals held that its language required the exempting statute relied on to specify or categorize the particular documents it authorizes to be withheld. Because § 1104 delegated “broad discretionary authority” under a “public interest” standard, it was held not within the scope of Exemption 3. The Court of Appeals distinguished this Court’s decision in EPA v. Mink, 410 U. S. 73 (1973), on the ground that the exemption involved in that case was construed to be a specific reference by Congress to a definite class of documents, namely those that must be kept secret “ 'in the interest of the national defense or foreign policy/ ” 162 TJ. S. App. D. C., at 300,498 F. 2d, at 1033. The Court of Appeals read the Act as providing a comprehensive guide to congressional intent. One of the Act’s major purposes was seen as intending to eliminate what it characterized as vague phrases such as “in the public interest” or “for good cause” as a basis for withholding information. Under these circumstances, the court concluded that § 1104 cannot be considered a specific exemption by statute within the meaning of Exemption 3 of the Freedom of Information Act.
This case involves no constitutional claims, no issues regarding the nature or scope of “executive privilege,” but simply the scope and meaning of one of the exemptions of the Freedom of Information Act, 5 U. S. C. § 552. EPA v. Mink, supra, at 94 (Stewart, J., concurring). The Act has two aspects. In one, it seeks to open public records to greater public access; in the other, it seeks to preserve the confidentiality undeniably essential in certain areas of Government operations. It is axiomatic that all parts of an Act “if at all possible, are to be given effect.” Weinberger v. Hynson, Westcott & Dunning, 412 U. S. 609, 633 (1973). Accord, Kokoszka v. Belford, 417 U. S. 642, 650 (1974).
We have construed the Freedom of Information Act recently in NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U. S. 132 (1975); Renegotiation Board v. Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp., 421 U. S. 168 (1975); Renegotiation Board v. Bannercraft Clothing Co., 415 U. S. 1 (1974); EPA v. Mink, supra. In Mink, the Court set out the general nature and purpose of the Act, recognizing, as did the Senate committee report, that it is not “ ‘an easy task to balance the opposing interests . . .’” and “ ‘provid[e] a workable formula which encompasses, balances, and protects all interests ....’” 410 U. S., at 80, quoting from S. Rep. No. 813, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1965). Nothing in the Act or its legislative history-gives any intimation that all information in all agencies and in all circumstances is to be open to public inspection. Because it considered the public disclosure section of the Administrative Procedure Act, 60 Stat. 238, 5 U. S. C. § 1002 (1964 ed.), inadequate, Congress sought to permit access to certain kinds of official information which it thought had unnecessarily been withheld and, by the creation of nine explicitly exclusive exemptions, to provide a more workable and balanced formula that would make available information that ought to be public and, at the same time, protect certain information where confidentiality was necessary to protect legitimate governmental functions that would be impaired by disclosure. The exemptions provided by the Act, one of which we deal with here, represent the congressional judgment as to certain kinds of “information that the Executive Branch must have the option to keep confidential, if it so chooses,” 410 U. S., at 80. The language of Exemption 3 contains no “built-in” standard as in the case of some of the other exemptions. The variety of constructions given its language by the Courts of Appeals, is ample evidence that the relevant portions of the exemption are unclear and ambiguous, compelling resort to the legislative history. See United States v. Donruss Co., 393 U. S. 297, 303 (1969). Cf. United States v. Oregon, 366 U. S. 643, 648 (1961).
That history must be read in light of the legislation in existence when the Act was passed; that history reveals “clear evidence that Congress was aware of the necessity to deal expressly with inconsistent laws.” Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, 419 U. S. 102, 129 (1974). Congress was aware, as it undertook a painstaking review, during several sessions, of the right of the public to information concerning the public business; it was aware that it was acting not only against the backdrop of the 1946 Administrative Procedure Act, supra, but also on the basis of a significant number of earlier congressional decisions that confidentiality was essential in certain departments and agencies in order to protect the public interest. No distinction seems to have been made on the basis of the standards articulated in the exempting statute or on the degree of discretion which it vested in a particular Government officer. When the continued vitality of these specialized exempting statutes was raised by the views of various agencies, the members of the committee consistently expressed the clear intention that these statutes would remain unaffected by the new Act. During the 1963 hearings, for example, Senator Long, Chairman of the Senate Subcommittee stated: “It should be made clear that this bill in no way limits statutes specifically written with the congressional intent of curtailing the flow of information as a supplement necessary to the proper functioning of certain agencies.” Indeed, some provisions of bills which were not enacted could well have been construed as repealing all earlier legislation, but such provisions were not included in the bill that was finally enacted. More specifically, when the Civil Aeronautics Board brought § 1104 to the attention of both the House and Senate hearings of 1965, and expressed the agency interpretation that the provision was encompassed within Exemption 3, no question was raised or challenge made to the agency view of the impact of that exemption. When the House Committee on Government Operations focused on Exemption 3, it took note that there are “nearly 100 statutes or parts of statutes which restrict public access to specific Government records. These would not be modified by the public records provisions of S. 1160.” H. R. Rep. No. 1497, 89th Cong., 2d Sess., 10 (1966). (Emphasis added.)
The respondents can prevail only if the Act is to be read as repealing by implication all existing statutes “which restrict public access to specific Government records.” Ibid. The term “specific" as there used cannot be read as meaning that the exemption applies only to documents specified, i. e., by naming them precisely or by describing the category in which they fall. To require this interpretation would be to ask of Congress a virtually impossible task. Such a construction would also imply that Congress had undertaken to reassess every delegation of authority to withhold information which it had made before the passage of this legislation — a task which the legislative history shows it clearly did not undertake.
Earlier this Term, Mr. Justice Brennan, speaking for the Court in the Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, supra, noted that “repeals by implication are disfavored,” 419 U. S., at 133, and that, when courts are confronted with statutes “ ‘capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to the contrary, to regard each as effective.’ ” Id., at 133-134, quoting Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535, 551 (1974). As we have noted, here, as in the Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, supra, there is “clear evidence that Congress was aware of the necessity to deal expressly with inconsistent laws,” 419 U. S., at 129. To spell out repeal by implication of a multitude of statutes enacted over a long period of time, each of which was separately weighed and considered by Congress to meet an identified need, would be a more unreasonable step by a court than to do so with respect to a single statute such as was involved in the Regional Rail Reorganization Act Cases, supra. Congress’ response was to permit the numerous laws then extant allowing confidentiality to stand; it is not for us to override that legislative choice.
The discretion vested by Congress in the FAA, in both its nature and scope, is broad. There is not, however, any inevitable inconsistency between the general congressional intent to replace the broad standard of the former Administrative Procedure Act and its intent to preserve, for air transport regulation, a broad degree of discretion on what information is to be protected in the public interest in order to insure continuing access to the sources of sensitive information necessary to the regulation of air transport. Congress could not reasonably anticipate every situation in which the balance must tip in favor of nondisclosure as a means of insuring that the primary, or indeed sole, source of essential information would continue to volunteer information needed to develop and maintain safety standards. The public interest is served by assuring a free flow of relevant information to the regulatory authorities from the airlines. Congress could appropriately conclude that the public interest was better served by guaranteeing confidentiality in order to secure the maximum amount of information relevant to safety. The wisdom of the balance struck by Congress is not open to judicial scrutiny.
It was inescapable that some regulatory authorities be vested with broad, flexible discretion, the exercise of which was made subject to continuing scrutiny by Congress. Following passage of the Act, “[g]eneral oversight into the administration of the Freedom of Information Act [was] exercised by the [House] Foreign Operations and Government Information Subcommittee and the Senate Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure.” H. R. Rep. No. 92-1419, pp. 3-4 (1972). It is not insignificant that this overall scrutiny of the Act in 1972 brought no change in Exemption 3. Indeed, when Congress amended the Freedom of Information Act in 1974, it reaffirmed the continued vitality of this particular exemption, covering statutes vesting in the agencies wide authority. S. Conf. Rep. No. 93-1200, p. 12 (1974); H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 93-1380, p. 12 (1974).
Moreover, Congress amended the Act in 1974 to require that all agencies submit to each House, on an annual basis, “the number of determinations made by such agency not to comply with requests for records... and the reasons for each such determination.” 88 Stat. 1564, 5 U. S. C. §552 (d)(1) (1970 ed., Supp. IV). In light of this continuing close scrutiny, we are bound to assume that Congress exercised an informed judgment as to the needs of the FAA and that it was persuaded as to the necessity, or at least of the practical compatibility, of both statutes.
Reversed.
Mr. Justice Douglas and Mr. Justice Brennan dissent for the reasons given in Judge Fahy’s opinion for the Court of Appeals, 162 U. S. App. D. C. 298, 498 F. 2d 1031 (1974).
419 U. S. 1067 (1974).
The Act was amended in 1974, Pub. L. 93-502, 88 Stat. 1561, to read in pertinent part:
“(a) Each agency shall make available to the public information as follows:
“(3) Except with respect to the records made available under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, each agency, upon any request for records which (A) reasonably describes such records and (B) is made in accordance with published rules stating the time, place, fees (if any), and procedures to be followed, shall make the records promptly available to any person.” 5 U. S. C. § 552 (a) (3) (1970 ed., Supp. IV).
Exemption 3, which was not amended in 1974, is provided by 5 U. S. C. § 552 (b) (3), which reads as follows:
“(b) This section does not apply to matters that are—
“(3) specifically exempted from disclosure by statute.”
Prior to the 1974 amendments, § 552 (a) (3) read, in pertinent part: “Except with respect to the records made available under paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection, each agency, on request for identifiable records made in accordance with published rules stating the time, place, fees to the extent authorized by statute, and procedure to be followed, shall make the records promptly available to any person. ...” 5 U. S. C. § 552 (a) (3).
The SWAP is set forth in the Federal Aviation Administration’s Systemworthiness Analysis Program Handbook, 8000.3B (reprinted Nov. 1970) (App. 44H11). A revised version of the SWAP Handbook is contained in FAA Order 8000.3C, Apr. 14, 1972. (With subsequent changes.) See also affidavit of FAA Administrator Shaffer, App. 40.
Section 1104 provides:
“Any person may make written objection to the public disclosure of information contained in any application, report, or document filed pursuant to the provisions of this chapter or of information obtained by the Board or the Administrator, pursuant to the provisions of this chapter, stating the grounds for such objection. Whenever such objection is made, the Board or Administrator shall order such information withheld from public disclosure when, in their judgment, a disclosure of such information would adversely affect the interests of such person and is not required in the interest of the public. The Board or Administrator shall be responsible for classified information in accordance with appropriate law: Provided, That nothing in this section shall authorize the withholding of information by the Board or Administrator from the duly authorized committees of the Congress.”
The respondents had also sought disclosure of Mechanical Reliability Reports, which are daily reports of mechanical malfunctions submitted to the FAA by the aircraft companies. On January 11, 1972, the Administrator determined that he would permit the disclosure of such documents received after April 18, 1972. The District Court’s subsequent order in this case, on November 8, 1972, ordered disclosure of these documents received prior to that date. The Administrator has not contested this aspect of the District Court’s order either on appeal to the Court of Appeals or in his petition for writ of certiorari to this Court.
In Evans v. Department of Transportation, 446 F. 2d 821 (CA5 1971), the court held that 49 U. S. C. § 1504, the FAA statute in question here, was within the scope of Exemption 3. 446 F. 2d, at 824. The same Court of Appeals, however, in an unpublished opinion, Serchuk v. Weinberger, affirmance reported at 493 F. 2d 663 (1974), followed the Third Circuit in Stretch v. Weinberger, 495 F. 2d 639 (1974), in holding that 53 Stat. 1398, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 1306 (a) — requiring the confidentiality of all material obtained by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare “except as the Secretary . . . may by regulations prescribe” — was not within the scope of Exemption 3 because it neither “identifies some class or category of items that Congress considers appropriate for exemption,” 495 F. 2d, at 640, nor at least “sets out legislatively prescribed standards of guidelines that the Secretary must follow in determining what matter shall be exempted from disclosure.” Ibid. Accord, Schechter v. Weinberger, 165 U. S. App. D. C. 236, 238, 506 F. 2d 1275, 1277 (1974) (MacKinnon, J., dissenting) (citing his prior dissenting opinion in the same case, 162 U. S. App. D. C. 282, 498 F. 2d 1015 (1974)). In California v. Weinberger, 505 F. 2d 767 (1974), the Ninth Circuit reached a contrary result in regard to 42 U. S. C. § 1306 (a) on the ground that the general nondisclosure mandate constituted “words of congressional exemption,” 505 F. 2d, at 768, and thus the material was “specifically exempted ... by statute.” The Secretary merely had the authority “to relax the absolute prohibition established by Congress.” Ibid. Cf. Sears v. Gottschalk, 502 F. 2d 122 (CA4 1974), finding sufficient specificity in the term “ [applications for patents” of 35 U. S. C. § 122 and in Rules 14 (a) and (b) of the Patent Office to satisfy even the objections of the Stretch court and to bring 35 U. S. C. § 122 within the scope of Exemption 3.
Note, Comments on Proposed Amendments to Section 3 of the Administrative Procedure Act: The Freedom of Information Bill, 40 Notre Dame Law. 417, 453 n. 254 (1965).
Hearings on S. 1666 before the Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 88th Cong., 1st Sess., 6 (1963) (statement of Senator Long, Chairman of the Subcommittee and sponsor of § 1666, which was not changed, in pertinent part, in the final enactment). See also Hearings on H. R. 5012 et al. before a Subcommittee of the House Committee on Government Operations, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 14 (1965) (statement of Rep. Moss, Subcommittee Chairman).
Id., at 3: “All laws or part of laws inconsistent with the amendment made by the first section of this Act are hereby repealed.”
Id., at 14, 20, 53.
Id., at 237. See also Hearings on S. 1160 et al. before the Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 366 (1965). The statute’s predecessor (49 U. S. C. §674) also was specifically listed on an exhibit of “exempt statutes” submitted during the 1958 Hearing on S. 921 before the Subcommittee on Constitutional Rights of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 85th Cong., 2d Sess., pt. 2, pp. 985-987, 997. Subsequent lists — specifically not claiming to be exhaustive — include similar statutes. See House-Committee on Government Operations, Federal Statutes on the Availability of Information, 86th Cong., 2d Sess., 213, 209 (Comm. Print Mar. 1960), listing 26 U. S. C. § 6104 (a) and 15 U. S. C. § 78x (b). See generally K. Davis, Administrative Law Treatise § 3A.18 (1970 Supp.).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
E
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Respondent filed a motion to recall and amend the judgment in the above-entitled cause, 350 U. S. 898, for the purpose of remanding the cause to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for further proceedings. Prior to the filing of this motion, and after the District Court denied an application for a stay of execution, the judgment was satisfied; but petitioner was informed that respondent intended to pursue its remedies notwithstanding payment of the judgment.
The motion of respondent to recall the judgment is granted. It is ordered that the certified copy of the judgment sent to the District Court be recalled and that the judgment be amended so as to provide for a remand of the cause to the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit for further proceedings. Boudoin v. Lykes Brothers S. S. Co., 348 U. S. 336, 350 U. S. 811; Rule 58 (4), Supreme Court Rules.
We deem our original order erroneous and recall it in the interest of fairness. Similar relief was requested by respondent in a petition for rehearing, denied in 350 U. S. 943. Rule 58 (4) bars consecutive and out-of-time petitions for rehearing. The Boudoin case, however, concerned a motion to recall a judgment that asked for almost identical relief. Yet, if it had been considered a petition for rehearing, it was filed out of time. The grant of the motion in the Boudoin case shows that Rule 58 (4) does not prohibit motions to correct this kind of error.
Compare as to mootness, Bakery Drivers Union v. Wagshal, 333 U. S. 437, 442; Dakota County v. Glidden, 113 U. S. 222, 224. The problems that may arise from demand for repayment are not before us.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This case concerns the extent to which educators may exercise editorial control over the contents of a high school newspaper produced as part of the school’s journalism curriculum.
I
Petitioners are the Hazelwood School District in St. Louis County, Missouri; various school officials; Robert Eugene Reynolds, the principal of Hazelwood East High School; and Howard Emerson, a teacher in the school district. Respondents are three former Hazelwood East students who were staff members of Spectrum, the school newspaper. They contend that school officials violated their First Amendment rights by deleting two pages of articles from the May 13, 1983, issue of Spectrum.
Spectrum was written and edited by the Journalism II class at Hazelwood East. The newspaper was published every three weeks or so during the 1982-1983 school year. More than 4,500 copies of the newspaper were distributed during that year to students, school personnel, and members of the community.
The Board of Education allocated funds from its annual budget for the printing of Spectrum. These funds were supplemented by proceeds from sales of the newspaper. The printing expenses during the 1982-1983 school year totaled $4,668.50; revenue from sales was $1,166.84. The other costs associated with the newspaper — such as supplies, textbooks, and a portion of the journalism teacher’s salary — were borne entirely by the Board.
The Journalism II course was taught by Robert Stergos for most of the 1982-1983 academic year. Stergos left Hazel-wood East to take a job in private industry on April 29, 1983, when the May 13 edition of Spectrum was nearing completion, and petitioner Emerson took his place as newspaper adviser for the remaining weeks of the term.
The practice at Hazelwood East during the spring 1983 semester was for the journalism teacher to submit page proofs of each Spectrum issue to Principal Reynolds for his review prior to publication. On May 10, Emerson delivered the proofs of the May 13 edition to Reynolds, who objected to two of the articles scheduled to appear in that edition. One of the stories described three Hazelwood East students’ experiences with pregnancy; the other discussed the impact of divorce on students at the school.
Reynolds was concerned that, although the pregnancy story used false names “to keep the identity of these girls a secret,” the pregnant students still might be identifiable from the text. He also believed that the article’s references to sexual activity and birth control were inappropriate for some of the younger students at the school. In addition, Reynolds was concerned that a student identified by name in the divorce story had complained that her father “wasn’t spending enough time with my mom, my sister and I” prior to the divorce, “was always out of town on business or out late playing cards with the guys,” and “always argued about everything” with her mother. App. to Pet. for Cert. 38. Reynolds believed that the student’s parents should have been given an opportunity to respond to these remarks or to consent to their publication. He was unaware that Emerson had deleted the student’s name from the final version of the article.
Reynolds believed that there was no time to make the necessary changes in the stories before the scheduled press run and that the newspaper would not appear before the end of the school year if printing were delayed to any significant extent. He concluded that his only options under the circumstances were to publish a four-page newspaper instead of the planned six-page newspaper, eliminating the two pages on which the offending stories appeared, or to publish no newspaper at all. Accordingly, he directed Emerson to withhold from publication the two pages containing the stories on pregnancy and divorce. He informed his superiors of the decision, and they concurred.
Respondents subsequently commenced this action in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri seeking a declaration that their First Amendment rights had been violated, injunctive relief, and monetary damages. After a bench trial, the District Court denied an injunction, holding that no First Amendment violation had occurred. 607 F. Supp. 1450 (1985).
The District Court concluded that school officials may impose restraints on students’ speech in activities that are “‘an integral part of the school’s educational function’” — including the publication of a school-sponsored newspaper by a journalism class — so long as their decision has “‘a substantial and reasonable basis.’” Id., at 1466 (quoting Frasca v. Andrews, 463 F. Supp. 1043, 1052 (EDNY 1979)). The court found that Principal Reynolds’ concern that the pregnant students’ anonymity would be lost and their privacy invaded was “legitimate and reasonable,” given “the small number of pregnant students at Hazelwood East and several identifying characteristics that were disclosed in the article.” 607 F. Supp., at 1466. The court held that Reynolds’ action was also justified “to avoid the impression that [the school] endorses the sexual norms of the subjects” and to shield younger students from exposure to unsuitable material. Ibid. The deletion of the article on divorce was seen by the court as a reasonable response to the invasion of privacy concerns raised by the named student’s remarks. Because the article did not indicate that the student’s parents had been offered an opportunity to respond to her allegations, said the court, there was cause for “serious doubt that the article complied with the rules of fairness which are standard in the field of journalism and which were covered in the textbook used in the Journalism II class.” Id., at 1467. Furthermore, the court concluded that Reynolds was justified in deleting two full pages of the newspaper, instead of deleting only the pregnancy and divorce stories or requiring that those stories be modified to address his concerns, based on his “reasonable belief that he had to make an immediate decision and that there was no time to make modifications to the articles in question.” Id., at 1466.
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed. 795 F. 2d 1368 (1986). The court held at the outset that Spectrum was not only “a part of the school adopted curriculum,” id., at 1373, but also a public forum, because the newspaper was “intended to be and operated as a conduit for student viewpoint.” Id., at 1372. The court then concluded that Spectrum’s status as a public forum precluded school officials from censoring its contents except when “ ‘necessary to avoid material and substantial interference with school work or discipline ... or the rights of others.’” Id., at 1374 (quoting Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503, 511 (1969)).
The Court of Appeals found “no evidence in the record that the principal could have reasonably forecast that the censored articles or any materials in the censored articles would have materially disrupted elasswork or given rise to substantial disorder in the school.” 795 F. 2d, at 1375. School officials were entitled to censor the articles on the ground that they invaded the rights of others, according to the court, only if publication of the articles could have resulted in tort liability to the school. The court concluded that no tort action for libel or invasion of privacy could have been maintained against the school by the subjects of the two articles or by their families. Accordingly, the court held that school officials had violated respondents’ First Amendment rights by deleting the two pages of the newspaper.
We granted certiorari, 479 U. S. 1053 (1987), and we now reverse.
II
Students in the public schools do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” Tinker, supra, at 506. They cannot be punished merely for expressing their personal views on the school premises — whether “in the cafeteria, or on the playing field, or on the campus during the authorized hours,” 393 U. S., at 512-513 — unless school authorities have reason to believe that such expression will “substantially interfere with the work of the school or impinge upon the rights of other students.” Id., at 509.
We have nonetheless recognized that the First Amendment rights of students in the public schools “are not automatically coextensive with the rights of adults in other settings,” Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser, 478 U. S. 675, 682 (1986), and must be “applied in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.” Tinker, supra, at 506; cf. New Jersey v. T. L. O., 469 U. S. 325, 341-343 (1985). A school need not tolerate student speech that is inconsistent with its “basic educational mission,” Fraser, supra, at 685, even though the government could not censor similar speech outside the school. Accordingly, we held in Fraser that a student could be disciplined for having delivered a speech that was “sexually explicit” but not legally obscene at an official school assembly, because the school was entitled to “disassociate itself” from the speech in a manner that would demonstrate to others that such vulgarity is “wholly inconsistent with the ‘fundamental values’ of public school education.” 478 U. S., at 685-686. We thus recognized that “[t]he determination of what manner of speech in the classroom or in school assembly is inappropriate properly rests with the school board,” id., at 683, rather than with the federal courts. It is in this context that respondents’ First Amendment claims must be considered.
A
We deal first with the question whether Spectrum may appropriately be characterized as a forum for public expression. The public schools do not possess all of the attributes of streets, parks, and other traditional public forums that “time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.” Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496, 515 (1939). Cf. Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U. S. 263, 267-268, n. 5 (1981). Hence, school facilities may be deemed to be public forums only if school authorities have “by policy or by practice” opened those facilities “for indiscriminate use by the general public,” Perry Education Assn. v. Perry Local Educators’ Assn., 460 U. S. 37, 47 (1983), or by some segment of the public, such as student organizations. Id., at 46, n. 7 (citing Widmar v. Vincent). If the facilities have instead been reserved for other intended purposes, “communicative or otherwise,” then no public forum has been created, and school officials may impose reasonable restrictions on the speech of students, teachers, and other members of the school community. 460 U. S., at 46, n. 7. “The government does not create a public forum by inaction or by permitting limited discourse, but only by intentionally opening a nontraditional forum for public discourse.” Cornelius v. NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc., 473 U. S. 788, 802 (1985).
The policy of school officials toward Spectrum was reflected in Hazelwood School Board Policy 348.51 and the Hazelwood East Curriculum Guide. Board Policy 348.51 provided that “[s]chool sponsored publications are developed within the adopted curriculum and its educational implications in regular classroom activities.” App. 22. The Hazelwood East Curriculum Guide described the Journalism II course as a “laboratory situation in which the students publish the school newspaper applying skills they have learned in Journalism I.” Id., at 11. The lessons that were to be learned from the Journalism II course, according to the Curriculum Guide, included development of journalistic skills under deadline pressure, “the legal, moral, and ethical restrictions imposed upon journalists within the school community,” and “responsibility and acceptance of criticism for articles of opinion.” Ibid. Journalism II was taught by a faculty member during regular class hours. Students received grades and academic credit for their performance in the course.
School officials did not deviate in practice from their policy that production of Spectrum was to be part of the educational curriculum and a “regular classroom activity].” The District Court found that Robert Stergos, the journalism teacher during most of the 1982-1983 school year, “both had the authority to exercise and in fact exercised a great deal of control over Spectrum.” 607 F. Supp., at 1453. For example, Stergos selected the editors of the newspaper, scheduled publication dates, decided the number of pages for each issue, assigned story ideas to class members, advised students on the development of their stories, reviewed the use of quotations, edited stories, selected and edited the letters to the editor, and dealt with the printing company. Many of these decisions were made without consultation with the Journalism II students. The District Court thus found it “clear that Mr. Stergos was the final authority with respect to almost every aspect of the production and publication of Spectrum, including its content.” Ibid. Moreover, after each Spectrum issue had been finally approved by Stergos or his successor, the issue still had to be reviewed by Principal Reynolds prior to publication. Respondents’ assertion that they had believed that they could publish “practically anything” in Spectrum was therefore dismissed by the District Court as simply “not credible.” Id., at 1456. These factual findings are amply supported by the record, and were not rejected as clearly erroneous by the Court of Appeals.
The evidence relied upon by the Court of Appeals in finding Spectrum to be a public forum, see 795 F. 2d, at 1372-1373, is equivocal at best. For example, Board Policy 348.51, which stated in part that “[sjchool sponsored student publications will not restrict free expression or diverse viewpoints within the rules of responsible journalism,” also stated that such publications were “developed within the adopted curriculum and its educational implications.” App. 22. One might reasonably infer from the full text of Policy 348.51 that school officials retained ultimate control over what constituted “responsible journalism” in a school-sponsored newspaper. Although the Statement of Policy published in the September 14, 1982, issue of Spectrum declared that “Spectrum, as a student-press publication, accepts all rights implied by the First Amendment,” this statement, understood in the context of the paper’s role in the school’s curriculum, suggests at most that the administration will not interfere with the students’ exercise of those First Amendment rights that attend the publication of a school-sponsored newspaper. It does not reflect an intent to expand those rights by converting a curricular newspaper into a public forum. Finally, that students were permitted to exercise some authority over the contents of Spectrum was fully consistent with the Curriculum Guide objective of teaching the Journalism II students “leadership responsibilities as issue and page editors.” App. 11. A decision to teach leadership skills in the context of a classroom activity hardly implies a decision to relinquish school control over that activity. In sum, the evidence relied upon by the Court of Appeals fails to demonstrate the “clear intent to create a public forum,” Cornelius, 473 U. S., at 802, that existed in cases in which we found public forums to have been created. See id., at 802-803 (citing Widmar v. Vincent, 454 U. S., at 267; Madison School District v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Comm’n, 429 U. S. 167, 174, n. 6 (1976); Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U. S. 546, 555 (1975)). School officials did not evince either “by policy or by practice,” Perry Education Assn., 460 U. S., at 47, any intent to open the pages of Spectrum to “indiscriminate use,” ibid., by its student reporters and editors, or by the student body generally. Instead, they “reserve[d] the forum for its intended purpos[e],” id., at 46, as a supervised learning experience for journalism students. Accordingly, school officials were entitled to regulate the contents of Spectrum in any reasonable manner. Ibid. It is this standard, rather than our decision in Tinker, that governs this case.
B
The question whether the First Amendment requires a school to tolerate particular student speech — the question that we addressed in Tinker — is different from the question whether the First Amendment requires a school affirmatively to promote particular student speech. The former question addresses educators’ ability to silence a student’s personal expression that happens to occur on the school premises. The latter question concerns educators’ authority over school-sponsored publications, theatrical productions, and other expressive activities that students, parents, and members of the public might reasonably perceive to bear the imprimatur of the school. These activities may fairly be characterized as part of the school curriculum, whether or not they occur in a traditional classroom setting, so long as they are supervised by faculty members and designed to impart particular knowledge or skills to student participants and audiences.
Educators are entitled to exercise greater control over this second form of student expression to assure that participants learn whatever lessons the activity is designed to teach, that readers or listeners are not exposed to material that may be inappropriate for their level of maturity, and that the views of the individual speaker are not erroneously attributed to the school. Hence, a school may in its capacity as publisher of a school newspaper or producer of a school play “disassociate itself,” Fraser, 478 U. S., at 685, not only from speech that would “substantially interfere with [its] work ... or impinge upon the rights of other students,” Tinker, 393 U. S., at 509, but also from speech that is, for example, ungrammatical, poorly written, inadequately researched, biased or prejudiced, vulgar or profane, or unsuitable for immature audiences. A school must be able to set high standards for the student speech that is disseminated under its auspices — standards that may be higher than those demanded by some newspaper publishers or theatrical producers in the “real” world — and may refuse to disseminate student speech that does not meet those standards. In addition, a school must be able to take into account the emotional maturity of the intended audience in determining whether to disseminate student speech on potentially sensitive topics, which might range from the existence of Santa Claus in an elementary school setting to the particulars of teenage sexual activity in a high school setting. A school must also retain the authority to refuse to sponsor student speech that might reasonably be perceived to advocate drug or alcohol use, irresponsible sex, or conduct otherwise inconsistent with “the shared values of a civilized social order,” Fraser, supra, at 683, or to associate the school with any position other than neutrality on matters of political controversy. Otherwise, the schools would be unduly constrained from fulfilling their role as “a principal instrument in awakening the child to cultural values, in preparing him for later professional training, and in helping him to adjust normally to his environment.” Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U. S. 483, 493 (1954).
Accordingly, we conclude that the standard articulated in Tinker for determining when a school may punish student expression need not also be the standard for determining when a school may refuse to lend its name and resources to the dissemination of student expression. Instead, we hold that educators do not offend the First Amendment by exercising editorial control over the style and content of student speech in school-sponsored expressive activities so long as their actions are reasonably related to legitimate pedagogical concerns.
This standard is consistent with our oft-expressed view that the education of the Nation’s youth is primarily the responsibility of parents, teachers, and state and local school officials, and not of federal judges. See, e. g., Board of Education of Hendrick Hudson Central School Dist. v. Rowley, 458 U. S. 176, 208 (1982); Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S. 308, 326 (1975); Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U. S. 97, 104 (1968). It is only when the decision to censor a school-sponsored publication, theatrical production, or other vehicle of student expression has no valid educational purpose that the First Amendment is so “directly and sharply implicated],” ibid., as to require judicial intervention to protect students’ constitutional rights.
Ill
We also conclude that Principal Reynolds acted reasonably in requiring the deletion from the May 13 issue of Spectrum of the pregnancy article, the divorce article, and the remaining articles that were to appear on the same pages of the newspaper.
The initial paragraph of the pregnancy article declared that “[a]ll names have been changed to keep the identity of these girls a secret.” The principal concluded that the students’ anonymity was not adequately protected, however, given the other identifying information in the article and the small number of pregnant students at the school. Indeed, a teacher at the school credibly testified that she could positively identify at least one of the girls and possibly all three. It is likely that many students at Hazelwood East would have been at least as successful in identifying the girls. Reynolds therefore could reasonably have feared that the article violated whatever pledge of anonymity had been given to the pregnant students. In addition, he could reasonably have been concerned that the article was not sufficiently sensitive to the privacy interests of the students’ boyfriends and parents, who were discussed in the article but who were given no opportunity to consent to its publication or to offer a response. The article did not contain graphic accounts of sexual activity. The girls did comment in the article, however, concerning their sexual histories and their use or nonuse of birth control. It was not unreasonable for the principal to have concluded that such frank talk was inappropriate in a school-sponsored publication distributed to 14-year-old freshmen and presumably taken home to be read by students’ even younger brothers and sisters.
The student who was quoted by name in the version of the divorce article seen by Principal Reynolds made comments sharply critical of her father. The principal could reasonably have concluded that an individual publicly identified as an inattentive parent — indeed, as one who chose “playing cards with the guys” over home and family — was entitled to an opportunity to defend himself as a matter of journalistic fairness. These concerns were shared by both of Spectrum’s faculty advisers for the 1982-1983 school year, who testified that they would not have allowed the article to be printed without deletion of the student’s name.
Principal Reynolds testified credibly at trial that, at the time that he reviewed the proofs of the May 13 issue during an extended telephone conversation with Emerson, he believed that there was no time to make any changes in the articles, and that the newspaper had to be printed immediately or not at all. It is true that Reynolds did not verify whether the necessary modifications could still have been made in the articles, and that Emerson did not volunteer the information that printing could be delayed until the changes were made. We nonetheless agree with the District Court that the decision to excise the two pages containing the problematic articles was reasonable given the particular circumstances of this case. These circumstances included the very recent replacement of Stergos by Emerson, who may not have been entirely familiar with Spectrum editorial and production procedures, and the pressure felt by Reynolds to make an immediate decision so that students would not be deprived of the newspaper altogether.
In sum, we cannot reject as unreasonable Principal Reynolds’ conclusion that neither the pregnancy article nor the divorce article was suitable for publication in Spectrum. Reynolds could reasonably have concluded that the students who had written and edited these articles had not sufficiently mastered those portions of the Journalism II curriculum that pertained to the treatment of controversial issues and personal attacks, the need to protect the privacy of individuals whose most intimate concerns are to be revealed in the newspaper, and “the legal, moral, and ethical restrictions imposed upon journalists within [a] school community” that includes adolescent subjects and readers. Finally, we conclude that the principal’s decision to delete two pages of Spectrum, rather than to delete only the offending articles or to require that they be modified, was reasonable under the circumstances as he understood them. Accordingly, no violation of First Amendment rights occurred.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit is therefore
Reversed.
The two pages deleted from the newspaper also contained articles on teenage marriage, runaways, and juvenile delinquents, as well as a general article on teenage pregnancy. Reynolds testified that he had no objection to these articles and that they were deleted only because they appeared on the same pages as the two objectionable articles.
The Statement also cited Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., 393 U. S. 503 (1969), for the proposition that “[o]nly speech that ‘materially and substantially interferes with the requirements of appropriate discipline’ can be found unacceptable and therefore be prohibited.” App. 26. This portion of the Statement does not, of course, even accurately reflect our holding in Tinker. Furthermore, the Statement nowhere expressly extended the Tinker standard to the news and feature articles contained in a school-sponsored newspaper. The dissent apparently finds as a fact that the Statement was published annually in Spectrum; however, the District Court was unable to conclude that the Statement appeared on more than one occasion. In any event, even if the Statement says what the dissent believes that it says, the evidence that school officials never intended to designate Spectrum as a public forum remains overwhelming.
The distinction that we draw between speech that is sponsored by the school and speech that is not is fully consistent with Papish v. University of Missouri Board of Curators, 410 U. S. 667 (1973) (per curiam), which involved an off-campus “underground” newspaper that school officials merely had allowed to be sold on a state university campus.
The dissent perceives no difference between the First Amendment analysis applied in Tinker and that applied in Fraser. We disagree. The decision in Fraser rested on the “vulgar,” “lewd,” and “plainly offensive” character of a speech delivered at an official school assembly rather than on any propensity of the speech to “materially disrup[t] classwork or involv[e] substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.” 393 U. S., at 513. Indeed, the Fraser Court cited as “especially relevant” a portion of Justice Black’s dissenting opinion in Tinker “ ‘disclaiming] any purpose ... to hold that the Federal Constitution compels the teachers, parents, and elected school officials to surrender control of the American public school system to public school students.’” 478 U. S., at 686 (quoting 393 U. S., at 526). Of course, Justice Black’s observations are equally relevant to the instant case.
We therefore need not decide whether the Court of Appeals correctly construed Tinker as precluding school officials from censoring student speech to avoid “invasion of the rights of others,” 393 U. S., at 513, except where that speech could result in tort liability to the school.
We reject respondents’ suggestion that school officials be permitted to exercise prepublication control over school-sponsored publications only pursuant to specific written regulations. To require such regulations in the context of a curricular activity could unduly constrain the ability of educators to educate. We need not now decide whether such regulations are required before school officials may censor publications not sponsored by the school that students seek to distribute on school grounds. See Baughman v. Freienmuth, 478 F. 2d 1345 (CA4 1973); Shanley v. Northeast Independent School Dist., Bexar Cty., Tex., 462 F. 2d 960 (CA5 1972); Eisner v. Stamford Board of Education, 440 F. 2d 803 (CA2 1971).
A number of lower federal courts have similarly recognized that educators’ decisions with regard to the content of school-sponsored newspapers, dramatic productions, and other expressive activities are entitled to substantial deference. See, e. g., Nicholson v. Board of Education, Torrance Unified School Dist., 682 F. 2d 858 (CA9 1982); Seyfried v. Wal ton, 668 F. 2d 214 (CA3 1981); Trachtman v. Anker, 563 F. 2d 512 (CA2 1977), cert. denied, 435 U. S. 925 (1978); Frasca v. Andrews, 463 F. Supp. 1043 (EDNY 1979). We need not now decide whether the same degree of deference is appropriate with respect to school-sponsored expressive activities at the college and university level.
The reasonableness of Principal Reynolds’ concerns about the two articles was further substantiated by the trial testimony of Martin Duggan, a former editorial page editor of the St. Louis Globe Democrat and a former college journalism instructor and newspaper adviser. Duggan testified that the divorce story did not meet journalistic standards of fairness and balance because the father was not given an opportunity to respond, and that the pregnancy story was not appropriate for publication in a high school newspaper because it was unduly intrusive into the privacy of the girls, their parents, and their boyfriends. The District Court found Duggan to be “an objective and independent witness” whose testimony was entitled to significant weight. 607 F. Supp. 1450, 1461 (ED Mo. 1985).
It is likely that the approach urged by the dissent would as a practical matter have far more deleterious consequences for the student press than does the approach that we adopt today. The dissent correctly acknowledges “[t]he State’s prerogative to dissolve the student newspaper entirely.” Post, at 287. It is likely that many public schools would do just that rather than open their newspapers to all student expression that does not threaten “materia[l] disruption of] classwork” or violation of “rights that are protected by law,” post, at 289, regardless of how sexually explicit, racially intemperate, or personally insulting that expression otherwise might be.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Goldberg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner Sansone was indicted for willfully attempting to evade federal income taxes for the year 1957 in violation of § 7201 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. Section 7201 provides:
“Any person who willfully attempts in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by this title or the payment thereof shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a felony and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.”
The following facts were established at trial. In March 1956 petitioner and his wife purchased a tract of land for $22,500 and simultaneously sold a portion of the tract for $20,000. In August 1957 petitioner sold another portion of the tract for $27,000. He did not report the gain on. either the 1956 or 1957 sale in his income tax returns for those years. Petitioner conceded that the 1957 transaction was reportable and that, in not reporting it, he understated his tax liability for that year by $2,456.48. He contended, however, that this understatement was not willful since he believed at the time that extensive repairs on a creek adjoining a portion of the tract he retained might be necessary and that the cost of these repairs might wipe out his profit on the 1957 sale.
To counter this defense, the Government introduced the following signed statement made by petitioner during the Treasury investigation of his tax return:
“I did not report the 1957 sale in our joint income tax return for 1957 because I was burdened with a number of financial obligations and did not feel I could raise the money to pay any tax due. It was my intention to report all sales in a future year and pay the tax due. I knew that I should have reported the 1957 sale, but my wife did not know that it should have been reported. It was not my intention to evade the payment of our proper taxes and I intended to pay any additional taxes due when I was financially able to do so.”
At the conclusion of the trial, petitioner requested that the jury be instructed that it could acquit him of the charged offense of willfully attempting to evade or defeat taxes in violation of § 7201, but still convict him of either or both of the asserted lesser-included offenses of willfully filing a fraudulent or false return, in violation of § 7207, or willfully failing to pay his taxes at the time required by law, in violation of § 7203. Section 7201 is a felony providing for a maximum fine of $10,000 and imprisonment for five years. Both §§ 7203 and 7207 are misdemeanors with maximum prison sentences of one year under each section, and maximum fines of $10,000 under § 7203 and $1,000 under § 7207.
The requested instructions were denied. Petitioner was found guilty by the jury of violating § 7201, and was sentenced by the court to pay a fine of $2,000 and to serve 15 months’ imprisonment. The conviction was upheld by the Court of Appeals. 334 F. 2d 287. We granted certiorari to consider the applicability of the lesser-included offense doctrine to these federal tax statutes. 379 U. S. 886.
I.
We are faced with the threshold question as to whether or not § 7207, which proscribes the willful filing with a Treasury official of any known false or fraudulent “return,” applies to the filing of an income tax return. If § 7207 does not apply to income tax returns, it is obvious that the' defendant was not here entitled to a lesser-included offense charge based on that section.
This Court held in Achilli v. United States, 353 U. S. 373, that § 7207’s statutory predecessor, § 3616 (a) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939, which made it a misdemeanor for any person to deliver to the Collector of Revenue “any false or fraudulent list, return, account, or statement, with intent to defeat or evade the valuation, enumeration, or assessment intended to be made . . (emphasis added), despite its broad language, was not intended by Congress to apply to income tax returns.
There were two major bases of this Court’s conclusion in Achilli that § 3616 (a) did not apply to such returns. First, unlike other criminal provisions clearly applicable to income taxes which appeared in the income tax chapter of the 1939 Code and were specifically designed to punish evasion of that tax, § 3616 (a) was placed among the Code’s “General Administrative Provisions” and did not specifically refer to income taxes. Second, § 3616 (a) required that the false or fraudulent return be filed “with intent to defeat or evade the valuation, enumeration, or assessment intended to be made.” This provision, as the Court had already held in Berra v. United States, 351 U. S. 131, if applied to income tax returns would have made § 3616 (a) completely co-extensive with the predecessor of § 7201 where the attempt to evade income taxes was accomplished by' filing a fraudulent income tax return. It was clear that the predecessor of § 7201 applied to this method of attempting to evade income taxes and the Court was unwilling to presume that Congress intended to enact both felony and misdemeanor provisions which completely overlap in this important area.
Both of these bases of decision were removed by the 1954 Code. Unlike their predecessors in the 1939 Code, §§ 7201, 7203, and 7207, together with other sections clearly applicable to income tax violations, were all placed in the same section (Part I of Chapter 75) of the 1954 Code. Congress specifically stated that it placed all these provisions in the same part of the Code because it wished them to apply to taxes generally, including income taxes. See S. Rep. No. 1622, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 147; H. R. Rep. No. 1337, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 108. In contrast, Part II of Chapter 75 contains provisions applicable only to specified taxes, none of which include income taxes.
Further, Congress, in enacting § 7207 did not re-enact § 3616 (a)’s requirement that the false or fraudulent return be made with “intent to defeat or evade” the tax due. Thus the second basis for the Court’s conclusion in Achilli that § 3616 (a) did not apply to income taxes was removed. See Berra v. United States, supra, at 134, n. 5. Finally, in providing that the false or fraudulent return be made “willfully,” § 7207 was conformed to the language contained in the other misdemeanor provisions clearly applicable to income taxes. See, e. g., § 7203.
We conclude, therefore, that § 7207 applies to income tax violations. Since there is no doubt that §§ 7201 and 7203 also apply to income tax violations, with obvious overlapping among them, there can be no doubt that the lesser-included offense doctrine applies to these statutes in an appropriate case. See Spies v. United States, 317 U. S. 492, 495; Berra v. United States, supra.
HH 1 — f
The basic principles controlling whether or not a lesser-included offense charge should be given in a particular case have been settled by this Court. Rule 31 (c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides, in relevant part, that the “defendant may be found guilty of an offense necessarily included in the offense charged.” Thus, “[i]n a case where some of the elements of the crime charged themselves constitute a lesser crime, the defendant, if the evidence justifie[s] it . . . [is] entitled to an instruction which would permit a finding of guilt of the lesser offense.” Berra v. United States, supra, at 134. See Stevenson v. United States, 162 U. S. 313. But a lesser-offense charge is not proper where, on the evidence presented, the factual issues to be resolved by the jury are the same as to both the lesser and greater offenses. Berra v. United States, supra; Sparf v. United States, 156 U. S. 51, 63-64. In other words, the lesser offense must be included within but not, on the facts of the case, be completely encompassed by the greater. A lesser-included offense instruction is only proper where the charged greater offense requires the jury to find a disputed factual element which is not required for conviction of the lesser-included offense. Berra v. United States, supra; Sparf v. United States, supra, at 63-64. We now apply the principles declared in these cases to the instant case.
III.
The offense here charged was a violation of § 7201, which proscribes willfully attempting in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by the Internal Revenue Code. As this Court has recognized, this felony provision is “the capstone of a system of sanctions which singly or in combination were calculated to induce prompt and forthright fulfillment of every duty under the income tax law and to provide a penalty suitable to every degree of delinquency.” Spies v. United States, supra, at 497. As such a capstone, § 7201 necessarily includes among its elements actions which, if isolated from the others, constitute lesser offenses in this hierarchical system of sanctions. Therefore, if on the facts of a given case there are disputed issues of fact which would enable the jury rationally to find that, although all the elements of § 7201 have not been proved, all the elements of one or more lesser offenses have been, it is clear that the defendant is entitled to a lesser-included offense charge as to such lesser offenses.
As has been held by this Court, the elements of § 7201 are willfulness; the existence of a tax deficiency, Lawn v. United States, 355 U. S. 339, 361; Spies v. United States, supra, at 496; and an affirmative act constituting an evasion or attempted evasion of the tax, Spies v. United States, supra. In comparison, § 7203 makes it a misdemeanor willfully to fail to perform a number of specified acts at the time required by law — the one here relevant being the failure to pay a tax when due. This misdemeanor requires only willfulness and the omission of the required act — here the payment of the tax when due. As recognized by this Court in Spies v. United States, supra, at 499, the difference between a mere willful failure to pay a tax (or perform other enumerated actions) when due under § 7203 and a willful attempt to evade or defeat taxes under § 7201 is that the latter felony involves “some willful commission in addition to the willful omissions that make up the list of misdemeanors.” Where there is, in a § 7201 prosecution, a disputed issue of fact as to the existence of the requisite affirmative commission in addition to the § 7203 omission, a defendant would, of course, be entitled to a lesser-included offense charge based on § 7203. Cf. Spies v. United States, supra. In this case, however, it is undisputed that petitioner filed a tax return and that the petitioner’s filing of a false tax return constituted a sufficient affirmative commission to satisfy that requirement of § 7201. The only issue at trial was whether petitioner’s act was willful. Given this affirmative commission and the conceded tax deficiency, if petitioner’s act was willful, that is, if the jury believed, as it obviously did, that he knew that the capital gain on the sale of the property was reportable in 1957, he was guilty of violating both §§ 7201 and 7203. If his act was not willful, he was not guilty of violating either § 7201 or § 7203. Thus on the facts of this case, §§ 7201 and 7203 “covered precisely the same ground.” Berra v. United States, supra, at 134. This being so, on the authorities cited, it is clear that petitioner was not entitled to a lesser-included offense charge based on § 7203.
Section 7207 requires the willful filing of a document known to be false or fraudulent in any material manner. The elements here involved are willfulness and the commission of the prohibited act. Section 7207 does not, however, require that the act be done as an attempt to evade or defeat taxes. Conduct could therefore violate § 7207 without violating § 7201 where the false statement, though material, does not constitute an attempt to evade or defeat taxation because it does not have the requisite effect of reducing the stated tax liability. This may be the case, for example, where a taxpayer understates his gross receipts and he offsets this by also understating his deductible expenses. In this example, if the Government in a § 7201 case charged tax evasion on the grounds that the defendant had understated his tax by understating his gross receipts, and the defendant contended that this was not so, as the misstatement of gross receipts had been offset by an understatement of deductible expenses, the defendant would be entitled to a lesser-included offense charge based on § 7207, there being this relevant disputed issue of fact. This would be so, for in such a case, if the jury believed that an understatement of deductible expenses had offset the understatement of gross receipts, while the defendant would have violated § 7207 by willfully making a material false and fraudulent statement on his return, he would not have violated § 7201 as there would not have been the requisite § 7201 element of a tax deficiency. Here, however, there is no dispute that petitioner’s material misstatement resulted in a tax deficiency. Thus there is no disputed issue of fact concerning the existence of an element required for conviction of § 7201 but not required for conviction of § 7207. Given petitioner’s material misstatement which resulted in a tax deficiency, if, as the jury obviously found, petitioner’s act was willful in the sense that he knew that he should have reported more income than he did for the year 1957, he was guilty of violating both §§ 7201 and 7207. If his action was not willful, he was guilty of violating neither. As was true with § 7203, on the facts of this case §§ 7201 and 7207 “covered precisely the same ground,” Berra v. United States, supra, at 134, and thus petitioner was not entitled to a lesser-included offense charge based on § 7207.
Petitioner makes one final contention. He argues that he could have been acquitted of attempting to evade or defeat his 1957 taxes, in violation of § 7201, but still have been convicted for willfully failing to pay his tax when due in violation of § 7203 or willfully filing a fraudulent return in violation of § 7207, if the jury believed his statement contained in the government-introduced affidavit, that, although he knew that profit on the sale in question was reportable for 1957 and that tax was due thereon, he intended to report the sale and pay the 1957 tax at some unspecified future date. The basic premise of this argument is that, although all three sections require willfulness, on the facts here, the contents of these willfulness requirements differ. The argument' is made that while an intent to report and pay the tax in the future does not vitiate the willfulness requirements of §§ 7203 and 7207, it does constitute a defense to a willful attempt “in any manner to evade or defeat any tax imposed by” the Internal Revenue Code, in violation of § 7201. While we agree that the intent to report the income and pay the tax sometime in the future does not vitiate the willfulness required by §§ 7203 and 7207, we cannot agree that it vitiates the willfulness requirement of § 7201.
No defense to a § 7201 evasion charge is made out by showing that the defendant willfully and fraudulently understated his tax liability for the year involved but intended to report the income and pay the tax at some later time. As this Court has recognized, § 7201 includes the offense of willfully attempting to evade or defeat the assessment of a tax as well as the offense of willfully attempting to evade or defeat the payment of a tax. Lawn v. United States, supra. The indictment here charged an attempt to evade income taxes by defeating the assessment for 1957. The fact that petitioner stated to a revenue agent that he intended to report his 1957 income in some later year, even if taken at face value, would not detract from the criminality of his willful act defeating the 1957 assessment. That crime was complete as soon as the false and fraudulent understatement of taxes (assuming, of course, that there was in fact a deficiency) was filed. See United States v. Beacon Brass Co., 344 U. S. 43, 46. See also Spies v. United States, supra, at 498-499.
In sum, it is clear here that there were no disputed issues of fact which would justify instructing the jury that it could find that petitioner had committed all the ele-merits of either or both of the §§ 7203 and 7207 misdemeanors without having committed a violation of the § 7201 felony. This being the case, the petitioner was not entitled to a lesser-included offense charge and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice Douglas dissent, believing that there was evidence sufficient to require the Court to charge the jury, as petitioner requested, that they could acquit him on this felony charge of having willfully attempted to evade or defeat taxes in violation of § 7201 but still convict him of the lesser misdemeanor offenses included in the felony charge. See Berra v. United States, 351 U. S. 131, 135 (dissenting opinion). Cf. Achilli v. United States, 353 U. S. 373, 379 (dissenting opinion).
Petitioner was charged with a violation of § 7201 for 1956 in addition to the charge for 1957. The jury acquitted him with respect to the 1956 charge, which is consequently not involved in this case.
Section 7207 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 provides:
“Any person who willfully delivers or discloses to the Secretary or his delegate any list, return, account, statement, or other document, known by him to be fraudulent or to be false as to any material matter, shall be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both.”
Section 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 provides:
“Any person required under this title to pay any estimated tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return (other than a return required under authority of section 6015 or section 6016), keep any records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such records, or supply such information, at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $10,000, or imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the costs of prosecution.”
The full instructions requested by petitioner were as follows:
No. 1. “Under the law you may find a defendant guilty of a lesser crime than the crimes charged in the indictment.
“A statute upon which a lesser crime is based (Section 7203 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954), omitting that part of the Act which does not apply in this case, reads as follows:
“ ‘Any person required under this title to pay any . . . tax, . . . who willfully fails to pay such tax, ... at the time or times required by law or regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor.’
“and then the statute provides for the penalty.
“Therefore, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that (with respect to either or both of the counts in this indictment) the defendant willfully failed to pay the correct tax to the United States at the time of the filing of his return, but you further find that the defendant did not willfully attempt to defeat and evade his income taxes by the filing of a false and fraudulent return, you will in your verdict say ‘Guilty of violating a lesser-ineluded offense.’
“If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether defendant willfully failed to pay the correct tax when filing his income tax return or returns under any count or counts of this indictment, you will resolve the doubt in favor of the defendant and acquit him of the lesser-included offense as to such count or counts.”
No. 2. “As I have said previously, the law permits the jury to find a defendant guilty of any lesser offense which is necessarily included in the crime charged. The offense charged in the indictment here necessarily includes a lesser offense based upon the following statute (Section 7207 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954), omitting that part of the Act which does not apply in this case; it reads as follows:
“ ‘Any person who willfully delivers or discloses to the Secretary [of the Treasury] or his delegate any . . . return, ... or other document known by him to be fraudulent or to be false as to any material matter,’
“and then the statute provides for the penalty.
“Therefore, if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that (with respect to either or both of the counts in this indictment) the defendant willfully delivered to the District Director of Internal Revenue at St. Louis, Missouri his and his wife’s federal joint income tax return or returns for the years 1956 and 1957 which were known by him to be fraudulent or false as to any material matter, but you further find that the defendant did not willfully attempt to defeat and evade his income tax by the filing of a false and fraudulent return, you will in your verdict say ‘Guilty of violating a Iesser-included offense.’
“If you have a reasonable doubt as to whether defendant willfully so delivered under any count or counts of this indictment his and his wife’s federal joint income tax return or returns which were known by him to be fraudulent or false as to a material matter, you will resolve the doubt in favor of the defendant and acquit him of the lesser-ineluded offense as to such count or counts.”
This issue divided the Court of Appeals, with two judges holding that § 7207 does not apply to false income tax returns and one judge, concurring in result, dissenting on this point.
This Court has long recognized that to hold otherwise would only invite the jury to pick between the felony and the misdemeanor so as to determine the punishment to be imposed, a duty Congress has traditionally left to the judge. See Sparf v. United States, supra, at 63-64; Berra v. United States, supra, at 135. This general principle is particularly applicable in this area. In commenting on § 7201, the House Ways and Means Committee expressly stated that minimum penalties were omitted from § 7201 in order to make it “possible for the judges to better fix the penalties to fit the circumstances.” H. R. Rep. No. 1337, 83d Cong., 2d Sess., 108. The lack of minimum penalties- also, of course, denies to the prosecutor an unbridled discretion as to the penalty to be imposed upon particular defendants by deciding whether, on the same facts, to charge a felony or a misdemeanor.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice KENNEDY delivered the opinion of the Court.
In September 2014, Pennsylvania State Troopers pulled over a car driven by petitioner Terrence Byrd. Byrd was the only person in the car. In the course of the traffic stop the troopers learned that the car was rented and that Byrd was not listed on the rental agreement as an authorized driver. For this reason, the troopers told Byrd they did not need his consent to search the car, including its trunk where he had stored personal effects. A search of the trunk uncovered body armor and 49 bricks of heroin.
The evidence was turned over to federal authorities, who charged Byrd with distribution and possession of heroin with the intent to distribute in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1) and possession of body armor by a prohibited person in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 931(a)(1). Byrd moved to suppress the evidence as the fruit of an unlawful search. The United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania denied the motion, and the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed. Both courts concluded that, because Byrd was not listed on the rental agreement, he lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car. Based on this conclusion, it appears that both the District Court and Court of Appeals deemed it unnecessary to consider whether the troopers had probable cause to search the car.
This Court granted certiorari to address the question whether a driver has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a rental car when he or she is not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement. The Court now holds that, as a general rule, someone in otherwise lawful possession and control of a rental car has a reasonable expectation of privacy in it even if the rental agreement does not list him or her as an authorized driver.
The Court concludes a remand is necessary to address in the first instance the Government's argument that this general rule is inapplicable because, in the circumstances here, Byrd had no greater expectation of privacy than a car thief. If that is so, our cases make clear he would lack a legitimate expectation of privacy. It is necessary to remand as well to determine whether, even if Byrd had a right to object to the search, probable cause justified it in any event.
I
On September 17, 2014, petitioner Terrence Byrd and Latasha Reed drove in Byrd's Honda Accord to a Budget car-rental facility in Wayne, New Jersey. Byrd stayed in the parking lot in the Honda while Reed went to the Budget desk and rented a Ford Fusion. The agreement Reed signed required her to certify that she had a valid driver's license and had not committed certain vehicle-related offenses within the previous three years. An addendum to the agreement, which Reed initialed, provides the following restriction on who may drive the rental car:
"I understand that the only ones permitted to drive the vehicle other than the renter are the renter's spouse, the renter's co-employee (with the renter's permission, while on company business), or a person who appears at the time of the rental and signs an Additional Driver Form. These other drivers must also be at least 25 years old and validly licensed.
"PERMITTING AN UNAUTHORIZED DRIVER TO OPERATE THE VEHICLE IS A VIOLATION OF THE RENTAL AGREEMENT. THIS MAY RESULT IN ANY AND ALL COVERAGE OTHERWISE PROVIDED BY THE RENTAL AGREEMENT BEING VOID AND MY BEING FULLY RESPONSIBLE FOR ALL LOSS OR DAMAGE, INCLUDING LIABILITY TO THIRD PARTIES." App. 19.
In filling out the paperwork for the rental agreement, Reed did not list an additional driver.
With the rental keys in hand, Reed returned to the parking lot and gave them to Byrd. The two then left the facility in separate cars-she in his Honda, he in the rental car. Byrd returned to his home in Patterson, New Jersey, and put his personal belongings in the trunk of the rental car. Later that afternoon, he departed in the car alone and headed toward Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania.
After driving nearly three hours, or roughly half the distance to Pittsburgh, Byrd passed State Trooper David Long, who was parked in the median of Interstate 81 near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. Long was suspicious of Byrd because he was driving with his hands at the "10 and 2" position on the steering wheel, sitting far back from the steering wheel, and driving a rental car. Long knew the Ford Fusion was a rental car because one of its windows contained a barcode. Based on these observations, he decided to follow Byrd and, a short time later, stopped him for a possible traffic infraction.
When Long approached the passenger window of Byrd's car to explain the basis for the stop and to ask for identification, Byrd was "visibly nervous" and "was shaking and had a hard time obtaining his driver's license." Id., at 37. He handed an interim license and the rental agreement to Long, stating that a friend had rented the car. Long returned to his vehicle to verify Byrd's license and noticed Byrd was not listed as an additional driver on the rental agreement. Around this time another trooper, Travis Martin, arrived at the scene. While Long processed Byrd's license, Martin conversed with Byrd, who again stated that a friend had rented the vehicle. After Martin walked back to Long's patrol car, Long commented to Martin that Byrd was "not on the renter agreement," to which Martin replied, "yeah, he has no expectation of privacy." 3 App. to Brief for Appellant in No. 16-1509(CA3), at 21:40.
A computer search based on Byrd's identification returned two different names. Further inquiry suggested the other name might be an alias and also revealed that Byrd had prior convictions for weapons and drug charges as well as an outstanding warrant in New Jersey for a probation violation. After learning that New Jersey did not want Byrd arrested for extradition, the troopers asked Byrd to step out of the vehicle and patted him down.
Long asked Byrd if he had anything illegal in the car. When Byrd said he did not, the troopers asked for his consent to search the car. At that point Byrd said he had a "blunt" in the car and offered to retrieve it for them. The officers understood "blunt" to mean a marijuana cigarette. They declined to let him retrieve it and continued to seek his consent to search the car, though they stated they did not need consent because he was not listed on the rental agreement. The troopers then opened the passenger and driver doors and began a thorough search of the passenger compartment.
Martin proceeded from there to search the car's trunk, including by opening up and taking things out of a large cardboard box, where he found a laundry bag containing body armor. At this point, the troopers decided to detain Byrd. As Martin walked toward Byrd and said he would be placing him in handcuffs, Byrd began to run away. A third trooper who had arrived on the scene joined Long and Martin in pursuit. When the troopers caught up to Byrd, he surrendered and admitted there was heroin in the car. Back at the car, the troopers resumed their search of the laundry bag and found 49 bricks of heroin.
In pretrial proceedings Byrd moved to suppress the evidence found in the trunk of the rental car, arguing that the search violated his Fourth Amendment rights. Although Long contended at a suppression hearing that the troopers had probable cause to search the car after Byrd stated it contained marijuana, the District Court denied Byrd's motion on the ground that Byrd lacked "standing" to contest the search as an initial matter, 2015 WL 5038455, *2 (M.D.Pa., Aug. 26, 2015) (citing United States v. Kennedy, 638 F.3d 159, 165 (C.A.3 2011) ). Byrd later entered a conditional guilty plea, reserving the right to appeal the suppression ruling.
The Court of Appeals affirmed in a brief summary opinion. 679 Fed.Appx. 146 (C.A.3 2017). As relevant here, the Court of Appeals recognized that a "circuit split exists as to whether the sole occupant of a rental vehicle has a Fourth Amendment expectation of privacy when that occupant is not named in the rental agreement"; but it noted that Circuit precedent already had "spoken as to this issue ... and determined such a person has no expectation of privacy and therefore no standing to challenge a search of the vehicle." Id., at 150 (citing Kennedy, supra, at 167-168). The Court of Appeals did not reach the probable-cause question.
This Court granted Byrd's petition for a writ of certiorari, 582 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 54, 198 L.Ed.2d 780 (2017), to address the conflict among the Courts of Appeals over whether an unauthorized driver has a reasonable expectation of privacy in a rental car. Compare United States v. Seeley, 331 F.3d 471, 472 (C.A.5 2003) (per curiam ); United States v. Wellons, 32 F.3d 117, 119 (C.A.4 1994) ; United States v. Roper, 918 F.2d 885, 887-888 (C.A.10 1990), with United States v. Smith, 263 F.3d 571, 581-587 (C.A.6 2001) ; Kennedy, supra, at 165-168, and with United States v. Thomas, 447 F.3d 1191, 1196-1199 (C.A.9 2006) ; United States v. Best, 135 F.3d 1223, 1225 (C.A.8 1998).
II
Few protections are as essential to individual liberty as the right to be free from unreasonable searches and seizures. The Framers made that right explicit in the Bill of Rights following their experience with the indignities and invasions of privacy wrought by "general warrants and warrantless searches that had so alienated the colonists and had helped speed the movement for independence." Chimel v. California, 395 U.S. 752, 761, 89 S.Ct. 2034, 23 L.Ed.2d 685 (1969). Ever mindful of the Fourth Amendment and its history, the Court has viewed with disfavor practices that permit "police officers unbridled discretion to rummage at will among a person's private effects." Arizona v. Gant, 556 U.S. 332, 345, 129 S.Ct. 1710, 173 L.Ed.2d 485 (2009).
This concern attends the search of an automobile. See Delaware v. Prouse, 440 U.S. 648, 662, 99 S.Ct. 1391, 59 L.Ed.2d 660 (1979). The Court has acknowledged, however, that there is a diminished expectation of privacy in automobiles, which often permits officers to dispense with obtaining a warrant before conducting a lawful search. See, e.g., California v. Acevedo, 500 U.S. 565, 579, 111 S.Ct. 1982, 114 L.Ed.2d 619 (1991).
Whether a warrant is required is a separate question from the one the Court addresses here, which is whether the person claiming a constitutional violation "has had his own Fourth Amendment rights infringed by the search and seizure which he seeks to challenge." Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 133, 99 S.Ct. 421, 58 L.Ed.2d 387 (1978). Answering that question requires examination of whether the person claiming the constitutional violation had a "legitimate expectation of privacy in the premises" searched. Id., at 143, 99 S.Ct. 421. "Expectations of privacy protected by the Fourth Amendment, of course, need not be based on a common-law interest in real or personal property, or on the invasion of such an interest." Id., at 144, n. 12, 99 S.Ct. 421. Still, "property concepts" are instructive in "determining the presence or absence of the privacy interests protected by that Amendment." Ibid.
Indeed, more recent Fourth Amendment cases have clarified that the test most often associated with legitimate expectations of privacy, which was derived from the second Justice Harlan's concurrence in Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967), supplements, rather than displaces, "the traditional property-based understanding of the Fourth Amendment." Florida v. Jardines, 569 U.S. 1, 11, 133 S.Ct. 1409, 185 L.Ed.2d 495 (2013). Perhaps in light of this clarification, Byrd now argues in the alternative that he had a common-law property interest in the rental car as a second bailee that would have provided him with a cognizable Fourth Amendment interest in the vehicle. But he did not raise this argument before the District Court or Court of Appeals, and those courts did not have occasion to address whether Byrd was a second bailee or what consequences might follow from that determination. In those courts he framed the question solely in terms of the Katz test noted above. Because this is "a court of review, not of first view," Cutter v. Wilkinson, 544 U.S. 709, 718, n. 7, 125 S.Ct. 2113, 161 L.Ed.2d 1020 (2005), it is generally unwise to consider arguments in the first instance, and the Court declines to reach Byrd's contention that he was a second bailee.
Reference to property concepts, however, aids the Court in assessing the precise question here: Does a driver of a rental car have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the car when he or she is not listed as an authorized driver on the rental agreement?
III
A
One who owns and possesses a car, like one who owns and possesses a house, almost always has a reasonable expectation of privacy in it. More difficult to define and delineate are the legitimate expectations of privacy of others.
On the one hand, as noted above, it is by now well established that a person need not always have a recognized common-law property interest in the place searched to be able to claim a reasonable expectation of privacy in it. See Jones v. United States, 362 U.S. 257, 259, 80 S.Ct. 725, 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960) ; Katz, supra, at 352, 88 S.Ct. 507 ; Mancusi v. DeForte, 392 U.S. 364, 368, 88 S.Ct. 2120, 20 L.Ed.2d 1154 (1968) ; Minnesota v. Olson, 495 U.S. 91, 98, 110 S.Ct. 1684, 109 L.Ed.2d 85 (1990).
On the other hand, it is also clear that legitimate presence on the premises of the place searched, standing alone, is not enough to accord a reasonable expectation of privacy, because it "creates too broad a gauge for measurement of Fourth Amendment rights." Rakas, 439 U.S., at 142, 99 S.Ct. 421 ; see also id., at 148, 99 S.Ct. 421 ("We would not wish to be understood as saying that legitimate presence on the premises is irrelevant to one's expectation of privacy, but it cannot be deemed controlling"); Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 91, 119 S.Ct. 469, 142 L.Ed.2d 373 (1998).
Although the Court has not set forth a single metric or exhaustive list of considerations to resolve the circumstances in which a person can be said to have a reasonable expectation of privacy, it has explained that "[l]egitimation of expectations of privacy by law must have a source outside of the Fourth Amendment, either by reference to concepts of real or personal property law or to understandings that are recognized and permitted by society." Rakas, 439 U.S., at 144, n. 12, 99 S.Ct. 421. The two concepts in cases like this one are often linked. "One of the main rights attaching to property is the right to exclude others," and, in the main, "one who owns or lawfully possesses or controls property will in all likelihood have a legitimate expectation of privacy by virtue of the right to exclude." Ibid. (citing 2 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, ch. 1). This general property-based concept guides resolution of this case.
B
Here, the Government contends that drivers who are not listed on rental agreements always lack an expectation of privacy in the automobile based on the rental company's lack of authorization alone. This per se rule rests on too restrictive a view of the Fourth Amendment's protections.
Byrd, by contrast, contends that the sole occupant of a rental car always has an expectation of privacy in it based on mere possession and control. There is more to recommend Byrd's proposed rule than the Government's; but, without qualification, it would include within its ambit thieves and others who, not least because of their lack of any property-based justification, would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.
1
Stripped to its essentials, the Government's position is that only authorized drivers of rental cars have expectations of privacy in those vehicles. This position is based on the following syllogism: Under Rakas , passengers do not have an expectation of privacy in an automobile glove compartment or like places; an unauthorized driver like Byrd would have been the passenger had the renter been driving; and the unauthorized driver cannot obtain greater protection when he takes the wheel and leaves the renter behind. The flaw in this syllogism is its major premise, for it is a misreading of Rakas .
The Court in Rakas did not hold that passengers cannot have an expectation of privacy in automobiles. To the contrary, the Court disclaimed any intent to hold "that a passenger lawfully in an automobile may not invoke the exclusionary rule and challenge a search of that vehicle unless he happens to own or have a possessory interest in it." 439 U.S., at 150, n. 17, 99 S.Ct. 421 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court instead rejected the argument that legitimate presence alone was sufficient to assert a Fourth Amendment interest, which was fatal to the petitioners' case there because they had "claimed only that they were 'legitimately on [the] premises' and did not claim that they had any legitimate expectation of privacy in the areas of the car which were searched." Ibid.
What is more, the Government's syllogism is beside the point, because this case does not involve a passenger at all but instead the driver and sole occupant of a rental car. As Justice Powell observed in his concurring opinion in Rakas, a "distinction ... may be made in some circumstances between the Fourth Amendment rights of passengers and the rights of an individual who has exclusive control of an automobile or of its locked compartments." Id., at 154, 99 S.Ct. 421. This situation would be similar to the defendant in Jones, supra, who, as Rakas notes, had a reasonable expectation of privacy in his friend's apartment because he "had complete dominion and control over the apartment and could exclude others from it," 439 U.S., at 149, 99 S.Ct. 421. Justice Powell's observation was also consistent with the majority's explanation that "one who owns or lawfully possesses or controls property will in all likelihood have a legitimate expectation of privacy by virtue of [the] right to exclude," id., at 144, n. 12, 99 S.Ct. 421, an explanation tied to the majority's discussion of Jones .
The Court sees no reason why the expectation of privacy that comes from lawful possession and control and the attendant right to exclude would differ depending on whether the car in question is rented or privately owned by someone other than the person in current possession of it, much as it did not seem to matter whether the friend of the defendant in Jones owned or leased the apartment he permitted the defendant to use in his absence. Both would have the expectation of privacy that comes with the right to exclude. Indeed, the Government conceded at oral argument that an unauthorized driver in sole possession of a rental car would be permitted to exclude third parties from it, such as a carjacker. Tr. of Oral Arg. 48-49.
2
The Government further stresses that Byrd's driving the rental car violated the rental agreement that Reed signed, and it contends this violation meant Byrd could not have had any basis for claiming an expectation of privacy in the rental car at the time of the search. As anyone who has rented a car knows, car-rental agreements are filled with long lists of restrictions. Examples include prohibitions on driving the car on unpaved roads or driving while using a handheld cellphone. Few would contend that violating provisions like these has anything to do with a driver's reasonable expectation of privacy in the rental car-as even the Government agrees. Brief for United States 32.
Despite this concession, the Government argues that permitting an unauthorized driver to take the wheel of a rental car is a breach different in kind from these others, so serious that the rental company would consider the agreement "void" the moment an unauthorized driver takes the wheel. Id., at 4, 15, 16, 27. To begin with, that is not what the contract says. It states: "Permitting an unauthorized driver to operate the vehicle is a violation of the rental agreement. This may result in any and all coverage otherwise provided by the rental agreement being void and my being fully responsible for all loss or damage, including liability to third parties." App. 24 (emphasis deleted).
Putting the Government's misreading of the contract aside, there may be countless innocuous reasons why an unauthorized driver might get behind the wheel of a rental car and drive it-perhaps the renter is drowsy or inebriated and the two think it safer for the friend to drive them to their destination. True, this constitutes a breach of the rental agreement, and perhaps a serious one, but the Government fails to explain what bearing this breach of contract, standing alone, has on expectations of privacy in the car. Stated in different terms, for Fourth Amendment purposes there is no meaningful difference between the authorized-driver provision and the other provisions the Government agrees do not eliminate an expectation of privacy, all of which concern risk allocation between private parties-violators might pay additional fees, lose insurance coverage, or assume liability for damage resulting from the breach. But that risk allocation has little to do with whether one would have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the rental car if, for example, he or she otherwise has lawful possession of and control over the car.
3
The central inquiry at this point turns on the concept of lawful possession, and this is where an important qualification of Byrd's proposed rule comes into play. Rakas makes clear that " 'wrongful' presence at the scene of a search would not enable a defendant to object to the legality of the search." 439 U.S., at 141, n. 9, 99 S.Ct. 421. "A burglar plying his trade in a summer cabin during the off season," for example, "may have a thoroughly justified subjective expectation of privacy, but it is not one which the law recognizes as 'legitimate.' " Id., at 143, n. 12, 99 S.Ct. 421. Likewise, "a person present in a stolen automobile at the time of the search may [not] object to the lawfulness of the search of the automobile." Id., at 141, n. 9, 99 S.Ct. 421. No matter the degree of possession and control, the car thief would not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a stolen car.
On this point, in its merits brief, the Government asserts that, on the facts here, Byrd should have no greater expectation of privacy than a car thief because he intentionally used a third party as a strawman in a calculated plan to mislead the rental company from the very outset, all to aid him in committing a crime. This argument is premised on the Government's inference that Byrd knew he would not have been able to rent the car on his own, because he would not have satisfied the rental company's requirements based on his criminal record, and that he used Reed, who had no intention of using the car for her own purposes, to procure the car for him to transport heroin to Pittsburgh.
It is unclear whether the Government's allegations, if true, would constitute a criminal offense in the acquisition of the rental car under applicable law. And it may be that there is no reason that the law should distinguish between one who obtains a vehicle through subterfuge of the type the Government alleges occurred here and one who steals the car outright.
The Government did not raise this argument in the District Court or the Court of Appeals, however. It relied instead on the sole fact that Byrd lacked authorization to drive the car. And it is unclear from the record whether the Government's inferences paint an accurate picture of what occurred. Because it was not addressed in the District Court or Court of Appeals, the Court declines to reach this question. The proper course is to remand for the argument and potentially further factual development to be considered in the first instance by the Court of Appeals or by the District Court.
IV
The Government argued in its brief in opposition to certiorari that, even if Byrd had a Fourth Amendment interest in the rental car, the troopers had probable cause to believe it contained evidence of a crime when they initiated their search. If that were true, the troopers may have been permitted to conduct a warrantless search of the car in line with the Court's cases concerning the automobile exception to the warrant requirement. See, e.g., Acevedo, 500 U.S., at 580, 111 S.Ct. 1982. The Court of Appeals did not reach this question because it concluded, as an initial matter, that Byrd lacked a reasonable expectation of privacy in the rental car.
It is worth noting that most courts analyzing the question presented in this case, including the Court of Appeals here, have described it as one of Fourth Amendment "standing," a concept the Court has explained is not distinct from the merits and "is more properly subsumed under substantive Fourth Amendment doctrine." Rakas, supra, at 139, 99 S.Ct. 421.
The concept of standing in Fourth Amendment cases can be a useful shorthand for capturing the idea that a person must have a cognizable Fourth Amendment interest in the place searched before seeking relief for an unconstitutional search; but it should not be confused with Article III standing, which is jurisdictional and must be assessed before reaching the merits. Arizona Christian School Tuition Organization v. Winn, 563 U.S. 125, 129, 131 S.Ct. 1436, 179 L.Ed.2d 523 (2011) ("To obtain a determination on the merits in federal court, parties seeking relief must show that they have standing under Article III of the Constitution"); see also Rakas, supra, at 138-140, 99 S.Ct. 421. Because Fourth Amendment standing is subsumed under substantive Fourth Amendment doctrine, it is not a jurisdictional question and hence need not be addressed before addressing other aspects of the merits of a Fourth Amendment claim. On remand, then, the Court of Appeals is not required to assess Byrd's reasonable expectation of privacy in the rental car before, in its discretion, first addressing whether there was probable cause for the search, if it finds the latter argument has been preserved.
V
Though new, the fact pattern here continues a well-traveled path in this Court's Fourth Amendment jurisprudence. Those cases support the proposition, and the Court now holds, that the mere fact that a driver in lawful possession or control of a rental car is not listed on the rental agreement will not defeat his or her otherwise reasonable expectation of privacy. The Court leaves for remand two of the Government's arguments: that one who intentionally uses a third party to procure a rental car by a fraudulent scheme for the purpose of committing a crime is no better situated than a car thief; and that probable cause justified the search in any event. The Court of Appeals has discretion as to the order in which these questions are best addressed.
* * *
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.
Although I have serious doubts about the "reasonable expectation of privacy" test from Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 360-361, 88 S.Ct. 507, 19 L.Ed.2d 576 (1967) (Harlan, J., concurring), I join the Court's opinion because it correctly navigates our precedents, which no party has asked us to reconsider. As the Court notes, Byrd also argued that he should prevail under the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment because the police interfered with a property interest that he had in the rental car. I agree with the Court's decision not to review this argument in the first instance. In my view, it would be especially "unwise" to reach that issue, ante, at 1526 - 1527, because the parties fail to adequately address several threshold questions.
The Fourth Amendment guarantees the people's right to be secure from unreasonable searches of "their persons, houses, papers, and effects." With this language, the Fourth Amendment gives "each person ... the right to be secure against unreasonable searches and seizures in his own person, house, papers, and effects." Minnesota v. Carter, 525 U.S. 83, 92, 119 S.Ct. 469, 142 L.Ed.2d 373 (1998) (Scalia, J., concurring). The issue, then, is whether Byrd can prove that the rental car was his effect.
That issue seems to turn on at least three threshold questions. First, what kind of property interest do individuals need before something can be considered "their ... effec[t]" under the original meaning of the Fourth Amendment? Second, what body of law determines whether that property interest is present-modern state law, the common law of 1791, or something else? Third, is the unauthorized use of a rental car illegal or otherwise wrongful under the relevant law, and, if so, does that illegality or wrongfulness affect the Fourth Amendment analysis?
The parties largely gloss over these questions, but the answers seem vitally important to assessing whether Byrd can claim that the rental car is his effect. In an appropriate case, I would welcome briefing and argument on these questions.
The Court holds that an unauthorized driver of a rental car is not always barred from contesting a search of the vehicle. Relevant questions bearing on the driver's ability to raise a Fourth Amendment claim may include: the terms of the particular rental agreement, see ante, at 1528 - 1529; the circumstances surrounding the rental, ante, at 1529 - 1530; the reason why the driver took the wheel, ante, at 1528 - 1529; any property right that the driver might have, ante, at 1526 - 1527; and the legality of his conduct under the law of the State where the conduct occurred, ante, at 1529 - 1530. On remand, the Court of Appeals is free to reexamine the question whether petitioner may assert a Fourth Amendment claim or to decide the appeal on another appropriate ground. Ante, at 1530 - 1531. On this understanding, I join the opinion of the Court.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
DECREE
The joint motion for entry of a decree is granted.
For the purpose of giving effect to the decision and opinion of this Court announced in this case on March 17, 1975, 420 U. S. 531, and to the Supplemental Report of the Special Master filed January 26, 1976, it is Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed as Follows:
1. As against the State of Florida, the United States is entitled to all the lands, minerals, and other natural resources underlying the Atlantic Ocean more than 3 geographic miles seaward from the coastline of that State and extending seaward to the edge of the Continental Shelf, and the State of Florida is not entitled to any interest in such lands, minerals, and resources. As used in this decree, the term, “coastline” means the line of ordinary low water along that portion of the coast which is in direct contact with the open sea and the line marking the seaward limit of inland waters, as determined under the Convention on the Territorial Sea and the Contiguous Zone, 15 U. S. T. (Pt. 2) 1606.
2. As against the United States, the State of Florida is entitled to all the lands, minerals, and other natural resources underlying the Atlantic Ocean extending seaward from its coastline for a distance of 3 geographic miles, and the United States is not entitled, as against the State of Florida, to any interest in such lands, minerals, or resources, with the exceptions provided by Section 5 of the Submerged Lands Act, 43 U. S. C. § 1313.
3. As against the State of Florida, the United States is entitled to all the lands, minerals and other natural resources underlying the Gulf of Mexico more than 3 marine leagues from the coastline of that State; the State of Florida is not entitled to any interest in such lands, minerals, and resources. Where the historic coastline of the State of Florida is landward of its coastline, the United States is additionally entitled, as against the State of Florida, to all the lands, minerals, and other natural resources underlying the Gulf of Mexico more than 3 marine leagues from the State’s historic coastline (but not less than 3 geographic miles from its coastline), and the State of Florida is not entitled to any interest in such lands, minerals, and resources. As used in this decree, the term “historic coastline” refers to the coastline as it existed in 1868, as to be determined by the parties.
4. As against the United States, the State of Florida is entitled to all the lands, minerals, and other natural resources underlying the Gulf of Mexico extending seaward for a distance of 3 marine leagues from its coastline or its historic coastline, whichever is landward, but for not less than 3 geographic miles from its coastline; the United States is not entitled, as against the State of Florida, to any interest in such lands, minerals, or resources, with the exceptions provided by Section 5 of the Submerged Lands Act, 43 U. S. C. § 1313.
5. For the purpose of this decree, the Gulf of Mexico lies to the north and west, and the Atlantic Ocean to the south and east, of a line that begins at a point on the northern coast of the island of Cuba in 83° west longitude, and extends thence to the northward along that meridian of longitude to 24°35' north latitude, thence eastward along that parallel of latitude through Rebecca Shoal and the Quicksands Shoal to the Marquesas Keys, and thence through the Florida Keys to the mainland at the eastern end of Florida Bay, the line so running that the narrow waters within the Dry Tortugas Islands, the Marquesas Keys, and the Florida Keys, and between the Florida Keys and the mainland, are within the Gulf of Mexico.
6. There is no historic bay on the coast of the State of Florida. There are no inland waters within Florida Bay, or within the Dry Tortugas Islands, the Marquesas Keys, and the lower Florida Keys (from Money Key to Key West), the closing lines of which affect the right of either the United States or the State of Florida under this decree.
7. Jurisdiction is reserved by this Court to entertain such further proceedings, enter such orders and issue such writs as may from time to time be deemed necessary or advisable to give proper force and effect to this decree.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Ginsburg
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The meaning of a subparagraph in a section of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA or Act), 15 U. S. C. § 1601 et seq., is at issue in this case. As originally enacted in 1968, the provision in question bracketed statutory damages for violations of TILA prescriptions governing consumer loans: $100 was made the minimum recovery and $1,000, the maximum award. In 1995, Congress added a new clause increasing recovery for TILA violations relating to closed-end loans “secured by real property or a dwelling.” § 1640(a)(2)(A)(iii). In lieu of the $100/$1,000 minimum and maximum recoveries, Congress substituted $200/$2,000 as the floor and ceiling.
Less-than-meticulous drafting of the 1995 amendment created an ambiguity. A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that the 1995 amendment not only raised the statutory damages recoverable for TILA violations involving real-property-secured loans, it also removed the $1,000 cap on recoveries involving loans secured by personal property. We reverse that determination and hold that the 1995 amendment left unaltered the $100/$1,000 limits prescribed from the start for TILA violations involving personal-property loans. The purpose of the 1995 amendment is not in doubt: Congress meant to raise the minimum and maximum recoveries for closed-end loans secured by real property. There is scant indication that Congress simultaneously sought to remove the $1,000 cap on loans secured by personal property.
I
Congress enacted TILA in 1968, as part of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, Pub. L. 90-321, 82 Stat. 146, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1601 et seq., to “assure a meaningful disclosure of credit terms so that the consumer will be able to compare more readily the various credit terms available to him and avoid the uninformed use of credit,” § 102, codified in 15 U. S. C. § 1601(a). The Act requires a creditor to disclose information relating to such things as finance charges, annual percentage rates of interest, and borrowers’ rights, see §§ 1631-1632, 1635, 1637-1639, and it prescribes civil liability for any creditor who fails to do so, see § 1640. As originally enacted in 1968, the Act provided for statutory damages of twice the finance charge in connection with the transaction, except that recovery could not be less than $100 or greater than $1,000. The original civil-liability provision stated:
“(a) [A]ny creditor who fails in connection with any consumer credit transaction to disclose to any person any information required under this chapter to be disclosed to that person is liable to that person in an amount... of
“(1) twice the amount of the finance charge in connection with the transaction, except that liability under this paragraph shall not be less than $100 nor greater than $1,000 _” Pub. L. 90-321, § 130, 82 Stat. 157.
In 1974, Congress amended TILA’s civil-liability provision, 15 U. S. C. § 1640(a), to allow for the recovery of actual damages in addition to statutory damages and to provide separate statutory damages for class actions. Pub. L. 93-495, § 408(a), 88 Stat. 1518. Congress reworded the original statutory damages provision to limit it to individual actions, moved the provision from § 1640(a)(1) to § 1640(a)(2)(A), and retained the $100/$1,000 brackets on recovery. In order to account for the restructuring of the statute, Congress changed the phrase “under this paragraph” to “under this subparagraph.” The amended statute provided for damages in individual actions as follows:
“(a) [A]ny creditor who fails to comply with any requirement imposed under this chapter . . . is liable to such person in an amount equal to the sum of—
“(1) any actual damage sustained by such person as a result of the failure;
“(2)(A) in the case of an individual action twice the amount of any finance charge in connection with the transaction, except that the liability under this subpara-graph shall not be less than $100 nor greater than $1,000 ...§ 408(a), 88 Stat. 1518.
A further TILA amendment in 1976 applied truth-in-lending protections to consumer leases. Consumer Leasing Act of 1976, 90 Stat. 257. Congress inserted, a clause into § 1640(a)(2)(A) setting statutory damages for individual actions relating to consumer leases at 25% of the total amount of monthly payments under the lease. Again, Congress retained the $100/$1,000 brackets on statutory damages. The amended § 1640(a)(2)(A) provided for statutory damages equal to
“(2)(A)(i) in the case of an individual action twice the amount of any finance charge in connection with the transaction, or (ii) in the case of an individual action relating to a consumer lease ... 25 per centum of the total amount of monthly payments under the lease, except that the liability under this subparagraph shall not be less than $100 nor greater than $1,000 . . . .” Pub. L. 94-240, §4(2), 90 Stat. 260, codified in 15 U.S.C. § 1640(a) (1976 ed.).
Following the insertion of the consumer lease provision, courts consistently held that the $100/$1,000 limitation remained applicable to all consumer financing transactions, whether lease or loan. See, e. g., Purtle v. Eldridge Auto Sales, Inc., 91 F. 3d 797, 800 (CA6 1996); Cowen v. Bank United of Tex., FSB, 70 F. 3d 937, 941 (CA7 1995); Mars v. Spartanburg Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 713 F. 2d 65, 67 (CA4 1983); Dryden v. Lou Budke’s Arrow Finance Co., 661 F. 2d 1186, 1191, n. 7 (CA8 1981) (per curiam); Williams v. Public Finance Corp., 598 F. 2d 349, 358, 359, n. 17 (CA5 1979).
In 1995, Congress amended TILA’s statutory damages provision once more. The 1995 amendment, which gave rise to the dispute in this case, added a new clause (iii) at the end of § 1640(a)(2)(A), setting a $200 floor and $2,000 ceiling for statutory damages in an individual action relating to a closed-end credit transaction “secured by real property .or a dwelling.” Truth in Lending Act Amendments of 1995, Pub. L. 104-29, §6, 109 Stat. 274. These closed-end real estate loans, formerly encompassed by clause (i), had earlier been held subject to the $100/$1,000 limitation. See, e. g., Mayfield v. Vanguard Sav. & Loan Assn., 710 F. Supp. 143, 146 (ED Pa. 1989) (ordering “the maximum statutory award of $1,000” for each TILA violation concerning a secured real estate loan). Section 1640(a), as amended in 1995, thus provides for statutory damages equal to
“(2)(A)(i) in the case of an individual action twice the amount of any finance charge in connection with the transaction, (ii) in the case of an individual action relating to a consumer lease ... 25 per centum of the total amount of monthly payments under the lease, except that the liability under this subparagraph shall not be less than $100 nor greater than $1,000, or (iii) in the case of an individual action relating to a credit transaction not under an open end credit plan that is secured by real property or a dwelling, not less than $200 or greater than $2,000 ....”
Shortly after the passage of the 1995 TILA amendments, the Office of the Comptroller of the Currency issued an official policy announcement describing the changes. With respect to changes in TILA’s civil-liability provisions, the announcement stated only that “[p]unitive damages have been increased for transactions secured by real property or a dwelling from a maximum of $1,000 to a maximum of $2,000 (closed-end credit only).” Administrator of National Banks, Truth in Lending Act Amendments of 1995, OCC Bulletin 96-1, p. 2 (Jan. 5, 1996).
In 1997, the Seventh Circuit, in Strange v. Monogram Credit Card Bank of Ga., 129 F. 3d 943, held that the meaning of clauses (i) and (ii) remained untouched by the addition of clause (iii). The Seventh Circuit observed that prior to the addition of clause (iii) in 1995, “[c]ourts uniformly interpreted the final clause, which established the $100 minimum and the $1,000 maximum, as applying to both (A)(i) and (A)(ii).” Id., at 947. The 1995 amendment, the Seventh Circuit reasoned, “was designed simply to establish a more generous minimum and maximum for certain secured transactions, without changing the general rule on minimum and maximum damage awards for the other two parts of § 1640(a)(2)(A).” Ibid. As Strange illustrates, TILA violations may involve finance charges that, when doubled, are less than $100. There, double-the-finance-charge liability was $54.27, entitling the plaintiff to the $100 minimum. Id., at 945, 947.
II
On February 4, 2000, respondent Bradley Nigh attempted to purchase a used 1997 Chevrolet Blazer truck from petitioner Koons Buick Pontiac GMC. Nigh traded in his old vehicle and signed a buyer’s order and a retail installment sales contract reflecting financing to be provided by Koons Buick. 319 F. 3d 119, 121-122 (CA4 2003). Koons Buick could not find a lender to purchase an assignment of the payments owed under the sales contract and consequently restructured the deal to require a larger downpayment. Id,., at 122. On February 25, after Koons Buick falsely told Nigh that his trade-in vehicle had been sold, Nigh signed a new retail installment sales contract. Ibid. Once again, however, Koons Buick was unable to find a willing lender. Ibid. Nigh ultimately signed, under protest, a third retail installment sales contract. Ibid.
Nigh later discovered one reason why Koons Buick had been unable to find an assignee for the installment payments due under the second contract: That contract contained an improperly documented charge of $965 for a Silencer car alarm Nigh never requested, agreed to accept, or received. Ibid. Nigh made no payments on the Blazer and returned the truck to Koons Buick. Id., at 123.
On October 3, 2000, Nigh filed suit against Koons Buick alleging, among other things, a violation of TILA. Nigh sought uncapped recovery of twice the finance charge, an amount equal to $24,192.80. Koons Buick urged a $1,000 limitation on statutory damages under § 1640(a)(2)(A)(i). The District Court held that damages were not capped at $1,000, and the jury awarded Nigh $24,192.80 (twice the amount of the finance charge). Id., at 121; App. in No. 01-2201 etc. (CA4), pp. 653-655, 670, 756-757, 764.
A divided panel of the Fourth Circuit affirmed. 319 F. 3d, at 126-129. The Court of Appeals acknowledged that it had previously interpreted the $1,000 cap to apply to clauses (i) and (ii). Id., at 126; see Mars v. Spartanburg Chrysler Plymouth, Inc., 713 F. 2d, at 67. But the majority held that “by striking the ‘or’ preceding (ii), and inserting (iii) after the ‘under this subparagraph’ phrase,” Congress had “rendered Mars’interpretation defunct.” 319 F. 3d, at 126. According to the majority: “The inclusion of the new maximum and minimum in (iii) shows that the clause previously interpreted to apply to all of (A), can no longer apply to (A), but must now apply solely to (ii), so as not to render meaningless the maximum and minimum articulated in (iii).” Id., at 127. The Court of Appeals therefore allowed Nigh to recover the full uncapped amount of $24,192.80 under clause (i).
Judge Gregory dissented. The new clause (iii), he stated, operates as a specific “carve-out” for real estate transactions from the general rule establishing the $100/$1,000 liability limitation. Id., at 130, 132. Both parties acknowledged, and it was Fourth Circuit law under Mars, 713 F. 2d 65, that, before 1995, the $100/$1,000 brackets applied to the entire subparagraph. 319 F. 3d, at 130. Judge Gregory found “no evidence that Congress intended to override the Fourth Circuit’s long-standing application of the $1,000 cap to both (2)(A)(i) and (2)(A)(ii).” Id., at 131. If the $1,000 cap applied only to clause (ii), the dissent reasoned, the phrase “under this subparagraph” in clause (ii) would be “superfluous,” because “the meaning of (ii) would be unchanged by its deletion.” Id., at 132. Moreover, Judge Gregory added, limiting the $1,000 cap to recoveries for consumer leases under clause (ii) would create an inconsistency within the statute: The damages cap in clause (ii) would include the “under this subparagraph” modifier, but the cap in clause (iii) would not. Ibid.
We granted certiorari, 540 U. S. 1148 (2004), to resolve the division between the Fourth Circuit and the Seventh Circuit on the question whether the $100 floor and $1,000 ceiling apply to. recoveries under § 1640(a)(2)(A)(i). We now reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit.
Ill
Statutory construction is a “holistic endeavor.” United Sav. Assn. of Tex. v. Timbers of Inwood Forest Associates, Ltd., 484 U. S. 365, 371 (1988); accord United States Nat. Bank of Ore. v. Independent Ins. Agents of America, Inc., 508 U. S. 439, 455 (1993); Smith v. United States, 508 U. S. 223, 233 (1993). “A provision that may seem ambiguous in isolation is often clarified by the remainder of the statutory scheme — because the same terminology is used elsewhere in a context that makes its meaning clear, or because only one of the permissible meanings produces a substantive effect that is compatible with the rest of the law.” United Sav. Assn. of Tex., 484 U. S., at 371 (citations omitted); see also McCarthy v. Bronson, 500 U. S. 136, 139 (1991) (statutory language must be read in its proper context and not viewed in isolation). In this case, both the conventional meaning of “subparagraph” and standard interpretive guides point to the same conclusion: The $1,000 cap applies to recoveries under clause (i).
Congress ordinarily adheres to a hierarchical scheme in subdividing statutory sections. See L. Filson, The Legislative Drafter’s Desk Reference 222 (1992) (hereinafter Desk Reference). This hierarchy is set forth in drafting manuals prepared by the legislative counsel’s offices in the House and the Senate. The House manual provides:
“To the maximum extent practicable, a section should be broken into—
“(A) subsections (starting with (a));
“(B) paragraphs (starting with (1));
“(C) subparagraphs (starting with (A));
“(D) clauses (starting with (i)) . . . .” House Legislative Counsel’s Manual on Drafting Style, HLC No. 104-1, p. 24 (1995).
The Senate manual similarly provides:
“A section is subdivided and indented as follows:
“(a) Subsection.—
“(1) Paragraph.—
“(A) Subparagraph.—
“(i) Clause. — ” Senate Office of the Legislative Counsel, Legislative Drafting Manual 10 (1997).
Congress followed this hierarchical scheme in drafting TILA. The word “subparagraph” is generally used to refer to a subdivision preceded by a capital letter, and the word “clause” is generally used to refer to a subdivision preceded by a lower case Roman numeral. Congress applied this hierarchy in § 1640(a)(2)(B), which covers statutory damages in TILA class actions and states: “[T]he total recovery under ■this subparagraph . . . shall not be more than the lesser of $500,000 or 1 per centum of the net worth of the creditor . . . .” (Emphasis added.) In 1995, Congress plainly meant “to establish a more generous minimum and maximum” for closed-end mortgages. Strange, 129 F. 3d, at 947. On that point, there is no disagreement. Had Congress simultaneously meant to repeal the longstanding $100/ $1,000 limitation on § 1640(a)(2)(A)(i), thereby confining the $100/$1,000 limitation solely to clause (ii), Congress likely would have flagged that substantial change. At the very least, a Congress so minded might have stated in clause (ii): “liability under this clause.”
The statutory history resolves any ambiguity whether the $100/$1,000 brackets apply to recoveries under clause (i). Before 1995, clauses (i) and (ii) set statutory damages for the entire realm of TILA-regulated consumer credit transactions. Closed-end mortgages were encompassed by clause (i). See, e. g., Mayfield v. Vanguard Sav. & Loan Assn., 710 F. Supp., at 146. As a result of the addition of clause (iii), closed-end mortgages are subject to a higher floor and ceiling. But clause (iii) contains no other measure of damages. The specification of statutory damages in clause (i) of twice the finance charge continues to apply to loans secured by real property as it does to loans secured by personal property. Clause (iii) removes closed-end mortgages from clause (i)’s governance only to the extent that clause (iii) prescribes $200/$2,000 brackets in lieu of $100/$1,000.
There is scant indication that Congress meant to alter the meaning of clause (i) when it added clause (iii). Cf. Church of Scientology of Cal. v. IRS, 484 U. S. 9, 17-18 (1987) (“All in all, we think this is a case where common sense suggests, by analogy to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s ‘dog that didn’t bark,’ that an amendment having the effect petitioner ascribes to it would have been differently described by its sponsor, and not nearly as readily accepted by the floor manager of the bill.”). By adding clause (iii), Congress sought to provide increased recovery when a TILA violation occurs in the context of a loan secured by real property. See, e. g., H. R. Rep. No. 104-193, p. 99 (1995) (“[T]his amendment increases the statutory damages available in closed end credit transactions secured by real property or a dwelling . . . .”). But cf. post, at 75 (SCALIA, J., dissenting) (hypothesizing that far from focusing on raising damages recoverable for closed-end mortgage transactions, Congress may have “focus[ed] more intently on limiting damages” for that category of loans). “[T]here is no canon against using common sense in construing laws as saying what they obviously mean.” Roschen v. Ward, 279 U. S. 337, 339 (1929) (Holmes, J.). It would be passing strange to read the statute to cap recovery in connection with a closed-end, real-property-seeured loan at an amount substantially lower than the recovery available when a violation occurs in the context of a personal-property-secured loan or an open-end, real-property-secured loan. The text does not dictate this result; the statutory history suggests otherwise; and there is scant indication Congress meant to change the well-established meaning of clause (i).
* * *
For the reasons stated, the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The finance charge is determined, with certain exceptions, by “the sum of all charges, payable directly or indirectly by the person to whom the credit is extended, and imposed directly or indirectly by the creditor as an incident to the extension of credit.” 15 U. S. C. § 1605(a).
The dissent adopts a similar structural argument to justify its conclusion that the $100/$1,000 brackets apply only to recoveries under clause (ii). See post, at 70-71.
Judge Gregory noted that the phrase “under this subparagraph,” as it appears in § 1640(a)(2)(B), covering statutory damages in class, actions, “indisputably applies to all of subparagraph (B).” 319 F. 3d 119, 132 (CA4 2003). “[T]he most logical interpretation of the statute,” he concluded, “is to read the phrase ‘under this subparagraph’ as applying generally to an entire subparagraph, either (A) or (B), and to read (2)(A)(iii) as creating a specific carve-out from that general rule for real-estate transactions.” Ibid.
These congressional drafting manuals, both postdating the 1995 TILA amendment, are consistent with earlier guides. See, e. g., Desk Reference 222 (“Federal statutes ... are always broken down successively into . . . subparagraphs (starting with subparagraph (A)), [and] clauses (starting with clause (i))-”); D. Hirsch, Drafting Federal Law § 3.8, p. 27 (2d ed. 1989) (“Paragraphs are divided into tabulated lettered subparagraphs (‘(A)’, ‘(B)’, etc.) .... Subparagraphs are divided into clauses bearing small roman numerals (‘(i)’, ‘(ii)’, ‘(iii)’, ‘(iv)’) . . . .”); R. Dickerson, The Fundamentals of Legal Drafting §8.25, p. 197 (2d ed. 1986) (“For divisions of a paragraph (called ‘subparagraphs’), use ‘(A),’ ‘(B),’ ‘(C),’ etc_When an additional designated breakdown is necessary, use ‘(i),’ ‘(ii),’ ‘(iii),’ etc.”); J. Peacock, Notes on Legislative Drafting 12 (1961) (paragraphs divided into “sub-paragraphs designated (A), (B), (C),” and subparagraphs further divided into “clauses (i), (ii), (iii)”).
E. g., 15 U. S. C. § 1602(aa)(2)(A) (“under this subparagraph”); § 1602(aa)(2)(B) (“under subparagraph (A)”); § 1605(f)(2)(A) (“except as provided in subparagraph (B)”); § 1615(c)(1)(B) (“pursuant to subpara-graph (A)”); § 1637(c)(4)(D) (“in subparagraphs (A) and (B)”). But see § 1637a(a)(6)(C) (“subparagraph” appears not to refer to a capital-letter subdivision).
E. g., §1637(a)(6)(B)(ii) (“described in clause (i)”); § 1637a(a)(8)(B) (“described in clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (A)”); § 1640(i)(1)(B)(ii) (“described in clause (i)”).
The five separate writings this Court has produced demonstrate that § 1640(a)(2)(A) is hardly a model of the careful drafter’s art.
In consumer credit transactions in which a security interest is taken in the borrower’s principal dwelling, the borrower also has a right to rescission under certain circumstances. § 1635.
The dissent’s reading, we note, hinges on an assumed alteration in Congress’ design, assertedly effected by the bare addition of “(iii)” and the transposition of “or.” See post, at 71-72, and n. 1. If Congress had not added “(iii)” when it raised the cap on recovery for closed-end mortgages, the meaning of the amended text would be beyond debate. The limitations provision would read: “except that the liability under this subpara-graph shall not be less than $100 nor greater than $1,000, or in the case of an individual action relating to a credit transaction not under an open end credit plan that is secured by real property or a dwelling, not less than $200 or greater than $2,000.”
This reading would lead to the anomalous result of double-the-finance-charge liability, uncapped by the fixed dollar limit, under clause (i) for an open-end loan secured by real property, while liability would be capped by clause (iii) at $2,000 for a closed-end loan secured by the same real property. TILA does not in general apply to credit transactions in which the total amount financed exceeds $25,000, but this limit does not apply to loans “secured by real property or a dwelling.” 15 U. S. C. § 1603. Double-the-finance-charge liability under clause (i) for a TILA, violation in connection with an open-end, real-property-secured loan (e. g., a home equity line of credit), could far exceed the $2,000 liability cap under clause (iii) for a TILA violation in connection with a standard closed-end home mortgage.
The dissent states that fixed mortgages are more prevalent than home equity lines of credit and that the mean home equity line of credit balance is considerably smaller than the mean first mortgage balance. Post, at 74-75. But even under the dissent’s reading, a borrower stands to collect greater statutory damages if a TILA violation occurs in connection with a home equity line of credit than if it occurs in connection with a home mortgage acquisition loan. According to figures compiled by the Consumer Bankers Association and the Federal Reserve Board, in 2004 the average new home equity line of credit was $77,526, see Consumer Bankers Assn., CBA news release, Home Equity Lines Adjust on Prime Rate Change, Nov. 10, 2004, available at http://www.cbanet.org/news/press% 20releases/home_equity/prime_rate_adjust.htm (as visited Nov. 15, 2004, and available in Clerk of Court’s case file), and about a third of extended credit lines are mostly or fully in use, see G. Canner, T. Durkin, & C. Luckett, Recent Developments in Home Equity Lending, 84 Fed. Res. Bull. 241, 247 (Apr. 1998) (30% of home equity lines of credit 75%-100% in use in 1997). Assuming, as the dissent does, a 10% annual interest rate, the annual finance charge could easily surpass $7,000, and double-the-finance-charge liability would substantially exceed the $2,000 cap prescribed for home mortgage loans. Additionally, the dissent’s observation does not address the anomaly, illustrated by the facts of this case, of providing full double-the-finance-charge liability for recoveries under clause (i), while capping recoveries under clause (iii). Nigh was awarded over $24,000 in damages for a violation involving a car loan. Had similar misconduct occurred in connection with a home mortgage, he would have received no more than $2,000 in statutory damages.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Blackmun
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioner Curtis Guidry pleaded guilty to embezzling funds from his union. The union obtained a judgment against him for $275,000. The District Court imposed a constructive trust on Guidry’s pension benefits, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed that judgment. Petitioner contends that the constructive trust violates the statutory prohibition on assignment or alienation of pension benefits imposed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 829, as amended, 29 U. S. C. §1001 et seq. (1982 ed.).
I-H
From 1964 to 1981, petitioner Guidry was the chief executive officer of respondent Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local 9 (Union). From 1977 to 1981 he was also a trustee of respondent Sheet Metal Workers Local No. 9 Pension Fund. Petitioner’s employment made him eligible to receive benefits from three union pension funds.
In 1981, the Department of Labor reviewed the Union’s internal accounting procedures. That review demonstrated that Guidry had embezzled substantial sums of money from the Union. See App. 20. This led to petitioner’s resignation. A subsequent audit indicated that over $998,000 was missing. Id., at 26. In 1982, petitioner pleaded guilty to embezzling more than $377,000 from the Union, in violation of § 501(c) of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act of 1959 (LMRDA), 73 Stat. 536, 29 U. S. C. §501 (c) (1982 ed.). Petitioner began serving a prison sentence. In April 1984, while still incarcerated, petitioner filed a complaint against two of the plans in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging that the plans had wrongfully refused to pay him the benefits to which he was entitled. The Union intervened, joined the third pension plan as a party, and asserted six claims against petitioner. On the first five claims, petitioner and the Union stipulated to the entry of a $275,000 judgment in the Union’s favor. App. 52-58. Petitioner and the Union agreed to litigate the availability of the constructive trust remedy requested in the sixth claim. Id., at 58.
Petitioner previously had negotiated a settlement with the Local No. 9 Pension Fund. Id., at 44-46. The other two plans, however, contended that petitioner had forfeited his right to receive benefits as a result of his criminal misconduct. Id., at 47-50. In the alternative those plans contended that, if petitioner were found to have a right to benefits, those benefits should be paid to the Union rather than to Guidry. Ibid.
The District Court therefore was confronted with three different views regarding the disbursement of petitioner’s pension benefits. Petitioner contended that the benefits should be paid to him. The two funds argued that the benefits had been forfeited. The Union asserted that the benefits had not been forfeited, but that a constructive trust should be imposed so that the benefits would be paid to the Union rather than to petitioner.
The District Court first rejected the funds’ claim that petitioner had forfeited his right to benefits. 641 F. Supp. 360, 362 (Colo. 1986). The court relied on § 203(a) of ERISA, 29 U. S. C. § 1053(a) (1982 ed.), which declares that “[e]ach pension plan shall provide that an employee’s right to his normal retirement benefit is nonforfeitable” if the employee meets the statutory age and years of service requirements. 641 F. Supp., at 361-362. The court noted other District Court and Court of Appeals decisions holding that pension benefits were not forfeitable even upon a showing of the covered employee’s misconduct. Id., at 362.
The court concluded, however, that the prohibition on assignment or alienation of pension benefits contained in ERISA’s § 206(d)(1), 29 U. S. C. § 1056(d)(1) (1982 ed.), did not preclude the imposition of a constructive trust in favor of the Union. The court appeared to recognize that the anti-alienation provision generally prohibits the garnishment of pension benefits as a means of collecting a judgment. The court, nevertheless, stated: “ERISA must be read in pari materia with other important federal labor legislation.” 641 F. Supp., at 362. In the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 136, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 141 et seq. (1982 ed.), and in the LMRDA, Congress sought to combat corruption on the part of union officials and to protect the interests of the membership. Viewing these statutes together with ERISA, the District Court concluded: “In circumstances where the viability of a union and the members’ pension plans was damaged by the knavery of a union official, a narrow exception to ERISA’s anti-alienation provision is appropriate.” 641 F. Supp., at 363. The court therefore ordered that benefits payable to petitioner from all three funds should be held in constructive trust until the Union’s judgment and interest thereon were satisfied. Ibid.
The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed. 856 F. 2d 1457 (1988). The court concluded that ERISA’s anti-alienation provision could not be invoked to protect a dishonest pension plan fiduciary whose breach of duty injured the beneficiaries of the plan. The court deemed it “extremely unlikely that Congress intended to ignore equitable principles by protecting individuals such as [petitioner] from the consequences of their misconduct.” Id., at 1460. The court concluded that “the district court’s imposition of a constructive trust on [petitioner’s] pension benefits both accorded with . . . principles of trust law and was well within its discretionary power as defined by the common law and ERISA.” Id., at 1461.
Because Courts of Appeals have expressed divergent views concerning the availability of exceptions to ERISA’s anti-alienation provision, we granted certiorari, 492 U. S. 904 (1989).
II
Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals presumed that § 206(d)(1) of ERISA erects a general bar to the garnishment of pension benefits from plans covered by the Act. This Court, also, indicated as much, although in dictum, in Mackey v. Lanier Collection Agency & Service, Inc., 486 U. S. 825 (1988). In Mackey the Court held that ERISA does not bar the garnishment of welfare (e. g., vacation) benefits. In reaching that conclusion, it noted that §206 (d)(1) proscribes the assignment or alienation of pension plan benefits, but that no comparable provision applies to ERISA welfare benefit plans. Id., at 836. It reasoned that “when Congress was adopting ERISA, it had before it a provision to bar the alienation or garnishment of ERISA plan benefits, and chose to impose that limitation only with respect to ERISA pension benefit plans, and not ERISA welfare benefit plans.” Id., at 837 (emphasis in original). The view that the statutory restrictions on assignment or alienation of pension benefits apply to garnishment is consistent with applicable administrative regulations, with the relevant legislative history, and with the views of other federal courts. It is also consonant with other statutory provisions designed to safeguard retirement income. We see no meaningful distinction between a writ of garnishment and the constructive trust remedy imposed in this case. That remedy is therefore prohibited by § 206(d)(1) unless some exception to the general statutory ban is applicable.
A
The Court of Appeals, in holding that “the district court’s use of a constructive trust to redress breaches of ERISA was proper,” 856 F. 2d, at 1460, indicated that an exception to the anti-alienation provision can be made when a pension plan fiduciary breaches a duty owed to the plan itself. The court relied on § 409(a) of ERISA, 29 U. S. C. § 1109(a) (1982 ed.), which provides that a faithless pension plan fiduciary “shall be personally liable to make good to such plan any losses to the plan resulting from each such breach, . . . and shall be subject to such other equitable or remedial relief as the court may deem appropriate.” 856 F. 2d, at 1459. We need not decide whether the remedial provisions contained in § 409(a) supersede the bar on alienation in § 206(d)(1), since petitioner has not been found to have breached any fiduciary duty to the pension plans. Respondents contend that, due to the nature of petitioner’s scheme, there exists continuing uncertainty as to how much money was stolen from the Union and how much was taken from the pension funds. It is clear, however, that petitioner was convicted of stealing money only from the Union. See n. 3, supra. Moreover, petitioner has negotiated a settlement with the fund of which he was a fiduciary, and only the Union has a judgment against him. Respondents’ argument plays on the natural tendency to blur the distinctions between a fund and its related union (since an injury to either will hurt the union’s membership). Respondents, however, cannot avoid the fact that the funds here and the Union are distinct legal entities. (Indeed, at an earlier stage of the litigation these parties took inconsistent positions: the funds argued that petitioner’s benefits were subject to forfeiture, while the Union contended that petitioner retained his right to benefits but that the benefits should be placed in constructive trust). Although petitioner’s actions may have harmed the Union’s members who are the beneficiaries of the funds, petitioner has not been found to have breached any duty to the plans themselves. In our view, therefore, the Court of Appeals erred in invoking § 409(a)’s remedial provisions.
B
Recognizing the problem with the Court of Appeals’ approach, respondents, like the District Court, rely principally on the remedial provisions of the LMRDA. Section 501(a), 29 U. S. C. § 501(a) (1982 ed.), of that Act states that a union’s officers “occupy positions of trust in relation to such organization and its members as a group” and therefore have a duty “to hold its money and property solely for the benefit of the organization and.its members.” Section 501(b), 29 U. S. C. § 501(b) (1982 ed.), provides, under certain conditions, a private right of action “to recover damages or secure an accounting or other appropriate relief for the benefit of the labor organization.” We assume, without deciding, that the statutory provision for “other appropriate relief” may authorize, in some circumstances, the imposition of a constructive trust. The question is whether that authorization may override ERISA’s prohibition on the alienation of pension benefits.
Respondents point to § 514(d) of ERISA, 29 U. S. C. § 1144(d) (1982 ed.). It states: “Nothing in this title shall be construed to alter, amend, modify, invalidate, impair, or supersede any law of the United States ... or any rule or regulation issued under any such law.” In respondents’ view, application of ERISA’s anti-alienation provision to preclude a remedy that would otherwise be available would “modify, impair or supersede” the LMRDA. We do not believe, however, that the LMRDA will be modified, impaired, or superseded by our refusal to allow ERISA pension plans to be used to effectuate the remedial goals of the LMRDA. Were we to accept respondents’ position, ERISA’s anti-alienation provision would be inapplicable whenever a judgment creditor relied on the remedial provisions of a federal statute. Such an approach would eviscerate the protections of § 206(d), and we decline to adopt so broad a reading of § 514(d).
It is an elementary tenet of statutory construction that “[w]here there is no clear intention otherwise, a specific statute will not be controlled or nullified by a general one . . . .” Morton v. Mancari, 417 U. S. 535, 550-551 (1974). We do not believe that congressional intent would be effectuated by-reading the LMRDA’s general reference to “other appropriate relief” as overriding an express, specific congressional directive that pension benefits not be subject to assignment or alienation. In our view, the two statutes are more persuasively reconciled by holding that the LMRDA determines what sort of judgment the aggrieved party may obtain, while ERISA governs the narrow question whether that judgment may be collected through a particular means — a constructive trust placed on the pension.
C
Nor do we think it appropriate to approve any generalized equitable exception — either for employee malfeasance or for criminal misconduct — to ERISA’s prohibition on the assignment or alienation of pension benefits. Section 206(d) reflects a considered congressional policy choice, a decision to safeguard a stream of income for pensioners (and their dependents, who may be, and perhaps usually are, blameless), even if that decision prevents others from securing relief for the wrongs done them. If exceptions to this policy are to be made, it is for Congress to undertake that task.
As a general matter, courts should be loath to announce equitable exceptions to legislative requirements or prohibitions that are unqualified by the statutory text. The creation of such exceptions, in our view, would be especially problematic in the context of an antigarnishment provision. Such a provision acts, by definition, to hinder the collection of a lawful debt. A restriction on garnishment therefore can be defended only on the view that the effectuation of certain broad social policies sometimes takes precedence over the desire to do equity between particular parties. It makes little sense to adopt such a policy and then to refuse enforcement whenever enforcement appears inequitable. A court attempting to carve out an exception that would not swallow the rule would be forced to determine whether application of the rule in particular circumstances would be “especially” inequitable. The impracticability of defining such a standard reinforces our conclusion that the identification of any exception should be left to Congress.
Understandably, there may be a natural distaste for the result we reach here. The statute, however, is clear. In addition, as has been noted above, the malefactor often is not the only beneficiary of the pension.
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 Marshall joins all but Part II-C of this opinion.
Section 206(d)(1), 29 U. S. C. § 1056(d)(1) (1982 ed.), of ERISA states: “Each pension plan shall provide that benefits provided under the plan may not be assigned or alienated.”
In addition to the Local No. 9 Pension Fund, petitioner was eligible to receive benefits from respondent Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund and from respondent Sheet Metal Workers Local Unions and Councils Pension Fund.
Section 501(c) provides: “Any person who embezzles, steals, or unlawfully and willfully abstracts or converts to his own use, or the use of another, any of the moneys, funds, securities, property, or other assets of a labor organization of which he is an officer, or by which he is employed, directly or indirectly, shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned for not more than five years, or both.”
The complaint alleged that petitioner was eligible to receive benefits of $577 per month from the Sheet Metal Workers Local Unions and Councils Pension Fund, and $647.51 per month from the Sheet Metal Workers National Pension Fund. App. 5.
The first claim alleged that Guidry had breached his fiduciary duty to the Union in violation of § 501(a) of the LMRDA, 29 U. S. C. § 501(a) (1982 ed.). App. 32-33. The second through fifth claims asserted state common-law claims under theories of conversion, fraud, equitable restitution, and negligence. Id., at 33-35. The sixth claim, asserted against petitioner and the three pension funds, did not set forth a substantive ground for relief. Rather, it asserted that the District Court “must restrain and enjoin the Pension Funds from paying any further pension benefits to Plaintiff Guidry until the completion of this action and thereafter until [the Union] is made whole for its losses.” Id., at 35.
The parties stipulated that the Local No. 9 Pension Fund was holding $23,865 in accrued benefits for petitioner. Id., at 45. Under the settlement, the fund agreed to pay petitioner $3,865 in accrued benefits (the remaining $20,000 to go to the fund’s insurer) and to resume monthly payments to petitioner as of June 1985. Id., at 46.
The District Court cited Fremont v. McGraw-Edison Co., 606 F. 2d 752 (CA7 1979), cert. denied, 445 U. S. 951 (1980); Winer v. Edison Brothers Stores Pension Plan, 593 F. 2d 307 (CA8 1979); and Vink v. SHV North America Holding Corp., 549 F. Supp. 268 (SDNY 1982).
In the alternative, petitioner contended that, even if ERISA did not bar the imposition of a constructive trust, 75% of his pension benefits should be exempt from garnishment pursuant to § 303 of the Consumer Credit Protection Act, 82 Stat. 163, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1673(a). The Court of Appeals rejected that argument on the ground that petitioner had failed to comply with the procedural requirements of the Colorado garnishment laws. 856 F. 2d, at 1463-1464.
Compare Ellis National Bank of Jacksonville v. Irving Trust Co., 786 F. 2d 466 (CA2 1986) (no exception to § 206(d)(1) to obtain relief for employee’s criminal misconduct); United Metal Products Corp. v. National Bank of Detroit, 811 F. 2d 297 (CA6 1987) (same), cert. dism’d, 485 U. S. 1017 (1988), with St. Paul Fire & Marine Ins. Co. v. Cox, 752 F. 2d 550, 552 (CA11 1985) (“[G]arnishment undertaken to satisfy liabilities arising from criminal misconduct toward an employer constitutes an exception to the non-alienability provisions of ERISA”). See also Crawford v. La Boucherie Bejnard Ltd., 259 U. S. App. D. C. 279, 815 F. 2d 117 (recognizing exception to anti-alienation provision when trustee defrauds the pension plan), cert, denied sub nom. Goldstein v. Crawford, 484 U. S. 943 (1987).
Treasury Department regulations state that for tax purposes “a trust will not be qualified unless the plan of which the trust is a part provides that benefits provided under the plan may not be anticipated, assigned (either at law or in equity), alienated or subject to attachment, garnishment, levy, execution or other legal or equitable process.” 26 CFR § 1.401(a) — 13(b)(1) (1989).
The anti-alienation provision permits “any voluntary and revocable assignment of not to exceed 10 percent of any benefit payment.” ERISA § 206(d)(2), 29 U. S. C. § 1056(d)(2) (1982 ed.). The Conference Report states: “For purposes of this rule, a garnishment or levy is not to be considered a voluntary assignment.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 93-1280, p. 280 (1974).
See, e. g., United Metal Products, supra; Ellis National Bank, supra; Tenneco Inc. v. First Virginia Bank of Tidewater, 698 F. 2d 688, 689-690 (CA4 1983). Even courts that have recognized equitable exceptions to the bar on alienation have assumed that § 206(d)(1) operates, as a general matter, to proscribe garnishment of pension benefits. See St. Paul Fire & Marine, 752 F. 2d, at 551-552; Crawford, 259 U. S. App. D. C., at 283-284, 815 F. 2d, at 121-122.
The garnishment of retirement benefits is prohibited by the Social Security Act, 49 Stat. 620, as amended, 42 U. S. C. § 407 (1982 ed.); the Railroad Retirement Act, as amended, 47 Stat. 438, 45 U. S. C. §231m(a) (1982 ed., Supp. V); the Civil Service Retirement Act, 5 U. S. C. § 8346(a); and the Veterans’ Benefits Act, 38 U. S. C. § 3101(a) (1982 ed.).
One of the ways in which petitioner embezzled was by stealing checks issued by the funds to the Union as payment for clerical services. At oral argument before the District Court, the Union’s attorney stated: “Nobody really decided yet whether some of this money was stolen from the union or the pension funds.” 3 Record 19, App. to Pet. for Cert. C-13. Counsel also stated, however, that “the trust funds through bonds and other sources of compensation don’t have claims against Mr. Guidry anymore, and we do, the union does .... The way things shake out, we are holding the bag. We are the ones who lost the money . . . .” Ibid.
Section 501(c), 29 U. S. C. §501(c) (1982 ed.), under which petitioner was convicted, establishes criminal penalties for embezzlement or theft by a union officer or employee.
Section 501(b), 29 U. S. C. §501(b) (1982 ed.), by its terms, does not establish a private right of action for a union itself. Rather, it provides that a suit may be brought in district court by a union member when a union officer is alleged to have breached his duties “and the labor organization or its governing board or officers refuse or fail to sue or recover damages or secure an accounting or other appropriate relief within a reasonable time after being requested to do so by any member of the labor organization.” That language certainly contemplates that a union may bring suit against its officers in some forum, but it does not expressly provide an independent basis for federal jurisdiction. Courts have reached inconsistent positions on the question whether a union may bring suit under §501. Compare Building Material and Dump Truck Drivers, Local 420 v. Traweek, 867 F. 2d 500, 506-507 (CA9 1989) (no right of action), with Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees v. Orr, 95 LRRM 2701, 2702 (ED Tenn. 1977) (union has right of action to allege a violation of § 501). We need not resolve that question here. Rather, we assume, without deciding, that a union may invoke the remedial provisions of § 501(b).
Uncertainty as to the scope of § 501(b) does not call into question the subject-matter jurisdiction of this Court or of the District Court and the Court of Appeals. This suit properly was brought by petitioner under § 502 of ERISA to recover benefits allegedly due him under the pension plans. 29 U. S. C. §§ 1132(a)(1)(B) and 1132(e) (1982 ed.).
Indeed, the LMRDA has its own saving clause. Section 603(a), 29 U. S. C. § 523(a) (1982 ed.), provides that “except as explicitly provided to the contrary, nothing in this Act shall take away any right or bar any remedy to which members of a labor organization are entitled under [any] other Federal law or law of any State.” This provision weighs against respondents’ contention that the LMRDA’s authorization of “other appropriate relief” supersedes ERISA’s express proscription of any alienation or assignment of pension benefits.
See, for example, § 104(a) of the Retirement Equity Act of 1984, 98 Stat. 1433, 29 U. S. C. § 1056(d)(3) (1982 ed., Supp. V), where Congress mandated that the anti-alienation provision should not apply to a “qualified domestic relations order.”
In light of our disposition of petitioner’s ERISA claim, we need not address his alternative claim under the Consumer Credit Protection Act.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
G
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The Miller Act, 49 Stat. 793, as amended, 80 Stat. 1139, 40 U. S. C. § 270a et seq., requires a Government contractor to post a surety bond “for the protection of all persons supplying labor and material in the prosecution of the work provided for” in the contract. The Act further provides that any person who has so furnished labor or material and who has not been paid in full within 90 days after the last labor was performed or material supplied may bring suit on the payment bond for the unpaid balance. 40 U. S. C. § 270b (a). This case presents several unresolved issues of importance in the administration of the Act.
I
Between 1961 and 1968, petitioner F. D. Rich Co. was the prime contractor on numerous federal housing projects. During the years 1963-1966, much if not all of the plywood and millwork for these projects was supplied by Cerpac Co. The Cerpac organization was closely intertwined with Rich. The principals of Rich held a substantial voting interest in Cerpac stock, supplied a major share of its working capital, and were thoroughly familiar with its operations and financial condition.
On October 18, 1965, Rich contracted with the United States to build 337 family housing units at Beale Air Force Base, California. Rich’s Miller Act surety, petitioner Transamerica Insurance Co., posted the payment bond required by the Act. Rich then awarded Cerpac two contracts on the project, one to select, modify, detail, and install all custom millwork, and one merely to supply all standard exterior plywood, each contract incorporating by reference terms of the prime contract. A similar arrangement was employed by Rich and Cerpac on other projects during this period.
On February 22, 1966, Cerpac placed a single order with respondent Industrial Lumber Co. for all exterior plywood required under its plywood contract for the Beale project. Industrial is a broker, purchasing wood products and materials for resale. It acknowledged the complete Cerpac order, purchased the plywood from its own suppliers and arranged for deliveries at the Beale site to begin on March 10, 1966. Each shipment was receipted as it arrived on the site by a Rich representative.
Shortly after Industrial’s shipments began, Rich informed Cerpac that more plywood was needed for another Government project being constructed in Charleston, South Carolina, for which Cerpac had also contracted to supply Rich with all exterior plywood. Rich and Cer-pac decided to divert some of the Beale lumber to Charleston. Accordingly, Industrial was advised to supply, a shipment of the plywood called for under its Beale contract with Cerpac to the South Carolina site. Industrial arranged for the wood to be shipped by one of its suppliers to a railhead near Charleston. The shipment diverted to South Carolina was one of 22 called for by Industrial’s Beale Contract. There were several subsequent shipments to the California site under that contract.
During April and May 1966, Cerpac fell behind in its payments to Industrial, and on July 13, 1966, having not received payment on invoices for nine separate shipments, Industrial gave notice to Rich and its surety of a Miller Act claim and thereafter brought the instant action in the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of California. The District Court recognized that under our decision in MacEvoy Co. v. United States ex rel. Tomkins Co., 322 U. S. 102 (1944), Rich’s liability turned on whether Cerpac was a “subcontractor” within the meaning of the Act or merely a materialman. The District Court found that Cerpac was a subcontractor; hence Industrial, as its supplier, could assert a Miller Act claim against Rich, the prime contractor on the project. The District Court also rejected Rich’s claim that venue for suit on the South Carolina shipment was improper in the Eastern District of California. Accordingly, the District Court granted judgment for Industrial, holding Cerpac and Rich as primary obligees and Transamerica on its bond, jointly and severally liable for the amount of all nine unpaid invoices, $31,402.97, including the amount due on the shipment diverted to South Carolina. The District Court, however, denied Industrial’s claim for attorneys’ fees.
Both Rich and Industrial appealed. The Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment against Rich in large part. On Industrial’s cross-appeal, the court reversed, holding that attorneys’ fees should have been awarded to Industrial as a successful plaintiff under the Miller Act, and remanded to the District Court for consideration of the amount of attorneys’ fees to be awarded. 473 F. 2d 720 (CA9 1973). We granted certiorari. 414 U. S. 816 (1973). We affirm the judgment below to the extent it holds that Cerpac was a “subcontractor” for Miller Act purposes and that there was proper venue, but reverse as to the propriety of an award of attorneys’ fees.
II
Section 270a (a) (2) of the Miller Act establishes the general requirement of a payment bond to protect those who supply labor or materials to a contractor on a federal project. Ordinarily, a supplier of labor or materials on a private construction project can secure a mechanic’s lien against the improved property under state law. But a lien cannot attach to Government property, see Illinois Surety Co. v. John Davis Co., 244 U. S. 376, 380 (1917), so suppliers on Government projects are deprived of their usual security interest. The Miller Act was intended to provide an alternative remedy to protect the rights of these suppliers.
The rights afforded by the Act are limited, however, by the proviso of § 270b (a). In MacEvoy Co. v. United States ex rel. Tomkins Co., supra, this Court construed § 270b (a) to limit the protection of a Miller Act bond to those who had a contractual agreement with the prime contractor or with a “subcontractor.” Those in more remote relationships, including persons supplying labor or material to a mere materialman, were found not to be protected. 322 U. S., at 109-111. Industrial was a supplier of materials to Cerpac. Thus, if Cerpac were a subcontractor for purposes of the Act, Industrial, having given the required statutory notice, could assert a Miller Act claim against Rich, the prime contractor. But, if Cerpac were merely a materialman, Industrial could not assert its Miller Act claim since it would be merely a supplier of materials to a materialman, a relationship found too remote in MacEvoy to enjoy the protections of the Act.
Petitioners assert that the courts below erred in finding Cerpac a subcontractor. Cerpac’s role under the plywood contract alone was that of a broker receiving standard lumber supplied by Industrial and, in turn, supplying it without modification to Rich. Petitioners argue that the court should not have looked beyond the plywood contract to determine Cerpac’s status under the Act.
In MacEvoy, supra, the Court adopted a functional rather than a technical definition for the term subcontractor, as used in the proviso. The Court noted that a subcontractor is “one who performs for and takes from the prime contractor a specific part of the labor or material requirements of the original contract . . . 322 U. S., at 109. The Court went on to explain the reason for the exclusion from the protections of the Act of suppliers of mere materialmen as opposed to those who su]D-ply subcontractors:
“The relatively few subcontractors who perform part of the original contract represent in a sense the prime contractor and are well known to him. It is easy for the prime contractor to secure himself against loss by requiring the subcontractors to give security by bond, or otherwise, for the payment of those who contract directly with the subcontractors. . . . But this method of protection is generally inadequate to cope with remote and undeterminable liabilities incurred by an ordinary materialman, who may be a manufacturer, a wholesaler or-a retailer.” Id., at ,110. (Emphasis added.)
The Court of Appeals properly construed our holding in MacEvoy to establish as a test for whether one is a subcontractor, the substantiality and importance of his relationship with the prime contractor. It is the sub-stantiality of the relationship which will usually determine whether the prime contractor can protect himself, since he can easily require bond security or other protection from those few “subcontractors” with whom he has a substantial relationship in the performance of the contract.
Measured against that test, Cerpac was clearly a subcontractor for the purposes of the Act. The Miller Act is “highly remedial [and] entitled to a liberal construction and application in order properly to effectuate the Congressional intent to protect those whose labor and materials go into public projects.” MacEvoy, supra, at 107. It is consistent with that intent to look at the total relationship between Cerpac and Rich, not just the contract to supply exterior plywood, to determine whether Cerpac was a subcontractor. Cerpac had not only agreed to supply standard plywood but also had a separate contract to select, modify, detail, and install all custom mill-work for the Beale project. Cerpac, in effect, took over a substantial part of the prime contract itself. Moreover, the management and financial structures of the two companies were closely interrelated and their relationship on the Beale project was the same as on many other similar Government projects during the same period. Cerpac was, as the Court of Appeals observed, “in a special, integral, almost symbiotic relationship [with] Rich.” 473 F. 2d, at 724. It would have been easy for Rich to secure itself from loss as a result of a default by Cerpac.
Ill
We also agree with the courts below that venue under the Miller Act for suit on the shipment diverted to South Carolina properly lay in the Eastern District of California. The Act provides:
“Every suit instituted under this section shall be brought in . . . the United States District Court for any district in which the contract was to be performed and executed and not elsewhere . . . .” 40 U.S.C. §270b (b).
Petitioners argue that this provision bars a district court in California from adjudicating respondent’s claims arising from the shipments of plywood delivered in South Carolina. But § 270b (b) is merely a venue requirement and there was clearly a sufficient nexus for its satisfaction. The “Beale 647” contract between Cerpac and Industrial was executed in California, all of the materials described therein to be delivered to a worksite in that State. Although one of the 22 shipments made pursuant to the contract was later diverted to South Carolina for petitioner Rich’s convenience, the site for performance of the original contract remained the same for Miller Act purposes. Several shipments to the Beale site were made after the South Carolina shipment. Moreover, petitioners have pointed to no prejudice resulting from the case’s being heard in the California court and considerations of judicial economy and convenience clearly support venue in the District Court where all of respondent’s claims arising from the “Beale 647” contract could be adjudicated in a single proceeding.
IV
We turn now to the question of whether attorneys’ fees were properly awarded respondent as a successful Miller Act plaintiff. The so-called “American Rule” governing the award of attorneys’ fees in litigation in the federal courts is that attorneys’ fees “are not ordinarily recoverable in the absence of a statute or enforceable contract providing therefor.” Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U. S. 714, 717 (1967). There was no contractual provision concerning attorneys’ fees in this case. Nor does the Miller Act explicitly provide for an award of attorneys’ fees to a successful plaintiff. But the Court of Appeals construed the Act to require an award of attorneys’ fees where the “public policy” of the State in which suit was brought allows for the award of fees in similar contexts. The court reasoned that the Act provides remedies “ ‘in lieu of the lien upon land and buildings customary where property is owned by private persons’ .... The federal remedy was intended to substitute for the unavailable state remedy of the lien. Therefore, if state [law] allows a supplier on private projects to recover such fees, there is no reason for a different rule to apply to federal projects . . . .” Looking to California law, the Court of Appeals found an award of attorneys’ fees proper because Cal. Govt. Code § 4207 (1966) allowed for the recovery of attorneys' fees in state actions on the bonds of contractors for state and municipal public works projects.
We think the Court of Appeals erred in its construction of the statute. The Miller Act provides a federal cause of action, and the scope of the remedy as well as the substance of the rights created thereby is a matter of federal not state law. Neither respondent nor the court below offers any evidence of congressional intent to incorporate state law to govern such an important element of Miller Act litigation as liability for attorneys’ fees. Many federal contracts involve construction in more than one State, and often, as here, the parties to Miller Act litigation have little or no contact, other than the contract itself, with the State in which the federal project is located. The reasonable expectations of such potential litigants are better served by a rule of uniform national application.
A uniform rule also avoids many of the pitfalls which have already manifested themselves in using state law referents. For example, California law does not provide for awards of attorneys’ fees in suits arising from private construction projects. And, a California court had held that the state statute providing for awards of attorneys’ fees in suits on the bonds of state and municipal.public works contractors is inapplicable to construction projects of the United States. The Court of Appeals nonetheless held that since federal law controls Miller Act recoveries, it was free to look to “state policy” rather than state law and proceeded to find an award of attorneys' fees appropriate. Although the court below premised its decision on the theory that a Miller Act remedy is afforded “ 'in lieu of the lien upon land and buildings customary where property is owned by private persons,’ ” it gave respondent more protection than California law affords litigants involved in disputes arising from private construction projects who are not entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees. We think it better to extricate the federal courts from the morass of trying to divine a “state policy” as to the award of attorneys’ fees in suits on construction bonds.
Finally, the Court of Appeals intimates that in providing that Miller Act claimants should recover the “sums justly due,” 40 TJ. S. C. § 270b (a), Congress must have intended to provide for the award of attorneys’ fees because without such fee shifting, Miller Act claimants would not be fully compensated — the claimant’s recovery would always be diminished by the cost of his legal representation. This argument merely restates one of the oft-repeated criticisms of the American Rule. Almost a half century ago, the Massachusetts Judicial Council pleaded for reform, asking, “On what principle of justice can a plaintiff wrongfully run down on a public highway recover his doctor’s bill but not his lawyer’s bill?” We recognize that there is some force to the argument that a party who must bear the costs of his attorneys’ fees out of his recovery is not made whole. But there are countervailing considerations as well. We have observed that “one should not be penalized for merely defending or prosecuting a lawsuit, and that the poor might be unjustly discouraged from instituting actions to vindicate their rights if the penalty for losing included the fees of their opponents’ counsel.” Fleischmann Distilling Corp. v. Maier Brewing Co., 386 U. S. 714, 718 (1967). Moreover, “the time, expense, and difficulties of proof inherent in litigating the question of what constitutes reasonable attorney’s fees,” ibid., has given us pause, even though courts have regularly engaged in that endeavor in the many contexts where fee shifting is mandated by statute, policy, or contract. Finally, there is the possibility of a threat being posed to the principle of independent advocacy by having the earnings of the attorney flow from the pen of the judge before whom he argues.
The American Rule has not served, however, as an absolute bar to the shifting of attorneys’ fees even in the absence of statute or contract. The federal judiciary has recognized several exceptions to the general principle that each party should bear the costs of its own legal representation. We have long recognized that attorneys’ fees may be awarded to a successful party when his opponent has acted in bad faith, vexatiously, wantonly, or for oppressive reasons, or where a successful litigant has conferred a substantial benefit on a class of persons and the court’s shifting of fees operates to spread the cost proportionately among the members of the benefited class. The lower courts have also applied a rationale for fee shifting based on the premise that the expense of litigation may often be a formidable if not insurmountable obstacle to the private litigation necessary to enforce important public policies. This “private attorney general” rationale has not been squarely before this Court and it is not so now; nor do we intend to imply any view either on the validity or scope of that doctrine. It is sufficient for our purposes here to observe that this case clearly does not fall within any of these exceptions.
Miller Act suits are plain and simple commercial litigation. In effect then, we are being asked to go the last mile in this case, to judicially obviate the American Rule in the context of everyday commercial litigation, where the policies which underlie the limited judicially created departures from the rule are inapplicable. This we are unprepared to do. The perspectives of the profession, the consumers of legal services, and other interested groups should be weighed in any decision to substantially undercut the application of the American Rule in such litigation. Congress is aware of the issue. Thus whatever the merit of arguments for a further departure from the American Rule in Miller Act commercial litigation, those arguments are properly addressed to Congress.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed insofar as it holds that Cerpac is a subcontractor for Miller Act purposes and that there was proper venue for suit on the shipment diverted to South Carolina, but reversed insofar as it holds that an award of attorneys’ fees to respondent Industrial is required by the Act.
It is so ordered.
Government contracts of less than $2,000 in value are excepted from the statute’s coverage.
Shipments under the contract were invoiced by the truckload. The South Carolina shipment involved two such truckloads, while the other 21 shipments were each of only one truckload of lumber.
When Cerpac fell behind in its payments, Industrial indicated it would not deliver the final two truckloads of wood to the Beale project until it received satisfactory assurances of payment. Rich agreed to pay Industrial directly for the last two shipments, with Cerpac to receive its customary profit as a commission from Industrial. The last two shipments were made on May 18 and June 23, 1966, invoices being payable in full 30 days thereafter. The shipments were invoiced directly to Rich with copies to Cerpac, the invoices showing the shipments as being under the original “Beale 647” contract between Industrial and Cerpac. Rich nonetheless refused to pay the full invoice price of the two final shipments. Rich has since conceded its obligation to pay Industrial’s claim for these two shipments, so there is no longer any controversy in regard to the amounts due on those invoices.
Cerpac subsequently filed for discharge in bankruptcy and is no longer a party.
All invoices under the Beale contract between Industrial and Cerpac were payable within 30 days with interest at an annual rate of eight percent after the due date. The District Court awarded Industrial seven percent interest on all “unliquidated claims.” The Court of Appeals, however, ruled that the amounts due under the terms of the contract were liquidated damages and should bear an interest rate of eight percent.
The District Court had also given judgment against Transamerica on its bond for the shipment which was sent to the South Carolina site. The Court of Appeals held that judgment should not have been rendered against Transamerica for material not delivered to the project for which it served as surety.
Petitioners also raise issues in their brief concerning the timeliness of the Miller Act notice and the amount of prejudgment interest awarded respondent. Those issues were not raised in the petition for certiorari, hence are not properly before the Court. See, e. g., Namet v. United States, 373 U. S. 179, 190 (1963); Rule 23.1 (c) of the Rules of this Court.
See, e. g., Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. United States ex rel. Gibson Steel Co., 382 F. 2d 615, 617 (CA5 1967); Basich Bros. Construction Co. v. United States ex rel. Turner, 159 F. 2d 182 (CA9 1946); cf. United States ex rel. Bryant v. Lembke Construction Co., 370 F. 2d 293 (CA10 1966).
Travelers Indemnity Co. v. United States ex rel. Western Steel Co., 362 F. 2d 896, 898 (CA9 1966); United States ex rel. Wellman Engineering Co. v. MSI Corp., 350 F. 2d 285, 286 (CA2 1965).
Beale Air Force Base is located in the jurisdiction of the Federal District Court for the Eastern District of California, hence respondent brought suit on the Beale contract in that court.
United States ex rel. Capolino Sons, Inc. v. Electronic & Missile Facilities, Inc., 364 F. 2d 705 (CA2 1966); see cases collected, id., at 707.
The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment against Trans-america, on its bond, as to the shipment of wood diverted to South Carolina, because a Miller Act surety is liable only for material supplied for use on the bonded project. But, a decision on the ultimate question of the surety’s liability involves different considerations from the questions of whether venue for suit on the bond is proper. Petitioner Rich’s liability for the amount due on the South Carolina shipment was based on a pendent claim, the substance of which was not challenged in this Court or in the Court of Appeals.
473 F. 2d 720, 727 (1973). The same analysis has been accepted in several other cases; see Transamerica Insurance Co. v. Red Top Metal, Inc., 384 F. 2d 752 (CA5 1967); United States ex rel. White Masonry, Inc. v. F. D. Rich Co., 434 F. 2d 855, 859 (CA9 1970); Arnold v. United States ex rel. Bowman Mechanical Contractors, Inc., 470 F. 2d 243, 245 (CA10 1972).
After the decision in the District Court, but prior to the Court of Appeals’ opinion, Cal. Govt. Code §4207 (1966) was replaced, and the effective provisions transferred to Cal. Civ. Code § 3250 (Supp. 1974), by an act of the California Legislature, dated August 31, 1969, that took effect on January 1, 1971. Given our reasoning, however, the revision in language of the applicable California law is of no relevance to the result reached herein.
B. C. Richter Contracting Co. v. Continental Casualty Co., 230 Cal. App. 2d 491, 41 Cal. Rptr. 98 (1964) (construing the former law, see n. 13, supra).
The American Rule has come under repeated criticism over the years. See generally Ehrenzweig, Reimbursement of Counsel Fees and the Great Society, 54 Calif. L. Rev. 792 (1966); Kuenzel, The Attorney’s Fee: Why Not a Cost of Litigation?, 49 Iowa L. Rev. 75 (1963); McLaughlin, The Recovery of Attorney’s Fees: A New Method of Financing Legal Services, 40 Ford. L. Rev. 761 (1972) ; McCormick, Counsel Fees and Other Expenses of Litigation as an Element of Damages, 15 Minn. L. Rev. 619 (1931); Stoebuek, Counsel Fees Included in Costs: A Logical Development, 38 U. Colo. L. Rev. 202 (1966); Note, Attorney’s Fees: Where Shall the Ultimate Burden Lie?, 20 Vand. L. Rev. 1216 (1967).
Judicial Council of Massachusetts, First Report, 11 Mass. L. Q. 1, 64 (1925).
See, e. g., Vaughan v. Atkinson, 369 U. S. 527 (1962); McEnteggart v. Cataldo, 451 F. 2d 1109 (CA1 1971); Bell v. School Bd. of Powhatan County, 321 F. 2d 494 (CA4 1963); Rolax v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., 186 F. 2d 473 (CA4 1951); 6 J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 54.77 [2], p. 1709 (2d ed. 1974).
See, e. g., Hall v. Cole, 412 U. S. 1 (1973); Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., 396 U. S. 375 (1970); Natural Resources Defense Council v. EPA, 484 F. 2d 1331 (CA1 1973); Callahan v. Wallace, 466 F. 2d 59 (CA5 1972); Bright v. Philadelphia-Baltimore-Washington Stock Exchange, 327 F. Supp. 495, 506 (ED Pa. 1971); cf. Nussbaum, Attorney’s Fees in Public Interest Litigation, 48 N. Y. U. L. Rev. 301 (1973); Comment, The Allocation of Attorney’s Fees After Mills v. Electric Auto-Lite Co., 38 U. Chi. L. Rev. 316 (1971).
See, e. g., Cooper v. Allen, 467 F. 2d 836 (CA5 1972); Knight v. Auciello, 453 F. 2d 852 (CA1 1972); Lee v. Southern Home Sites Corp., 444 F. 2d 143 (CA5 1971); La Raza Unida v. Volpe, 57 F. R. D. 94 (ND Cal. 1972); Ross v. Goshi, 351 F. Supp. 949 (Haw.1972); Sims v. Amos, 340 F. Supp. 691 (MD Ala.1972); cf. Bradley v. School Bd. of the City of Richmond, 416 U. S. 696 (1974); Northcross v. Memphis Bd. of Education, 412 U. S. 427 (1973); Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc., 390 U. S. 400 (1968); Nussbaum, n. 18, supra; Note, Awarding Attorneys’ Fees to the “Private Attorney General”: Judicial Green Light to Private Litigation in the Public Interest, 24 Hastings L. J. 733 (1973).
A congressional committee charged with making a broad-based inquiry about legal services is currently studying, inter alia, the general issue of attorneys’ fees. Hearings on Legal Fees before the Subcommittee on Representation of Citizen Interests of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 93d Cong., 1st Sess. (1973); cf. S. Rep. No. 93-146 (1973), accompanying S. Res. 101.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari to resolve a Circuit conflict over whether a district court’s failure to advise a defendant of his right to appeal as required by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure provides a basis for collateral relief even when the defendant was aware of his right to appeal when the trial court omitted to give the advice. Compare, e. g., Thompson v. United States, 111 F. 3d 109 (CA11 1997) (defendant entitled to relief even if he knew of his right to appeal through other sources); United States v. Sanchez, 88 F. 3d 1243 (CADC 1996) (same); Reid v. United States, 69 F. 3d 688 (CA2 1995) (per curiam) (same), with Tress v. United States, 87 F. 3d 188 (CA7 1996) (defendant not entitled to relief if he knew of his right to appeal); United States v. Drummond, 903 F. 2d 1171 (CA8 1990) (same). We hold that a district court’s failure to advise the defendant of his right to appeal does not entitle him to habeas relief if he knew of his right and hence suffered no prejudice from the omission.
Petitioner Manuel Peguero pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute cocaine, in violation of 21 U. S. C. § 846. At a sentencing hearing held on April 22, 1992, the District Court sentenced petitioner to 274 months’ imprisonment. The court did not inform petitioner of his right to appeal his sentence.
In December 1996, more than four years after he was sentenced, petitioner filed a pro se motion to set aside his conviction and sentence. See 28 U. S. C. §2255 (1994 ed., Supp. II). He alleged his counsel was ineffective for various reasons, including the failure to file a notice of appeal pursuant to petitioner’s request. App. 68, 65. The District Court appointed new counsel, who filed an amended motion adding a claim that at the sentencing proceeding the trial court violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(a)(2) by failing to advise petitioner of his right to appeal his sentence. This last claim gives rise to the question before us.
The District Court held an evidentiary hearing. Petitioner testified that, upon being sentenced, he at once asked his lawyer to file an appeal. App. 139. Consistent with petitioner’s testimony, the District Court found that, although the sentencing court had failed to advise petitioner of his right to appeal the sentence, petitioner knew of his right to appeal when the sentencing hearing occurred. No. 1:CR-90-97-01 (MD Pa., July 1, 1997), App. 168, 184. The court also credited the testimony of petitioner’s trial counsel that petitioner told counsel he did not want to take an appeal because he hoped to cooperate with the Government and earn a sentence reduction. Id., at 180-181; cf. Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 35(b) (“The court, on motion of the Government made within one year after the imposition of the sentence, may reduce a sentence to reflect a defendant’s subsequent, substantial assistance in the investigation or prosecution of another person who has committed an offense”).
Relying on our holding in United States v. Timmreck, 441 U. S. 780 (1979), the District Court rejected petitioner’s claim that any violation of Rule 32, without regard to prejudice, is enough to vacate a sentence under § 2255. The court held that petitioner was not entitled to relief because he was actually aware of his right to appeal at the time of sentencing. No. 1:CR-90-97-01, App. 184. The court also rejected petitioner’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on its finding that petitioner did not request an appeal. Id., at 180.
The Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the ruling. It held that the Rule 32(a)(2) violation was subject to harmless-error review and that, because petitioner was aware of his right to appeal, the purpose of the Rule had been served and petitioner was not entitled to relief. Judgt. order reported at 142 P. 3d 430 (1998), App. 192, 194-195. We granted certiorari. 524 U. S. 982 (1998).
In 1992, when petitioner was sentenced, Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 32(a)(2) provided:
“Notification of Right To Appeal. — After imposing sentence in a case which has gone to trial on a plea of not guilty, the court shall advise the defendant of the defendant’s right to appeal, including any right to appeal the sentence, and of the right of a person who is unable to pay the cost of an appeal to apply for leave to appeal in forma pauperis. There shall be no duty on the court to advise the defendant of any right of appeal after sentence is imposed following a plea of guilty or nolo con-tendere, except that the court shall advise the defendant of any right to appeal the sentence. If the defendant so requests, the clerk of the court shall prepare and file forthwith a notice of appeal on behalf of the defendant.”
Current Rule 32(c)(5) likewise imposes on the district court the duty to advise the defendant at sentencing of any right to appeal.
The requirement that the district court inform a defendant of his right to appeal serves important functions. It will often be the case that, as soon as sentence is imposed, the defendant will be taken into custody and transported elsewhere, making it difficult for the defendant to maintain contact with his attorney. The relationship between the defendant and the attorney may also be strained after sentencing, in any event, because of the defendant’s disappointment over the outcome of the case or the terms of the sentence. The attorney, moreover, concentrating on other matters, may fail to tell the defendant of the right to appeal, though months later the attorney may think that he in fact gave the advice because it was standard practice to do so. In addition, if the defendant is advised of the right by the judge who imposes sentence, the defendant will realize that the appeal may be taken as of right and without affront to the trial judge, who may later rule upon a motion to modify or reduce the sentence. See Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 35. Advising the defendant of his right at sentencing also gives him a clear opportunity to announce his intention to appeal and request the court clerk to file the notice of appeal, well before the 10-day filing period runs. See Rule 32(c)(5) (“If the defendant so requests, the clerk of the court must immediately prepare and file a notice of appeal on behalf of the defendant”); Fed. Rule App. Proc. 4(b) (establishing 10-day period for filing appeal, which may be extended for 30 days by district court for “excusable neglect”).
These considerations underscore the importance of the advice which comes from the court itself. Trial judges must be meticulous and precise in following each of the requirements of Rule 32 in every case. It is undisputed, then, that the court’s failure to give the required advice was error.
A violation of Rule 32(a)(2), however, does not entitle a defendant to collateral relief in all circumstances. Our precedents establish, as a general rule, that a court’s failure to give a defendant advice required by the Federal Rules is a sufficient basis for collateral relief only when the defendant is prejudiced by the court’s error. In Hill v. United States, 368 U. S. 424 (1962), for example, the District Court violated the then-applicable version of Rule 32(a) by failing to make explicit that the defendant had an opportunity to speak in his own behalf. The defendant did not allege that he had been “affirmatively denied an opportunity to speak,” that the District Judge had been deprived of any relevant information, or that the defendant “would have had anything at all to say if he had been formally invited to speak.” Id., at 429. The defendant established only “a failure to comply with the formal requirements of the Rule,” ibid., and alleged no prejudice; on these premises, the Court held the defendant was not entitled to collateral relief, id., at 428-429.
So, also, in United States v. Timmreck, collateral relief was unavailable to a defendant who alleged only that the District Court “‘fail[ed] to comply with the formal requirements’” of Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure by not advising him of a mandatory special parole term to which he was subject. 441 U. S., at 785. The defendant did not argue “that he was actually unaware of the special parole term or that, if he had been properly advised by the trial judge, he would not have pleaded guilty.” Id., at 784. Having alleged no prejudice, defendant’s “only claim [was] of a technical violation of the Rule” insufficient to justify habeas relief. Ibid.
In this case, petitioner had full knowledge of his right to appeal, hence the District Court’s violation of Rule 32(a)(2) by failing to inform him of that right did not prejudice him. The fact of the violation, standing alone, Hill and Timmreck instruct, does not entitle petitioner to collateral relief.
Our decision in Rodriquez v. United States, 395 U. S. 327 (1969), does not hold otherwise. In Rodriquez, the Court held that when counsel fails to file a requested appeal, a defendant is entitled to resentencing and to an appeal without showing that his appeal would likely have had merit. Id., at 329-330. Without questioning the rule in Rodriquez, we conclude its holding is not implicated here because of the District Court's factual finding that petitioner did not request an appeal. While Rodriquez did note the sentencing court’s failure to advise the defendant of his right to appeal, it did so only in the course of rejecting the Government’s belated argument that the ease should be remanded for fact-finding to determine the reason counsel had not filed the appeal. The court’s failure to advise the defendant of his right was simply one factor — in combination with the untimeliness of the Government’s request and the lengthy proceedings and delay the defendant had already endured — that led the Court to conclude that it was “just under the circumstances” to accord the petitioner final relief at that time without further proceedings. Id., at 331-332. This limited and fact-specific conclusion does not support a general rule that a court’s failure to advise a defendant of the right to appeal automatically requires resentencing to allow an appeal.
Petitioner and his amicus would distinguish Timmreck (and, presumably, Hill) on the ground that the defendant in Timmreck had the opportunity to raise his claim on direct appeal but failed to do so, whereas the absence of the “judicial warning [required by Rule 32(a)(2)] may effectively undermine the defendant’s ability to take a direct appeal.” Brief for Petitioner 20. This argument, however, provides no basis for holding that a Rule 32(a)(2) oversight, though nonprejudicial, automatically entitles the defendant to ha-beas relief. Even errors raised on direct appeal are subject to harmless-error review. Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure prohibits federal courts from granting relief based on errors that “d[o] not affect substantial rights.” See Rule 52(a) (“Any error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded”); see also Bank of Nova Scotia v. United States, 487 U. S. 250, 254-255 (1988) (“[A] federal court may not invoke supervisory power to circumvent the harmless-error inquiry prescribed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(a).... Rule 52 is, in every pertinent respect, as binding as any statute duly enacted by Congress, and federal courts have no more discretion to disregard the Rule’s mandate than they do to disregard constitutional or statutory provisions”).
Accordingly, we hold that petitioner is not entitled to habeas relief based on a Rule 32(a)(2) violation when he had independent knowledge of the right to appeal and so was not prejudiced by the trial court’s omission. The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit is
Affirmed.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
In 1982, the City Commission of Newport, Ky., enacted Ordinance No. 0-82-85. This ordinance prohibited nude or nearly nude dancing in local establishments licensed to sell liquor for consumption on the premises. A state law imposing an almost identical prohibition on nude dancing was upheld by this Court in New York State Liquor Authority v. Bellanca, 452 U. S. 714 (1981) (per curiam), as being within the State’s broad power under the Twenty-first Amendment to regulate the sale of liquor within its boundaries.
Respondents, proprietors of Newport liquor establishments that offered nude or nearly nude entertainment, challenged the ordinance in federal court. They contended that the ordinance deprived them of their rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and they sought declaratory and injunctive relief under 42 U. S. C. § 1983 against its enforcement. The District Court ruled that the ordinance was constitutional, stating that it “is squarely within the doctrine of Bellanca . . . and must be upheld on that basis.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 50a.
A divided panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit reversed that judgment. 785 F. 2d 1354 (1986). It found the decision in Bellanca inapplicable because in Kentucky local voters, rather than the city or the Commonwealth, determine whether alcohol may be sold. Pursuant to the authority granted by the Commonwealth’s Constitution, Kentucky expressly authorizes a city to conduct a popular election on a question of local prohibition when a specified proportion of qualified voters petition for such an election. See Ky. Rev. Stat. §§242.010-242.990 (1981 and Supp. 1986). Noting this Court’s statement in Bellanca that “[t]he State’s power to ban the sale of alcoholic beverages entirely includes the lesser power to ban the sale of liquor on premises where topless dancing occurs,” 452 U. S., at 717, the Court of Appeals’ majority nevertheless concluded that the ordinance could not be justified under the broad authority bestowed by the Twenty-first Amendment. It stated that this case does not fall within the Bellanca “doctrine” or “rationale” because the city “cannot exercise in part a power it does not hold in full.” 785 F. 2d, at 1358. The court remanded the case for a determination, among other things, of the city’s authority to enact the ordinance under its police power. The dissenting judge argued that the majority read Bellanca too narrowly, and he contended that the city is not restricted solely to the exercise of the police power to regulate the liquor industry.
We agree with the dissent’s conclusion that this case is controlled by Bellanca, and we therefore reverse. The reach of the Twenty-first Amendment is certainly not without limit, but previous decisions of this Court have established that, in the context of liquor licensing, the Amendment confers broad regulatory powers on the States.
“While the States, vested as they are with general police power, require no specific grant of authority in the Federal Constitution to legislate with respect to matters traditionally within the scope of the police power, the broad sweep of the Twenty-first Amendment has been recognized as conferring something more than the normal state authority over public health, welfare, and morals.” California v. LaRue, 409 U. S. 109, 114 (1972).
This regulatory authority includes the power to ban nude dancing as part of a liquor license control program. “In LaRue ... we concluded that the broad powers of the States to regulate the sale of liquor, conferred by the Twenty-first Amendment, outweighed any First Amendment interest in nude dancing and that a State could therefore ban such dancing as a part of its liquor license program.” Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc., 422 U. S. 922, 932-933 (1975). In Bellanca, the Court upheld a state statute imposing just such a ban.
The Court of Appeals misperceived this broad base for the ruling in Bellanca and seized upon a single sentence, characterizing it as the “doctrine” or “rationale” of Bellanca. Because a Kentucky city cannot ban the sale of alcohol without election approval, the court concluded that it similarly cannot regulate nude dancing in bars. In holding that a State “has broad power ... to regulate the times, places, and circumstances under which liquor may be sold,” Bellanca, 452 U. S., at 715, this Court has never attached any constitutional significance to a State’s division of its authority over alcohol. The Twenty-first Amendment has given broad power to the States and generally they may delegate this power as they see fit.
There is certainly no constitutional requirement that the same governmental unit must grant liquor licenses, revoke licenses, and regulate the circumstances under which liquor may be sold. Indeed, while Kentucky provides that the question of local prohibition is to be decided by popular election, the parties are in agreement that the city is vested with the power to revoke a liquor license upon a finding of a violation of state law, a state liquor regulation, or a city ordinance. See Brief in Opposition 7. Yet, the rationale of the opinion of the Court of Appeals implies that, because of the Kentucky Constitution, neither the State nor the city may revoke a liquor license under the authority of the Twenty-first Amendment. Only a strained reading of Bellanca would require each licensing decision to be made by plebiscite. Moreover, there is no statutory provision that gives the voters direct authority, once the sale of alcohol is permitted, to determine the manner of regulation. Thus, if respondents were to prevail in their argument that only voters can ban nudity because only voters have the authority to ban the sale of alcohol, it is possible that nude dancing in bars would be immune from any regulation.
The Newport City Commission, in the preamble to the ordinance, determined that nude dancing in establishments serving liquor was “injurious to the citizens” of the city. It found the ordinance necessary to a range of purposes, including “preventing] blight and the deterioration of the City’s neighborhoods” and “decreasing] the incidence of crime, disorderly conduct and juvenile delinquency.” See 785 F. 2d, at 1360. “Given the added presumption in favor of the validity of the . . . regulation in this area that the Twenty-first Amendment requires,” California v. LaRue, 409 U. S., at 118-119, it is plain that, as in Bellanca, the interest in maintaining order outweighs the interest in free expression by dancing nude. The fact that the Commonwealth of Kentucky has delegated one portion of its power under the Twenty-first Amendment to the electorate — the power to decide if liquor may be served in local establishments — does not differentiate this case from Bellanca.
The petition for certiorari is granted, 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 Scalia would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari and set the case for oral argument.
Newport Ordinance No. 0-82-85, §11, provides:
“It shall be unlawful for and a person is guilty of performing nude or nearly nude activity when that person appears on a business establishment’s premises in such a manner or attire as to expose to view any portion of the pubic area, anus, vulva or genitals, or any simulation thereof, or when any female appears on a business establishment’s premises in such manner or attire as to expose to view portion of the breast referred to as the areola, nipple, or simulation thereof.”
Sections IV and V specify criminal and civil penalties for any violation of the ordinance. A proprietor who knowingly permits the proscribed activity on his premises may have his occupational license and liquor license revoked.
Ordinance No. 0-82-85 is set forth in its entirety in the appendix to the Court of Appeals’ opinion. See 785 F. 2d 1354, 1360-1362 (CA6 1986).
The Twenty-first Amendment provides in relevant part: “The transportation or importation into any State, Territory, or possession of the United States for delivery or use therein of intoxicating liquors, in violation of the laws thereof, is hereby prohibited.”
Respondents also challenged a second Newport ordinance, see 785 F. 2d, at 1362-1363, requiring employees of establishments that sell liquor by the drink to register with the Police Department and be fingerprinted. The Court of Appeals upheld the constitutionality of this second ordinance as a valid implementation of the city’s police power. Id., at 1355-1358. That ordinance is not at issue here.
The Kentucky Constitution, §61, provides:
“The General Assembly shall, by general law, provide a means whereby the sense of the people of any county, city, town, district or precinct may be taken, as to whether or not spirituous, vinous or malt liquors shall be sold, bartered or loaned therein, or the sale thereof regulated. But nothing herein shall be construed to interfere with or to repeal any law in force relating to the sale or gift of such liquors. All elections on this question may be held on a day other than the regular election days.”
See, e. g., California v. LaRue, 409 U. S. 109, 120, n. (1972) (Stewart, J., concurring):
“This is not to say that the Twenty-first Amendment empowers a State to act with total irrationality or invidious discrimination in controlling the distribution and dispensation of liquor within its borders. And it most assuredly is not to say that the Twenty-first Amendment necessarily overrides in its allotted area any other relevant provision of the Constitution. See Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U. S. 433; Hostetter v. Idlewild, Bon Voyage Liquor Corp., 377 U. S. 324, 329-334; Dept. of Revenue v. James Beam Co., 377 U. S. 341.”
Because it found Bellanca inapplicable, the Court of Appeals did not reach the state-law question of delegation of authority by the Commonwealth to the city of Newport. We express no opinion on this 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:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The writ of certiorari is dismissed as improvidently granted.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a proceeding of summary disposition, under Rule 42 (a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, of a finding of criminal contempt committed in the actual presence of the court, the power to punish which is given by 18 U. S. C. § 401. The proceeding grew out of a suit for denaturalization brought against petitioner pursuant to § 340 (a) of the Immigration and Nationality Act of 1952, 66 Stat. 260, as amended, 8 U. S. C. (Supp. IV) i 1451 (a). The complaint in the denaturalization suit charged that petitioner had fraudulently procured citizenship in 1946 by falsely swearing that she was attached to the principles of the Constitution, and that she was not and had not been for ten years preceding opposed to organized government or a member of or affiliated with the Communist Party or any organization teaching opposition to organized government, whereas in fact petitioner had been, from 1933 to 1937, a member of the Communist Party and the Young Communist League, both organizations advocating the overthrow of the Government of the United States by force and violence.
At the trial in the denaturalization proceeding, petitioner was called as an adverse witness by the Government under Rule 43 (b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Petitioner admitted that she had once been a member of the Young Communist League, but denied that she had belonged to the Communist Party in the period before 1946. She refused to answer questions about activities and associations that were unlimited in time or directed to the period after 1946 on the ground that her answers might tend to incriminate her, and the District Court sustained the claim of privilege. At the close of the Government’s examination, petitioner’s counsel stated that, “I won’t cross-examine the witness at this point. I will put her on on direct.”
Thereafter petitioner took the stand as a witness in her own behalf. She comprehensively reaffirmed the truth of the statements made at the time of her naturalization, and, although she admitted membership in the Young Communist League from about 1930, claimed that she had resigned in 1935 and had not engaged in any Communist activities from 1935 until her naturalization in 1946. Not content to rest there, petitioner went on to testify that she had never taught or advocated the overthrow of the existing government or belonged to any organization that did so advocate, that she believed in fighting for this country and would take up arms in its defense in event of hostilities with Soviet Russia, and that she was attached to the principles of the Constitution and the good order and happiness of the United States. This testimony was directed to petitioner’s present disposition towards the United States, and was not limited to the period before 1946.
On cross-examination the Government immediately put to petitioner the question, “Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Communist Party of the United States?” It also asked numerous other questions relating to Communist activities since 1946 that petitioner had successfully refused to answer when first examined. Petitioner again refused to answer, claiming the privilege against self-incrimination. The District Court ruled that by taking the stand in her own defense petitioner had abandoned the privilege, and directed her to answer. However, petitioner persisted in her refusal to answer any questions directed towards establishing that she had been a Communist since 1946. For this she was cast in contempt of court and sentenced to imprisonment for six months. The judgment of conviction was affirmed by the Court of Appeals. 234 F. 2d 140. Deeming the record to raise important questions regarding the scope of the privilege against self-incrimination and the power of a federal court to make summary disposition of a charge of criminal contempt, we brought the case here. 352 U. S. 908. Argument was had in the 1956 Term and the case set down for reargument in the present Term. 354 U. S. 907.
The conduct for which petitioner was found guilty of contempt was her sustained disobedience of the court’s direction to answer pertinent questions on cross-examination after her claim of the privilege against self-incrimination had been overruled. On the first argument in this Court, petitioner stood on the validity of her claim of privilege as the essential ground for reversal here of the judgment of the Court of Appeals. It was taken for granted by petitioner no less than by the Government that for a party insistently to block relevant inquiry on cross-examination subjects him to punishment for contempt in the exercise of the power vested in the federal courts throughout our history. Act of Sept. 24, 1789, § 17, 1 Stat. 83; Act of Mar. 2, 1831, 4 Stat. 487-488; R. S. §725; Judicial Code, 1911, §268, 36 Stat. 1163; 18 U. S. C. § 401.
On reargument, both sides, responsive to a suggestion from the bench, discussed the relevance of Ex parte Hudgings, 249 U. S. 378, to the present situation. That case, followed in In re Michael, 326 U. S. 224, held that for perjury alone a witness may not be summarily punished for contempt. The essence of the holding in those cases was that perjury is a specifically defined offense, subject to prosecution under all the safeguards of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments, and that the truth or falsity of a witness’ testimony ought not be left to a judge’s unaided determination in the midst of trial. Perjury is one thing; testimonial recalcitrance another. He who offers himself as a witness is not freed from the duty to testify. The court (except insofar as it is constitutionally limited), not a voluntary witness, defines the testimonial duty. See Judge Learned Hand in United States v. Appel, 211 F. 495.
Such has been the unquestioned law in the federal judicial system time out of mind. It has been acted upon in the lower courts and this Court. Whatever differences the potentially drastic power of courts to punish for contempt may have evoked, a doubt has never been uttered that stubborn disobedience of the duty to answer relevant inquiries in a judicial proceeding brings into force the power of the federal courts to punish for contempt. Trial courts no doubt must be on guard against confusing offenses to their sensibilities with obstruction to the administration of justice. It is no less important for this Court to use self-restraint in the exercise of its ultimate power to find that a trial court has gone beyond the area in which it can properly punish for contempt. We are not justified in sliding from mere disagreement with the way in which a trial court has dealt with a particular matter, such as petitioner’s conduct in the present case, into a condemnation of the court’s action as an abuse of discretion.
We thus reach the constitutional issue.
Petitioner contends that by taking the stand and testifying in her own behalf she did not forego the right to invoke on cross-examination the privilege against self-incrimination regarding matters made relevant by her direct examination. She relies on decisions holding that witnesses in civil proceedings and before congressional committees do not waive the privilege by denials and partial disclosures, but only by testimony that itself incriminates. More particularly, petitioner’s reliance is on Arndstein v. McCarthy, 254 U. S. 71; McCarthy v. Arndstein, 262 U. S. 355, 266 U. S. 34. In that litigation a witness called before special commissioners in bankruptcy proceedings filed schedules of his assets and liabilities and made certain disclosures in respect to his financial condition, but refused to answer numerous questions on the ground that to do so might incriminate him. This Court held that the witness’ refusal did not constitute contempt; that since the evidence furnished “did not amount to an admission of guilt or furnish clear proof of crime . . . ,” the privilege had not been abandoned and the witness was entitled to “stop short” when further testimony “might tend to incriminate him.” 254 U. S., at 72; 262 U. S., at 358. The testimony of petitioner in the present case admittedly did not amount to “an admission of guilt or furnish clear proof of crime,” but was, on the contrary, a denial of any activities that might provide a basis for prosecution.
Our problem is illumined by the situation of a defendant in a criminal case. If he takes the stand and testifies in his own defense, his credibility may be impeached and his testimony assailed like that of any other witness, and the breadth of his waiver is determined by the scope of relevant cross-examination. “[H]e has no right to set forth to the jury all the facts which tend in his favor without laying himself open to a cross-examination upon those facts.” Fitzpatrick v. United States, 178 U. S. 304, 315; and see Reagan v. United States, 157 U. S. 301, 304-305. The reasoning of these cases applies to a witness in any proceeding who voluntarily takes the stand and offers testimony in his own behalf. It is reasoning that controls the result in the case before us.
A witness who is compelled to testify, as in the Arnd-stein type of case, has no occasion to invoke the privilege against self-incrimination until testimony sought to be elicited will in fact tend to incriminate. It would indeed be irrelevant for him to do so. If he is to have the benefit of the privilege at all, and not be confronted with the argument that he has waived a right even before he could have invoked it, he must be able to raise a bar at the point in his testimony when his immunity becomes operative. A witness thus permitted to withdraw from the cross-fire of interrogation before the reliability of his testimony has been fully tested may on occasion have succeeded in putting before the trier of fact a one-sided account of the matters in dispute. This is an argumentative curtailment of the normal right of cross-examination out of regard for the fair claims of the constitutional protection against compulsory self-incrimination.
On the other hand, when a witness voluntarily testifies, the privilege against self-incrimination is amply respected without need of accepting testimony freed from the antiseptic test of the adversary process. The witness himself, certainly if he is a party, determines the area of disclosure and therefore of inquiry. Such a witness has the choice, after weighing the advantage of the privilege against self-incrimination against the advantage of putting forward his version of the facts and his reliability as a witness; not to testify at all. He cannot reasonably claim that the Fifth Amendment gives him not only this choice but, if he elects to testify, an immunity from cross-examination on the matters he has himself put in dispute. It would make of the Fifth Amendment not only a humane safeguard against judicially coerced self-disclosure but a positive invitation to mutilate the truth a party offers to tell. ‘‘[Tjhere is hardly justification for letting the defendant affirmatively resort to perjurious testimony in reliance on the Government’s disability to challenge his credibility.” Walder v. United States, 347 U. S. 62, 65. The interests of the other party and regard for the function of courts of justice to ascertain the truth become relevant, and prevail in the balance of considerations determining the scope and limits of the privilege against self-incrimination. Petitioner, as a party to the suit, was a voluntary witness. She could not take the stand to testify in her own behalf and also claim the right to be free from cross-examination on matters raised by her own testimony on direct examination.
Petitioner claims that the District Court found that she had waived the privilege merely by taking the stand, whereas the Court of Appeals affirmed her conviction on the ground that she had taken the stand and testified as she did. Petitioner argues from this distinction that her conviction has been affirmed on a charge not made in the District Court. She also suggests that the reason given by the District Court for finding a waiver misled her as to the actual legal question involved, and that but for the assertions of the court she might have withdrawn her opposition to the cross-examination and answered the questions put by the Government.
The record does not fairly support the statement that the District Court found a waiver simply in the act of taking the stand. After petitioner had testified on direct examination, the court ruled that “the defendant having taken the stand in her own defense, has waived the right to invoke the Fifth Amendment . . . .” In view of the circumstances surrounding this ruling and the testimony that preceded it, it is reasonably clear that the court meant to convey by “having taken the stand in her own defense” what she said on the stand, not merely that she physically took the stand. As the District Court expressly stated in its opinion finding petitioner in contempt, it had cautioned her that “she had waived the right to claim any privileges under the Fifth Amendment, by reason of having testified as a witness in her own behalf.” The reason for abandonment of the privilege, as thus expressed by the court, is wholly consistent with the reason given by the Court of Appeals in affirming the conviction, and with our ground for upholding the judgment of the Court of Appeals. Nice questions in interpreting the record to ascertain whether a trial court has discharged its duty of appropriately framing the legal issues in a litigation, or at least not misframing them to the detrimental reliance of one of the parties, are not here presented. Taken in context, the ruling of the District Court conveyed a correct statement of the law, and adequately informed petitioner that by her direct testimony she had opened herself to cross-examination on the matters relevantly raised by that testimony. The judgment is
Affirmed.
“A criminal contempt may be punished summarily if the judge certifies that he saw or heard the conduct constituting the contempt and that it was committed in the actual presence of the court. The order of contempt shall recite the facts and shall be signed by the judge and entered of record.”
“A court of the United States shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—
“(1) Misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
“(2) Misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions;
“(3) Disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.”
Counsel for petitioner in this Court did not represent her in the trial court.
“Q. Are you willing to take up arms in defense of this country, in the event of any hostility between the United States and Russia?
“A. Yes.
“Q. Regardless of whatever the reason may be for any hostility between the government of the United States and the Government of Russia?
“A. That is correct.
“Q. In Question 28 you were asked: ‘Are you a believer in anarchy, or the unlawful damage, injury or destruction of property, or of sabotage’? And you answered ‘No.’
“Was that a true answer to that question?
“A. That was a true answer.
“Q. You say it was not only a true answer at the time you filed the petition, July 16, 1946, and is that the true answer today?
“A. It is true. It was a perfectly true answer to that question. I never believed.in overthrowing anything. I believe in fighting for this country. I like this country. I never told anybody I didn’t.
“Q. Did you ever teach or advocate anarchy or overthrow of the existing government in this country?
“A. Teach?
“Q. Did you ever teach the idea that we ought to overthrow the government of the United States?
“A. No, I never did.
“Q. Did you ever advocate that?
“A. No.
“Q. Did you ever say that we should?
“A. No, I never did.
“Q. To your knowledge, did you ever belong to any organization that taught or advocated anarchy or the overthrow of the existing government of this country?
“A. No. As much as-I know, I didn’t belong, to destroy the country. I believe in helping the country, and helping the people. That was my life of living, not destroying the things that the people put up.
“Q. Are you attached to the principles of the Constitution of the United States, and well disposed to the good order and happiness of the United States?
“A. That, I am.
“Q. What do you understand by that? What do you understand by those words ‘attached to the principles of the Constitution’?
“A. The way I understand this, when my country needs me, I fight for it and do what is right among the people.”
Striking the witness’ testimony, or relying on the trier of fact to take into account the obvious unfairness of allowing the witness to escape cross-examination, must often in practice be poor substitutes for a positive showing under searching cross-examination that the testimony is in fact false.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
announced the judgment of the Court and delivered an opinion, in which The Chief Justice, Justice Kennedy, and Justice Breyer join.
At this difficult time in our Nation’s history, we are called upon to consider the legality of the Government’s detention of a United States citizen on United States soil as an “enemy combatant” and to address the process that is constitutionally owed to one who seeks to challenge his classification as such. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit held that petitioner Yaser Hamdi’s detention was legally authorized and that he was entitled to no further opportunity to challenge his enemy-combatant label. We now vacate and remand. We hold that although Congress authorized the detention of combatants in the narrow circumstances alleged here, due process demands that a citizen held in the United States as an enemy combatant be given a meaningful opportunity to contest the factual basis for that detention before a neutral decisionmaker.
I
On September 11, 2001, the al Qaeda terrorist network used hijacked commercial airliners to attack prominent targets in the United States. Approximately 3,000 people were killed in those attacks. One week later, in response to these “acts of treacherous violence,” Congress passed a resolution authorizing the President to “use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks” or “harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations or persons.” Authorization for Use of Military Force (AUMF), 115 Stat. 224. Soon thereafter, the President ordered United States Armed Forces to Afghanistan, with a mission to subdue al Qaeda and quell the Taliban regime that was known to support it.
This case arises out of the detention of a man whom the Government alleges took up arms with the Taliban during this conflict. His name is Yaser Esam Hamdi. Born in Louisiana in 1980, Hamdi moved with his family to Saudi Arabia as a child. By 2001, the parties agree, he resided in Afghanistan. At some point that year, he was seized by members of the Northern Alliance, a coalition of military groups opposed to the Taliban government, and eventually was turned over to the United States military. The Government asserts that it initially detained and interrogated Hamdi in Afghanistan before transferring him to the United States Naval Base in Guantanamo Bay in January 2002. In April 2002, upon learning that Hamdi is an American citizen, authorities transferred him to a naval brig in Norfolk, Vir-giniá, where he remained until a recent transfer to a brig in Charleston, South Carolina. The Government contends that Hamdi is an “enemy combatant,” and that this status justifies holding him in the United States indefinitely — without formal charges or proceedings — unless and until it makes the determination that access to counsel or further process is warranted.
In June 2002, Hamdi’s father, Esam Fouad Hamdi, filed the present petition for a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U. S. C. §2241 in the Eastern District of Virginia, naming as petitioners his son and himself as next friend. The elder Hamdi alleges in the petition that he has had no contact with his son since the Government took custody of him in 2001, and that the Government has held his son “without access to legal counsel or notice of any charges pending against him.” App. 103,104. The petition contends that Hamdi’s detention was not legally authorized. Id., at 105. It argues that, “[a]s an American citizen,... Hamdi enjoys the full protections of the Constitution,” and that Hamdi’s detention in the United States without charges, access to an impartial tribunal, or assistance of counsel “violated and continue^] to violate the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to. the United States Constitution.” Id., at 107. The.habeas petition asks that the court, among other things, (1) appoint counsel for Hamdi; (2) order respondents to cease interrogating him; (3) declare that he is being held in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments; (4) “[t]o the extent Respondents contest any material factual allegations in this Petition, schedule an evi-dentiary hearing, at which Petitioners may adduce proof in support of their allegations”; and (5) order that Hámdi be released from his “unlawful custody.” Id., at 108-109. Although his habeas petition provides no details with regard to the factual circumstances surrounding his son’s capture and detention, Hamdi’s father has asserted in documents found elsewhere in the record that his son went to Afghanistan to do “relief work,” and that he had been in that country less than two months before September 11, 2001, and could not have received military training. Id., at 188-189. The 20-year-old was traveling on his own for the first time, his father says, and “[bjecause of his lack of experience, he was trapped in Afghanistan once the military campaign began.” Ibid.
The District Court found that Hamdi’s father was a proper next friend, appointed the federal public defender as counsel for the petitioners, and ordered that counsel be given access to Hamdi. Id., at 113-116. The United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed that order, holding that the District Court had failed to extend appropriate deference to the Government’s security and intelligence interests. 296 F. 3d 278, 279, 283 (2002). It directed the District Court to consider “the most cautious procedures first,” id., at 284, and to conduct a deferential inquiry into Hamdi’s status, id., at 283. It opined that “if Hamdi is indeed an ‘enemy combatant’ who was captured during hostilities in Afghanistan, the government’s present detention of him is a lawful one.” Ibid.
On remand, the Government filed a response and a motion to dismiss the petition. It attached to its response a declaration from one Michael Mobbs (hereinafter Mobbs Declaration), who identified himself as Special Advisor to the Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. Mobbs indicated that in this position, he has been “substantially involved with matters related to the detention of enemy combatants in the current war against the al Qaeda terrorists and those who support and.harbor them (including the Taliban).” App. 148. He expressed his “familiar[ity]” with Department of Defense and United States military policies and procedures applicable to the detention, control, and transfer of al Qaeda and Taliban personnel, and declared that “[bjased upon my review of relevant records and reports, I am also familiar with the facts and circumstances related to the capture of... Hamdi and his detention by U. S. military forces.” * Ibid.
Mobbs then set forth what remains the sole evidentiary support that the Government has provided to the courts for Hamdi’s detention. The declaration states that Hamdi “traveled to Afghanistan” in July or August 2001, and that he thereafter “affiliated with a Taliban military unit and received weapons training.” Ibid. It asserts that Hamdi “remained with his Taliban unit following the attacks of September 11” and that, during the time when Northern Alliance forces were “engaged in battle with the Taliban,” “Hamdi’s Taliban unit surrendered” to those forces, after which he “surrendered] his Kalishnikov assault rifle” to them. Id., at 148-149. The Mobbs Declaration also states that, because al Qaeda and the Taliban “were and are hostile forces engaged in armed conflict with the armed forces of the United States,” “individuals associated with” those groups “were and continue to be enemy combatants.” Id., at 149. Mobbs states that Hamdi was labeled an enemy combatant “[b]ased upon his interviews and in light of his association with the Taliban.” Ibid. According to the declaration, a series of “U. S. military screening team[s]” determined that Hamdi met “the criteria for enemy combatants,” and “[a] subsequent interview of Hamdi has confirmed the fact that he surrendered and gave his firearm to Northern Alliance forces, which supports his classification as an enemy combatant.” Id., at 149-150.
After the Government submitted this declaration, the Fourth Circuit directed the District Court to proceed in accordance with its earlier ruling and, specifically, to “ ‘consider the sufficiency of the Mobbs declaration as an independent matter before proceeding further.’” 316 F. 3d 450, 462 (2003). The District Court found that the Mobbs Declaration fell “far short” of supporting Hamdi’s detention. App. 292. It criticized the generic and hearsay nature of the affidavit, calling it “little more than the government’s ‘say-so.’ ” Id., at 298. It ordered the Government to turn over numerous materials for in camera review, including copies of all of Hamdi’s statements and the notes taken from interviews with him that related to his reasons for going to Afghanistan and his activities therein; a list of all interrogators who had questioned Hamdi and their names and addresses; statements by members of the Northern Alliance regarding Hamdi’s surrender and capture; a list of the dates and locations of his capture and subsequent detentions; and the names and titles of the United States Government officials who made the determinations that Hamdi was an enemy combatant and that he should be moved to a naval brig. Id., at 185-186. The court indicated that all of these materials were necessary for “meaningful judicial review” of whether Hamdi’s detention was legally authorized and whether Hamdi had received sufficient process to satisfy the Due Process Clause of the Constitution and relevant treaties or military regulations. Id., at 291-292.
The Government sought to appeal the production order, and the District Court certified the question of whether the Mobbs Declaration, “ ‘standing alone, is sufficient as a matter of law to allow a meaningful judicial review of [Hamdi’s] classification as an enemy combatant.’ ” 316 F. 3d, at 462. The Fourth Circuit reversed, but did not squarely answer the certified question. It instead stressed that, because it was “undisputed that Hamdi was captured in a zone of active combat in a foreign theater of conflict,” no factual inquiry, or eviden-tiary hearing allowing Hamdi to be heard or to rebut the Government’s assertions was necessary or proper. Id., at 459. Concluding that the factual averments in the Mobbs Declaration, “if accurate,” provided a sufficient basis upon which to conclude that the President had constitutionally detained Hamdi pursuant to the President’s war powers, it ordered the habeas petition dismissed. Id., at 473. The Fourth Circuit emphasized that the “vital purposes” of the detention of uncharged enemy combatants — preventing those combatants from rejoining the enemy while relieving the military of the burden of litigating the circumstances of wartime captures halfway around the globe — were interests “directly derived from the war powers of Articles I and II.” Id., at 465-466. In that court’s view, because “Article III contains nothing analogous to the specific powers of war so carefully enumerated in Articles I and II,” id., at 463, separation of powers principles prohibited a federal court from “delv[ing] further into Hamdi’s status and capture,” id., at 473. Accordingly, the District Court’s more vigorous inquiry “went far beyond the acceptable scope of review.” Ibid.
On the more global question of whether legal authorization exists for the detention of citizen enemy combatants at all, the Fourth Circuit rejected Hamdi’s arguments that 18 U. S. C. § 4001(a) and Article 5 of the Geneva Convention rendered any such detentions unlawful. The court expressed doubt as to Hamdi’s argument that § 4001(a), which provides that “[n]o citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress,” required express congressional authorization of detentions of this sort. But it held that, in any event, such authorization was found in the post-September 11 AUMF. 316 F. 3d, at 467. Because “capturing and detaining enemy combatants is an inherent part of warfare,” the court held, “the ‘necessary and appropriate force’ referenced in the congressional resolution necessarily includes the capture and detention of any and all hostile forces arrayed against our troops.” Ibid.; see also id., at 467-468 (noting that Congress, in 10 U. S. C. § 956(5), had specifically authorized the expenditure of funds for keeping prisoners of war and persons whose status was determined “to be similar to prisoners of war,” and concluding that this appropriation measure also demonstrated that Congress had “authorized these individuals’] detention in the first instance”). The court likewise rejected Hamdi’s Geneva Convention claim, concluding that the convention is not self-executing and that, even if it were, it would not preclude the Executive from detaining Hamdi until the cessation of hostilities. 316 F. 3d, at 468-469.
Finally, the Fourth Circuit rejected Hamdi’s contention that its legal analyses with regard to the authorization for the detention scheme and the process to which he was constitutionally entitled should be altered by the fact that he is an American citizen detained on American soil. Relying on Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1 (1942), the court emphasized that “[o]ne who takes up arms against the United States in a foreign theater of war, regardless of his citizenship, may properly be designated an enemy combatant and treated as such.”. 316 F. 3d, at 475. “The privilege of citizenship,” the court held, “entitles Hamdi to a limited judicial inquiry into his detention, but only to determine its legality under the war powers of the political branches. At least where it is undisputed that he was present in a zone of active combat operations, we are satisfied that the Constitution does not entitle him to a searching review of the factual determinations underlying his seizure there.” Ibid.
The Fourth Circuit denied rehearing en banc, 337 F. 3d 335 (2003), and we granted certiorari, 540 U. S. 1099 (2004). We now vacate the judgment below and remand.
II
The threshold question before us is whether the Executive has the authority to detain citizens who qualify as “enemy combatants.” There is some debate as to the proper scope of this term, and the Government has never provided any court with the full criteria that it uses in classifying individuals as such. It has made clear, however, that, for purposes of this case, the “enemy combatant” that it is seeking to detain is an individual who, it alleges, was “ ‘part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners’ ” in Afghanistan and who “‘engaged in an armed conflict against the United States’” there. Brief for Respondents 3. We therefore answer only the narrow question before us: whether the detention of citizens falling within that definition is authorized.
The Government maintains that no explicit congressional authorization is required, because the Executive possesses plenary authority to detain pursuant to Article II of the Constitution. We do not reach the question whether Article II provides such authority, however, because we agree with the Government’s alternative position, that Congress has in fact authorized Hamdi’s detention, through the AUMF.
Our analysis on that point, set forth below, substantially overlaps with our analysis of Hamdi’s principal argument for the illegality of his detention. He posits that his detention is forbidden by 18 U. S. C. § 4001(a). Section 4001(a) states that “[n]o citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.” Congress passed § 4001(a) in 1971 as part of a bill to repeal the Emergency Detention Act of 1950, 50 U. S. C. § 811 et seq., which provided procedures for executive detention, during times of emergency, of individuals deemed likely to engage in espionage or sabotage. Congress was particularly concerned about the possibility that the Act could be used to reprise the Japanese-American internment camps of World War II. H. R. Rep. No. 92-116 (1971); id., at 4 (“The concentration camp implications of the legislation render it abhorrent”). The Government again presses two alternative positions. First, it argues that § 4001(a), in light of its legislative history and its location in Title 18, applies only to “the control of civilian prisons and related detentions,” not to military detentions. Brief for Respondents 21. Second, it maintains that § 4001(a) is satisfied, because Hamdi is being detained “pursuant to an Act of Congress” — the AUMF. Id., at 21-22. Again, because we conclude that the Government’s second assertion is correct, we do not address the first. In other words, for the reasons that follow, we conclude that the AUMF is explicit congressional authorization for the detention of individuals in the narrow category we describe (assuming, without deciding, that such authorization is required), and that the AUMF satisfied § 4001(a)’s requirement that a detention be “pursuant to an Act of Congress” (assuming, without deciding, that § 4001(a) applies to military detentions).
The AUMF authorizes the President to use “all necessary and appropriate force” against “nations, organizations, or persons” associated with the September 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. 115 Stat. 224. There can be no doubt that individuals who fought against the United States in Afghanistan as part of the Taliban, an organization known to have supported the al Qaeda terrorist network responsible for those attacks, are individuals Congress sought to target in passing the AUMF. We conclude that detention of individuals falling into the limited category we are considering, for the duration of the particular conflict in which they were captured, is so fundamental and accepted an incident to war as to be an exercise of the “necessary and appropriate force” Congress has authorized the President to use.
The capture and detention of lawful combatants and the capture, detention, and trial of unlawful combatants, by “universal agreement and practice,” are “important incident] of war.” Ex parte Quirin, supra, at 28, 30. The purpose of detention is to prevent captured individuals from returning to the field of battle and taking up arms once again. Naqvi, Doubtful Prisoner-of-War Status, 84 Int’l Rev. Red Cross 571, 572 (2002) (“[C]aptivity in war is ‘neither revenge, nor punishment, but solely protective custody, the only purpose of which is to prevent the prisoners of war from further participation in the war’ ” (quoting decision of Nuremberg Military Tribunal, reprinted in 41 Am. J. Int’l L. 172, 229 (1947))); W. Winthrop, Military Law and Precedents 788 (rev. 2d ed. 1920) (“The time has long passed when ‘no quarter’ was the rule on the battlefield.... It is now recognized that ‘Captivity is neither a punishment nor an act of vengeance,’ but ‘merely a temporary detention which is devoid of all penal character.’... ‘A prisoner of war is no convict; his imprisonment is a simple war measure’ ” (citations omitted)); cf. In re Territo, 156 F. 2d 142, 145 (CA9 1946) (“The object of capture is to prevent the captured individual from serving the enemy. He is disarmed and from then on must be removed as completely as practicable from the front, treated humanely and in time exchanged, repatriated or otherwise released” (footnotes omitted)).
There is no bar to this Nation’s holding one of its own citizens as an enemy combatant. In Quirin, one of the detainees, Haupt, alleged that he was a naturalized United States citizen. 317 U. S., at 20. We held that “[citizens who associate themselves with the military arm of the enemy government, and with its aid, guidance and direction enter this country bent on hostile acts, are enemy belligerents within the meaning of... the law of war.” Id., at 37-38. While Haupt was tried for violations of the law of war, nothing in Quirin suggests that his citizenship would have precluded his mere detention for the duration of the relevant hostilities. See id., at 30-31. See also Lieber Code ¶ 153, Instructions for the Government of Armies of the United States in the Field, Gen. Order No. 100 (1863), reprinted in 2 F. Lieber, Miscellaneous Writings, p. 273, ¶ 153 (1880) (contemplating, in code, binding the Union Army during the Civil War,, that “captured rebels” would be treated “as prisoners of war”). Nor can we see any reason for drawing such a line here. A citizen, no less than an alien, can be “part of or supporting forces hostile to the United States or coalition partners” and “engaged in an armed conflict against the United States,” Brief for Respondents 3; such a citizen, if released, would pose the same threat of returning to the front during the ongoing conflict.
In light of these principles, it is of no moment that the AUMF does not use specific language of detention. Because detention to prevent a combatant’s return to the battlefield is a fundamental incident of waging war, in permitting the use of “necessary and appropriate force,” Congress has clearly and unmistakably authorized detention in the narrow circumstances considered here.
Hamdi objects, nevertheless, that Congress has not authorized the indefinite detention to which he is now subject. The Government responds that “the detention of enemy combatants during World War II was just as ‘indefinite’ while that war was being fought.” Id., at 16. We take Hamdi’s objection to be not to the lack of certainty regarding the date on which the conflict will end, but to the substantial prospect of perpetual detention. We recognize that the national security underpinnings of the “war on terror,” although crucially important, are broad and malleable. As the Government concedes, “given its unconventional nature, the current conflict is unlikely to end with a formal cease-fire agreement.” Ibid. The prospect Hamdi raises is therefore not farfetched. If the Government does not consider this unconventional war won for two generations, and if it maintains during that time that Hamdi might, if released, rejoin forces fighting against the United States, then the position it has taken throughout the litigation of this case suggests that Hamdi’s detention could last for the rest of his life.
It is a clearly established principle of the law of war that detention may last no longer than active hostilities. See Article 118 of the Geneva Convention (III) Relative to the Treatment of Prisoners of War, Aug. 12, 1949, [1955] 6 U. S. T. 3316, 3406, T. I. A. S. No. 3364 (“Prisoners of war shall be released and repatriated without delay after the cessation of active hostilities”). See also Article 20 of the Hague Convention (II) on Laws and Customs of War on Land, July 29, 1899, 32 Stat. 1817 (as soon as possible after “conclusion of peace”); Hague Convention (IV), supra, Oct. 18, 1907, 36 Stat. 2301 (“conclusion of peace” (Art. 20)); Geneva Convention, supra, July 27, 1929, 47 Stat. 2055 (repatriation should be accomplished with the least possible delay after conclusion of peace (Art. 75)); Paust, Judicial Power to Determine the Status and Rights of Persons Detained without Trial, 44 Harv. Int’l L. J. 503, 510-511 (2003) (prisoners of war “can be detained during an armed conflict, but the detaining country must release and repatriate them ‘without delay after the cessation of active hostilities,’ unless they are being lawfully prosecuted or have been lawfully convicted of crimes and are serving sentences” (citing Arts. 118, 85, 99, 119, 129, Geneva Convention (III), 6 U. S. T., at 3384, 3392, 3406, 3418)).
Hamdi contends that the AUMF does not authorize indefinite or perpetual detention. Certainly, we agree that indefinite detention for the purpose of interrogation is not authorized. Further, we understand Congress’ grant of authority for the use of “necessary and appropriate force” to include the authority to detain for the duration of the relevant conflict, and our understanding is based on longstanding law-of-war principles. If the practical circumstances of a given conflict are entirely unlike those of the conflicts that informed the development of the law of war, that understanding may unravel. But that is not the situation we face as of this date. Active combat operations against Taliban fighters apparently are ongoing in Afghanistan. See, e. g., Constable, U. S. Launches New Operation in Afghanistan, Washington Post, Mar. 14, 2004, p. A22 (reporting that 13,500 United States troops remain in Afghanistan, including several thousand new arrivals); Dept. of Defense, News Transcript, Gen. J. Abizaid Central Command Operations Update Briefing, Apr. 30, 2004, http://www.defenselink.mil/ transcripts/2004/tr20040430-1402.html (as visited June 8, 2004, and available' in Clerk of Court’s case file) (media briefing describing ongoing operations in Afghanistan involving 20,000 United States troops). The United States may detain, for the duration of these hostilities, individuals legitimately determined to be Taliban combatants who “engaged in an armed conflict against the United States.” If the record establishes that United States troops are still involved in active combat in Afghanistan, those detentions are part of the exercise of “necessary and appropriate force,” and therefore are authorized by the AUMF.
Ex parte Milligan, 4 Wall. 2, 125 (1866), does not undermine our holding about the Government’s authority to seize enemy combatants, as we define that term today. In that case, the Court made repeated reference to the fact that its inquiry into whether the military tribunal had jurisdiction to try and punish Milligan turned in large part on the fact that Milligan was not a prisoner of war, but a resident of Indiana arrested while at home there. Id., at 118, 131. That fact was central to its conclusion. Had Milligan been captured while he was assisting Confederate soldiers by carrying a rifle against Union troops on a Confederate battlefield, the holding of the Court might well have been different. The Court’s repeated explanations that Milligan was not a prisoner of war suggest that had these different circumstances been present he could have been detained under military authority for the duration of the conflict, whether or not he was a citizen.
Moreover, as Justice Scalia acknowledges, the Court in Ex parte Quirin, 317 U. S. 1 (1942), dismissed the language of Milligan that the petitioners had suggested prevented them from being subject to military process. Post, at 570 (dissenting opinion). Clear in this rejection was a disavowal of the New York State cases cited in Milligan, 4 Wall., at 128-129, on which Justice Scalia relies. See ibid. Both Smith v. Shaw, 12 Johns. *257 (N. Y. 1815), and McConnell v. Hampton, 12 Johns. *234 (N. Y. 1815), were civil suits for false imprisonment. Even accepting that these cases once could have been viewed as standing for the sweeping proposition for which Justice Scalia cites them — that the military does not have authority to try an American citizen accused of spying against his country during wartime — Quirin makes undeniably clear that this is not the law today. Haupt, like the citizens in Smith and M’Connell, was accused of being a spy. The Court in Quirin found him “subject to trial and punishment by [a] military tribuna[l]” for those acts, and held that his citizenship did not change this result. 317 U. S., at 31, 37-38.
Quirin was a unanimous opinion. It both postdates and clarifies Milligan, providing us with the most apposite precedent that we have on the question of whether citizens may be detained in such circumstances. Brushing aside such precedent — particularly when doing so gives rise to a host of new questions never dealt with by this Court — is unjustified and unwise.
To the extent that Justice Scalia accepts the preceden-tial value of Quirin, he argues that it cannot guide our inquiry here because “[i]n Quirin it was uncontested that the petitioners were members of enemy.forces,” while Hamdi challenges his classification as an enemy combatant. Post, at 571. But it is unclear why, in the paradigm outlined by Justice Scalia, such a concession should have any relevance. Justice Scalia envisions a system in which the only options are congressional suspension of the writ of ha-beas corpus or prosecution for treason or some other crime. Post, at 554. He does not explain how his historical analysis supports the addition of a third option — detention under some other process after concession of enemy-combatant status — or why a concession should carry any different effect than proof of enemy-combatant status in a proceeding that comports with due process. To be clear, our opinion only finds legislative authority to detain under the AUMF once it is sufficiently clear that the individual is, in fact, an enemy combatant; whether that is established by concession or by some other process that verifies this fact with sufficient certainty seems beside the point.
Further, Justice Scalia largely ignores the context of this case: a United States citizen captured in a foreign combat zone. Justice Scalia refers to only one case involving this factual scenario — a case in which a United States citizen-prisoner of war (a member of the Italian army) from World War II was seized.on the battlefield in Sicily and then held in the United States. The court in that case held that the military detention of that United States citizen was lawful. See In re Territo, 156 F. 2d, at 148.
Justice Scalia’s treatment of that case — in a footnote— suffers from the same defect as does his treatment of Quirin: Because Justice Scalia finds the fact of battlefield capture irrelevant, his distinction based on the fact that the petitioner “conceded” enemy-combatant status is beside the point. See supra, at 523. Justice Scalia can point to no case or other authority for the proposition that those captured on a foreign battlefield (whether detained there or in U. S. territory) cannot be detained outside the criminal process.
Moreover, Justice Scalia presumably would come to a different result if Hamdi had been kept in Afghanistan or even Guantanamo Bay. See post, at 577. This creates a perverse incentive. Military authorities faced with the stark choice of submitting to the full-blown criminal process or releasing a suspected enemy combatant captured on the battlefield will simply keep citizen-detainees abroad. Indeed, the Government transferred Hamdi from Guantanamo Bay to the United States naval brig only after it learned that he might be an American citizen. It is not at all clear why that should make a determinative constitutional difference.
Ill
Even in cases in which the detention of enemy combatants is legally authorized, there remains the question of what process is constitutionally due to a citizen who disputes his enemy-combatant status. Hamdi argues that he is owed a meaningful and timely hearing and that “extra-judicial detention [that] begins and ends with the submission of an affidavit based on third-hand hearsay” does not comport with the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. Brief for Petitioners 16. The Government counters that any more process than was provided below would be both unworkable and “constitutionally intolerable.” Brief for Respondents 46. Our resolution of this dispute requires a careful examination both of the writ of habeas corpus, which Hamdi now seeks to employ as a mechanism of judicial review, and of the Due Process Clause, which informs the procedural contours of that mechanism in this instance.
A
Though they reach radically different conclusions on the process that ought to attend the present proceeding, the parties begin on common ground. All agree that, absent suspension, the writ of habeas corpus remains available to every individual detained within the United States. U. S. Const., Art. I, § 9, el. 2 (“The Privilege of the Writ of Habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it”). Only in the rarest of circumstances has Congress seen fit to suspend the writ. See, e. g., Act of Mar. 3,1863, ch. 81, § 1, 12 Stat. 755; Act of Apr. 20, 1871, ch. 22, §4, 17 Stat. 14. At all other times, it has remained a critical check on the Executive, ensuring that it does not detain individuals except in accordance with law. See INS v. St Cyr, 533 U. S. 289, 301 (2001). All agree suspension of the writ has not occurred here. Thus, it is undisputed that Hamdi was properly before an Article III court to challenge his detention under 28 U. S. C. § 2241. Brief for Respondents 12. Further, all agree that § 2241 and its companion provisions provide at least a skeletal outline of the procedures to be afforded a petitioner in federal habeas review. Most notably, §2243 provides that “the person detained may, under oath, deny any of the facts set forth in the return or allege any other material facts,” and § 2246 allows the taking of evidence in habeas proceedings by deposition, affidavit, or interrogatories.
The simple outline of §2241 makes clear both that Congress envisioned that habeas petitioners would have some opportunity to present and rebut facts and that courts in cases like this retain some ability to vary the ways in which they do so as mandated by due process. The Government recognizes the basic procedural protections required by the habeas statute, id., at 37-38, but asks us to hold that, given both the flexibility of the habeas mechanism and the circumstances presented in this case, the presentation of the Mobbs Declaration to the habeas court completed the required factual development. It suggests two separate reasons for its position that no further process is due.
B
First, the Government urges the adoption of the Fourth Circuit’s holding below — that because it is “undisputed” that Hamdi’s seizure took place in a combat zone, the habeas determination can be made purely as a matter of law, with no further hearing or factfinding necessary. This argument is easily rejected. As the dissenters from the denial of rehearing en banc noted, the circumstances surrounding Hamdi’s seizure cannot in any way be characterized as “undisputed,” as “those circumstances are neither conceded in fact, nor susceptible to concession in law, because Hamdi has not been permitted to speak for himself or even through counsel as to those circumstances.” 337 F. 3d, at 357 (opinion of Luttig, J.); see also id., at 371-372 (opinion of Motz, J.). Further, the “facts” that constitute the alleged concession are insufficient to support Hamdi’s detention. Under the definition of enemy combatant that we accept today as falling within the scope of Congress’ authorization, Hamdi would need to be “part of or supporting
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Brennan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The petitioner, who was not afforded the assistance of counsel for his defense at his trial, claims that, for this reason, his conviction by a jury in the Court of Record for Escambia County, Florida, deprived him of rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. He obtained a provisional writ of habeas corpus from the Florida Supreme Court on his petition asserting that claim. However, that court, on the petition, the respondent's return and the petitioner's reply — but without any hearing — discharged the writ. 123 So. 2d 249. Since an important constitutional right is involved, we granted certiorari and appointed counsel to represent the petitioner in this Court. 366 U. S. 958, 368 U. S. 806.
The assistance of counsel might well have materially aided the petitioner in coping with several aspects of the case. He was charged with the noncapital offenses of incestuous sexual intercourse with his 13-year-old daughter and, in a separate count relating to the same acts, fondling a minor child, that is, assault in a lewd, lascivious, and indecent manner, upon a female child under the age of 14. At the time of trial two sets of Florida criminal statutes contained language reaching such behavior. Sections 741.22 and 800.04, Florida Statutes, 1959, were general criminal provisions separately defining the two offenses of incest and assault in a lewd, lascivious,' and indecent manner. In addition, both offenses were included within the later enacted Chapter 801 of the Florida Statutes— Florida’s so-called Child Molester Act-^-if the victim was 14 years of age or younger. The Florida Supreme Court plainly conceived the petitioner’s prosecution for both offenses as having been under the Child Molester Act. 123 So. 2d, at 250. While that is an obviously plausible view, a lawyer, but not a layman, might have perceived that because the Child Molester Act was invoked against the petitioner in respect of conduct elsewhere specifically defined as criminal, the 1954 decision of the Florida Supreme Court in Copeland v. State, 76 So. 2d 137, raised doubts, under the Florida Constitution, of the validity of a prosecution based on the Act. The picture is further complicated by the fact that the Child Molester Act had included no reference to incest prior to an amendment made subsequent to the petitioner’s alleged offense.
Establishing the basis of the petitioner’s prosecution was vitally important for the protection of his rights. If the Child Molester Act was validly applied against the petitioner, counsel could have materially assisted him by invoking on his behalf the special provisions of that law governing the disposition of defendants charged under it. Sections 741.22 and 800.04 authorize only jail sentences. In contrast, the Child Molester Act empowers the sentencing judge in a proper case to commit the convicted defendant to a Florida state hospital for treatment and rehabilitation. That law also permits the accused to petition for a psychiatric or psychological examination for the purpose of assisting the court in the trial of the case.
There are thus present considerations of a sort often deemed sufficient to require the conclusion that a trial for crime without defense counsel did not measure up to the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e. g., Chewning v. Cunningham, 368 U. S. 443, 446-447; Reynolds v. Cochran, 365 U. S. 525, 531-532; McNeal v. Culver, 365 U. S. 109, 114-116; Rice v. Olson, 324 U. S. 786, 789-791.
Other aspects of this record also support petitioner’s claim of the unfairness of trying him without affording him the help of a lawyer. As must generally be the case, the trial judge could not effectively discharge the roles of both judge and defense counsel. Here the record shows that the trial judge made efforts to assist the petitioner, but there were important omissions in the guidance he gave. He did not fully apprise the petitioner of vital procedural rights of which laymen could not be expected to know but to which defense counsel doubtless would have called attention. The omissions are significant. See, e. g., Cash v. Culver, 358 U. S. 633, 637—638; Gibbs v. Burke, 337 U. S. 773, 776-778; Hudson v. North Carolina, 363 U. S. 697, 702-703. Despite the allegation in respondent’s return that “the petitioners were carefully instructed by the trial court with regard to the rights guaranteed by both the Constitution of Florida and the Constitution of the United States and with regard to the procedures to be followed during the course of the trial,” it appears that, while petitioner was advised that he need not testify, he was not told what consequences might follow if he did testify. He chose to testify and his criminal record was brought out on his cross-examination. For defense lawyers, it is commonplace to weigh the risk to the accused of the revelation on cross-examination of a prior criminal record, when advising an accused whether to take the stand in his own behalf; for petitioner, the question had to be decided in ignorance of this important consideration. Nor does it appear that the trial judge advised the petitioner of his right to examine prospective jurors on voir dire, or of his right to submit proposed instructions to the jury, or of his right to object to the instructions that were given.
Other circumstances attending this case only serve to accentuate the unfairness of trial without counsel. Petitioner is illiterate. He did not interpose a single objection during the trial. The only two witnesses against him were his daughter and a 15-year-old son. Although both petitioner and his wife testified that they had experienced disciplinary problems with the children, and thus clearly revealed a possibly significant avenue for impeachment of the children’s testimony, there was no cross-examination worthy of the name.
We hold that petitioner’s case was one in which the assistance of counsel, unless intelligently and understandingly waived by him, was a right guaranteed him by the Fourteenth Amendment.
We must therefore consider whether the petitioner did intelligently and understanding^ waive the assistance of counsel. The record does not show that the trial judge offered and the petitioner declined counsel. Cf. Moore v. Michigan, 355 U. S. 155, 160-161. Nevertheless, the State Supreme Court imputed to petitioner the waiver of the benefit of counsel on a ground stated in the court’s opinion as follows: “If the record shows that defendant did not have counsel ... , it will be presumed that defendant waived the benefit of counsel . . . .” 123 So. 2d, at 251. This might mean that the petitioner could have suffered no constitutional deprivation if he had not •formally requested counsel, and that failure to make such a request is to be presumed unless the record shows the contrary. But it is settled that where the assistance of counsel is a constitutional requisite, the right to be furnished counsel does not depend on a request. In McNeal v. Culver, supra, the petitioner’s allegation that he had requested counsel was countered by a denial in the return that “petitioner’s constitutional rights were violated by the court’s alleged refusal to appoint counsel in' his behalf,” and the State Supreme Court noted that the record was silent as to $n.y request. We held that when the Constitution grants protection against criminal proceedings without the assistance of counsel, counsel must be furnished “whether or not the accused requested the appointment of counsel. Uveges v. Pennsylvania, 335 U. S. 437, 441.’” 365 U. S., at 111, n. 1. See Rice v. Olson, supra, at 788; Gibbs v. Burke, supra, at 780.
However, the Florida Supreme Court may not have meant that the constitutional right to counsel depends upon a formal request. The court may have meant that from the very fact that no counsel was present, it would be assumed that the trial judge made an offer of counsel which the petitioner declined. Or, it may have meant that it would assume simply that petitioner knew of his right to counsel and was willing to forego it. Of course, the validity of such presumptions is immediately called in question because the accused has no way of protecting against them during his trial except by requesting counsel — a formality upon which we have just said his right may not be made to depend. Nor is it an answer to say that he may counter such presumptions on collateral attack by showing — if he can- — that he had not in fact agreed, or been willing, to be tried without counsel. To cast such a burden on the accused is wholly at war with the standard of proof of waiver of the right to counsel which we laid down in Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464-465:
“It has been pointed out that 'courts indulge every reasonable presumption against waiver’ of fundamental constitutional rights and that we 'do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights.’
“The constitutional right of an accused to be represented by counsel invokes, of itself, the protection of a trial court, in which the accused — whose life or liberty is at stake — is without counsel. This protecting duty imposes the serious and weighty responsibility upon the trial judge of determining whether there is an intelligent and competent waiver by the accused. While an accused may waive the right to counsel, whether there is a proper waiver should be clearly determined by the trial court, and it would be fitting and appropriate for that determination to appear upon the record.”
We have held the principles declared in Johnson v. Zerbst equally applicable to asserted waivers of the right to counsel in state criminal proceedings. In Rice v. Olson, supra, the petitioner had pleaded guilty to a burglary charge. He did not claim that he had requested counsel, but alleged that he had not been advised of his right to the assistance of counsel and that he had not waived that right. In affirming the denial of relief, the State Supreme Court wrote that “ 'It is not necessary that there be a formal waiver; and a waiver will ordinarily be implied where accused appears without counsel and fails to request that counsel be assigned to him, particularly where accused voluntarily pleads guilty.’ ” We held that even when there had been a guilty plea such an implication, treated as a conclusive presumption, was "inconsistent with our interpretation of the scope of the Fourteenth Amendment,” and that “A defendant who pleads guilty is entitled to the benefit of counsel, and a request for counsel is not necessary.” 324 U. S., at 788. However, we recognized in Rice v. Olson that, although the Fourteenth Amendment would not countenance any presumption of waiver from the appearance of the accused without counsel and the silence of the record as to a request, the entry of the guilty plea might have raised a fact issue as to whether the accused did not intelligently and understanding^ waive his constitutional right. We held that a hearing was required since the facts were in dispute. In the present case, however, there was no guilty plea, and the return to the writ does not allege an affirmative waiver. Therefore, there is no disputed fact question requiring a hearing. Presuming waiver from a silent record is impermissible. The record must show, or there must be an allegation and evidence which show, that an accused was offered counsel but intelligently and understanding^ rejected the offer. Anything less is not waiver.
Neither Bute v. Illinois, 333 U. S. 640, nor Moore v. Michigan, supra, is in any way inconsistent with our holding and disposition here. In Bute, in which the petitioner pleaded guilty without having requested counsel, it was alleged that he had not been advised of his right to counsel. The Court held that there had been no denial of a constitutional right, but it expressly disclaimed a waiver rationale. It decided simply that the nature of the charge and the circumstances attending the reception of the guilty plea, as recited in that record, were not such as to call into play any constitutionally protected right to counsel. In Moore, the record showed cleárly that the petitioner had expressly declined an offer of counsel by the trial judge, and we held that the accused had to show by a preponderance of the evidence that his acquiescence was not sufficiently understanding and intelligent to amount to an effective waiver. But no such burden can be imposed upon an accused unless the record — or a hearing, where required — reveals his affirmative acquiescence. Where, as in this case, the constitutional infirmity of trial without counsel is manifest, and there is not even an allegation, much less á showing, of affirmative waiver, the accused is entitled to relief from his unconstitutional conviction.
The judgment of the Florida Supreme Court is reversed and the cause is remanded for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Mr. Justice Harlan concurs in the result.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the decision of this case.
Mr. Justice White took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Fla. Stat., 1959, §741.22:
“Punishment for incest. — Persons within the degrees of consanguinity within which marriages are prohibited or declared by law to be incestuous and void, who intermarry or commit adultery or fornication with each other, shall be punished by imprisonment in the state prison not exceeding twenty years, or in the county jail not exceeding one year.”
Fla. Stat., 1959, § 800.04:
“Lewd, lascivious or indecent assault or act upon or in presence of child. — Any person who shall handle, fondle or make an assault upon any male or female child under the age of fourteen years in a lewd, lascivious or indecent manner, or who shall knowingly commit any lewd or lascivious act in the presence of such child, without intent to commit rape where such child is female, shall be deemed guilty of a felony and punished by imprisonment in the state prison or county jail for not more than ten years.”
Fla. Stat., 1959, § 801.02:
“Definitions. — An offense under the provisions of this chapter shall include attempted rape, sodomy, attempted sodomy, crimes against nature, attempted crimes against nature, lewd and lascivious behavior, incest and attempted incest, assault (when a sexual act is completed or attempted) and assault and battery (when a sexual act is completed or attempted), when said acts are committed against, to or with a person fourteen years of age or under.”
In the Copeland case, supra, the Florida Supreme Court held that the inclusion of rape in the Child Molester Act — with its attendant alteration in the consequences of that offense when committed against a child of 14 or younger — ran afoul of the State Constitution because the Act embraced 11 distinct crimes separately dealt with in other statutes, because the Act failed to set forth at length the general rape provisions which were pro tanto amended, and because the title of the Act failed to give notice that the consequences of rape had been changed. But see Buchanan v. State, 111 So. 2d 51, in which the District Court of Appeal upheld the Child Molester Act as applied to lewd and lascivious conduct.
Florida Laws, E. S. 1957, c. 57-1990.
Fla. Stat., 1959, §801.03 (1):
“Powers and duties of judge after convictions.—
“(1) When any person has been convicted of an offense within the meaning of this chapter, it shall be within the power and jurisdiction of the trial judge to:
“(a) Sentence said person to a term of years not to exceed twenty-five years in the state prison at Raiford.
“(b) Commit such person for treatment and rehabilitation to the Florida state hospital, or to the hospital or the state institution to which he would be sent as provided by law because of his age or color provided the hospital or institution possesses a maximum security facility as prescribed by the board of commissioners of state institutions. When, as provided for in this law, there shall have been created and established a Florida research and treatment center then the trial judge shall, instead of committing a person to the Florida state hospital, commit such person instead to the Florida research and treatment center. In any such case the court may, in its discretion, stay further criminal proceedings or defer the imposition of sentence pending the discharge of such person from further treatment in accordance with the procedure as outlined in this chapter.”
Fla. Stat., 1959, § 801.08:
“Execution of judgment may be suspended; probation; requirements.—
“(1) The trial judge under whose jurisdiction a conviction is obtained may suspend the execution of judgment and place the defendant upon probation.
“ (2) The trial court placing a defendant on probation may at any time revoke the order placing such defendant on probation and impose such sentence or commitment as might have been imposed at the time of conviction.
“(3) No defendant shall be placed on probation or continue on probation until the court is satisfied that the defendant will take regular psychiatric, psychotherapeutic or counseling help, and the individual helping the defendant shall make written reports at intervals of not more than six months to the court and the probation officer in charge of the case. The costs, fees and charges for treatment of a defendant on probation shall not be a charge of the county where the defendant was tried.”
Fla. Stat., 1959, § 801.10:
“Examination; petition for, court order. — When any person is charged with an offense within the purview of this chapter, said person may petition the court for a psychiatric and psychological examination as heretofore set out and the written report shall be filed with the clerk of the court having jurisdiction of the offense for the purpose of assisting the court in the trial of the case. The court may, of its own initiative, or upon petition of an interested person, order such examination and report as heretofore set out.”
Emphasis in original.
The wife testified: “We tried to be firm with them, but it seemed like the more firm we got, these two older kids, they couldn’t stand the pressure, so they would, every time that their Daddy would get after them or something or other about some of their doings, well, that oldest boy would say, ‘Well, Daddy, you will sure regret it. I will get even with you one way or the other,’ and also the girl would get mad and flirtified and she would almost have the same opinion.”
The entire cross-examination of both witnesses by petitioner and by his wife, who was a codefendant, is as follows:
“CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. WILLARD CARNLEY:
“Q. Carol Jean, you say your mother, she went and made arrangements to get the casket for your sister?
“A. Yes.
“Q. You are right sure now that she did?
“A. I am sure.
“Q. Well, I will tell the Court, my wife was out at Mr. Joe Gayfer’s house—
“THE COURT: Wait a minute, sir, you are testifying. You will have a chance to testify when the State rests. Any questions you wish to ask your daughter, you are welcome to do it.
“CROSS EXAMINATION BY MRS. PEARL CARNLEY:
“Q. Carol Jean, don’t you recall after you got age of maturity that Mother tried to tell you right from wrong and always teach you right from wrong ?
“A. Yes, you have taught me right from wrong.
“THEREUPON the witness was excused.”
“CROSS EXAMINATION BY MRS. CARNLEY:
“Q. J. W., at this period of time, did you realize whenever we was up there at Century of your Dad’s sickness from the time we moved up there until it was springtime, and after he was sick from his stomach that he taken a serious attack down by reason of his employment?
“A. Yes, I realize he said he was sick. He was supposed to be sick. I know that.
“THEREUPON the witness was excused.”
For this reason, there is no occasion to hold a hearing in this case to settle the fact issue raised by the petition and return as to whether the petitioner requested counsel.
Or that the trial judge was justified in believing that the-accused knew perfectly well of his right to counsel, and that it was unnecessary to make an explicit offer and to secure the accused’s rejection of the offer.
Petitioner’s allegation that he requested counsel is, obviously, tantamount to a denial of waiver. The return’s denial of a request is not, however, for reasons already canvassed, the equivalent of an allegation of waiver.
The return alleged that the trial judge instructed petitioner as to his constitutional rights, but this allegation claimed support in the transcript, inspection of which reveals no instruction as to any constitutional right except the right not to testify.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Half the production employees of the Wisconsin Motor Corporation are paid on a piecework or incentive basis. They and the other employees are represented by respondent union, which has had contractual relations with the company since 1937. In 1938 the union initiated a ceiling on the production for which its members would accept immediate piecework pay. This was done at first by gentlemen’s agreement among the members, but since 1944 by union rule enforceable by fines and expulsion. As the rule functions now, members may produce as much as they like each day, but may only draw pay up to the ceiling rate. The additional production is “banked” by the company; that is, wages due for it are retained by the company and paid out to the employee for days on which the production ceiling has not been reached because of machine breakdown or for some other reason. If the member demands to be paid in full each pay period over the ceiling rate the company will comply, but the union assesses a fine of $1 for each violation, and in cases of repeated violation may fine the member up to $100 for “conduct unbecoming a union member.” Failure to pay the fine may lead to expulsion. As the trial examiner found, the company’s complaint is not and cannot be that “the employee, for the pay he receives, has not given the requisite quid pro quo in production.” 145 N. L. R. B. 1097, 1120. Rather, the question is the extent to which the group will forgo for pay the rest periods it has bargained for, and the discipline which the union may invoke to achieve unity toward this end which, the trial examiner found, was “manifestly a matter affecting the interest of the group and in which its collective bargaining strength hinges upon the cooperation of its individual components.” Ibid.
The collective bargaining contract between employer and union defines a “machine rate” of hourly pay guaranteed to the employees. The piecework rate, as defined by the contract, is set at such a level that “the average competent operator working at a reasonable pace [as determined by a time study] shall earn not less than the machine rate of his assigned task.” Allowances are made in the time study for setting up machinery, cleaning tools, fatigue, and personal needs. By ignoring these allowances or by speed and efficiency it is possible for an industrious employee to produce faster than the machine rate. If he does so, he is entitled to additional pay. Union members, however, are subject to the banking procedures imposed by the union rule.
The margin between the “machine” rate set by the contract and the ceiling rate set by the union was 100 per hour in 1944. As a result of collective bargaining between company and union over both the machine and ceiling rates, the margin has been increased to between 450 and 500, depending on the skill level of the job. The company has regularly urged the union to abandon the ceiling and has never agreed to refuse employees immediate pay for work done over the ceiling. However, the parties have bargained over the ceiling rate and the company has extracted from the union promises to increase the ceiling rate. The company opens its work records to the union to permit it to check compliance with the ceiling; pays union stewards for time spent in this checking activity as legitimate union business; and banks money for union members complying with the rule. The ceiling rate is also used in computing piece rate increases and in settling grievances.
This case arose in 1961 when a random card check by the union showed that petitioners, among other union members, had exceeded the ceiling. The union membership imposed fines of $50 to $100, and a year’s suspension from the union. Petitioners refused to pay the fines, and the union brought suit in state court to collect the fines as a matter of local contract law. Petitioners then initiated charges before the National Labor Relations Board, arguing that union enforcement of its rule through the collection of fines was an unfair labor practice. Petitioners asserted that their right to refrain from “concerted activities,” National Labor Relations Act, § 7, 49 Stat. 452, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 157, was impaired by the union’s effort to “restrain or coerce” them, in violation of NLRA, § 8 (b)(1)(A). The trial examiner, after extensive findings, concluded that there was no violation of the Act, and his findings and recommendations were adopted by the Board, 145 N. L. R. B. 1097 (1964), whose order was enforced by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 393 F. 2d 49 (1968). We affirm.
I.
We are met at the outset with the contention that the petition for certiorari was untimely filed. In civil suits certiorari must be applied for “within ninety days after the entry of [the] judgment or decree” of which review is sought. 28 U. S. C. § 2101 (c). In this case an opinion of March 5, 1968, concluded that “upon presentation, an appropriate decree will be entered.” A decree was in fact entered on April 16, 1968. The petition for certiorari was docketed here on July 6, 1968, within 90 days of the decree but not of the opinion.
In our view, the petition for certiorari was timely filed. Petitioners here received a copy of the March 5 opinion, but were given no notice of any entry of judgment on that date, as would be required by Rule 36 of the new Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, effective July 1, 1968. Since no notice was given and it could not have been clear to petitioners whether there was a March 5 judgment or not we hold, without abandoning the standard that a “judgment for our purposes is final when the issues are adjudged” and settled with finality, Market Street R. Co. v. Railroad Commission, 324 U. S. 548, 551-552 (1945); FTC v. Minneapolis-Honeywell Regulator Co., 344 U. S. 206, 212 (1952), that in this case the relevant date is that of the entry of the decree. Cf. Rubber Co. v. Goodyear, 6 Wall. 153, 156 (1868).
II.
Section 8 (b)(1) makes it an unfair labor practice to “restrain or coerce (A) employees in the exercise of the rights guaranteed in [§ 7]: Provided, That this paragraph shall not impair the right of a labor organization to prescribe its own rules with respect to the acquisition or retention of membership therein . . .
Based on the legislative history of the section, including its proviso, the Court in NLRB v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 388 U. S. 175, 195 (1967), distinguished between internal and external enforcement of union rules and held that “Congress did not propose any limitations with respect to the internal affairs of unions, aside from barring enforcement of a union’s internal regulations to affect a member’s employment status.” A union rule, duly adopted and not the arbitrary fiat of a union officer, forbidding the crossing of a picket line during a strike was therefore enforceable against voluntary union members by expulsion or a reasonable fine. The Court thus essentially accepted the position of the National Labor Relations Board dating from Minneapolis Star & Tribune Co., 109 N. L. R. B. 727 (1954) where the Board also distinguished internal from external enforcement in holding that a union could fine a member for his failure to take part in picketing during a strike but that the same rule could not be enforced by causing the employer to exclude him from the work force or by affecting his seniority without triggering violations of §§ 8 (b)(1), 8 (b)(2), 8 (a)(1), 8 (a)(2), and 8 (a)(3). These sections form a web, of which §8 (b)(1)(A) is only a strand, preventing the union from inducing the employer to use the emoluments of the job to enforce the union’s rules.
This interpretation of §8 (b)(1), as the Court explained in Allis-Chalmers, 388 U. S., at 193-195, was reinforced by the Landrum-Griffin Act of 1959 which, although it dealt with the internal affairs of unions, including the procedures for imposing fines or expulsion, did not purport to overturn or modify the Board’s interpretation of § 8 (b) (1). And it was this interpretation which the Board followed in Allis-Chalmers and in the case now before us.
Although the Board’s construction of the section emphasizes the sanction imposed, rather than the rule itself, and does not involve the Board in judging the fairness or wisdom of particular union rules, it has become clear that if the rule invades or frustrates an overriding policy of the labor laws the rule may not be enforced, even by fine or expulsion, without violating § 8 (b)(1). In both Skura and Marine Workers, the Board was concerned with union rules requiring a member to exhaust union remedies before filing an unfair labor practice charge with the Board. That rule, in the Board’s view, frustrated the enforcement scheme established by the statute and the union would commit an unfair labor practice by fining or expelling members who violated the rule.
The Marine Workers case came here and the result reached by the Board was sustained, the Court agreeing that the rule in question was contrary to the plain policy of the Act to keep employees completely free from coercion against making complaints to the Board. Frustrating this policy was beyond the legitimate interest of the labor organization, at least where the member’s complaint concerned conduct of the employer as well as the union.
Under this dual approach, § 8 (b)(1) leaves a union free to enforce a properly adopted rule which reflects a legitimate union interest, impairs no policy Congress has imbedded in the labor laws, and is reasonably enforced against union members who are free to leave the union and escape the rule. This view of the statute must be applied here.
III.
In the case at hand, there is no showing in the record that the fines were unreasonable or the mere fiat of a union leader, or that the membership of petitioners in the union was involuntary. Moreover, the enforcement of the rule was not carried out through means unacceptable in themselves, such as violence or employer discrimination. It was enforced solely through the internal technique of union fines, collected by threat of expulsion or judicial action. The inquiry must therefore focus on the legitimacy of the union interest vindicated by the rule and the extent to which any policy of the Act may be violated by the union-imposed production ceiling.
As both the trial examiner and the Court of Appeals noted, union opposition to unlimited piecework pay systems is historic. Union apprehension, not without foundation, is that such systems will drive up employee productivity and in turn create pressures to lower the piecework rate so that at the new, higher level of output employees are earning little more than they did before. The fear is that the competitive pressure generated will endanger workers’ health, foment jealousies, and reduce the work force. In addition, the findings of the trial examiner were that the ceiling served as a yardstick for the settlement of job allowance grievances, that it has played an important role in negotiating the minimum hourly rate and that it is the standard for "factoring” the hourly rate raises into the piecework rate. The view of the trial examiner was that “in terms of a union’s traditional function of trying to serve the economic interests of the group as a whole, the Union has a very real, immediate, and direct interest in it.” 145 N. L. R. B., at 1135.
It is doubtless true that the union rule in question here affects the interests of all three participants in the labor-management relation: employer, employee, and union. Although the enforcement of the rule is handled as an internal union matter, the rule has and was intended to have an impact beyond the confines of the union organization. But as Allis-Chalmers and Marine Workers made clear, it does not follow from this that the enforcement of the rule violates §8 (b)(1) (A), unless some impairment of a statutory labor policy can be shown.
The principal contention of the petitioners is that the rule impedes collective bargaining, a process nurtured in many ways by the Act. But surely this is not the case here. The union has never denied that the ceiling is a bargainable issue. It has never refused to bargain about it as far as this record shows. Indeed, the union has at various times agreed to raise its ceiling in return for an increase in the piece rate, and the ceiling has been regularly used to compute the new piece rate. In light of this bargaining history it can hardly be said that the union rule has removed this issue from the bargaining table. The company has repeatedly sought an agreement eliminating the piecework ceiling, an agreement which, had it been obtained, unquestionably would have been violated by the union rule. But the company could not attain this. Although, like the union, it could have pressed the point to impasse, Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 379 U. S. 203, 209-215 (1964), followed by strike or lockout, it has never done so. Instead, it has signed contracts recognizing the ceiling, has tolerated it, and has cooperated in its administration by honoring requests by employees to bank their pay for over-ceiling work. We discern no basis in the statutory policy encouraging collective bargaining for giving the employer a better bargain than he has been able to strike at the bargaining table.
Nor does the union ceiling itself or compliance with it by union members violate the collective contract. The company and the union have agreed to an incentive pay scale, but they have also established a guaranteed minimum or machine rate considerably below the union ceiling and defined in the contract as the rate of production of an average, efficient worker. The contract therefore leaves in the hands of the employee the option of taking full advantage of his allowances, performing only as an average employee and not reaching even the ceiling rate. At least there is nothing before us to indicate that the company disciplines individuals who work at only the machine rate or individuals who produce more but who choose not to exceed the union ceiling. The same decision can be made collectively by the union. Although it has agreed in the contract to a pay scale for production in excess of ceiling, that fact in the context of this case does not support an inference that the union has agreed not to impose the ceiling or that its action in announcing one is somehow contrary to the contract. And if neither union nor member is in breach of contract for establishing and adhering to the ceiling, it is equally clear that the rule neither causes nor invites a contract violation by the employer who stands ready to pay an employee for his over-ceiling production or to bank it at his request.
Petitioners purport to characterize the union rule as featherbedding, but it is hard to square this with the collective agreement that an average, efficient employee produces at a “machine” rate substantially below the ceiling. Beyond that, however, Congress has addressed itself specifically to the problem of featherbedding in § 8 (b)(6), making it an unfair labor practice “to cause or attempt to cause an employer to pay or deliver or agree to pay or deliver any money or other thing of value, in the nature of an exaction, for services which are not performed or not to be performed . . . .” 61 Stat. 142, 29 U. S. C. § 158 (b)(6). This narrow prohibition was enacted partly because the Congress found it difficult to define with more particularity just where the area between shiftlessness and overwork should lie. Since Congress has addressed itself to the problem specifically and left a broad area for private negotiation, there is no present occasion for the courts to interfere with private decision. Indeed, there is no claim before us that the rule violates §8 (b)(6). If the company wants to require more work of its employees, let it strike a better bargain. The labor laws as presently drawn will not do so for it.
This leaves the possible argument that because the union has not successfully bargained for a contractual ceiling, it may not impose one on its own members, for doing so will discriminate between members and those others who are free to earn as much as the contract permits. All members of the bargaining unit, however, have the same contractual rights. In dealing with the employer as bargaining agent, the union has accorded all employees uniform treatment. If members are prevented from taking advantage of their contractual rights bargained for all employees it is because they have chosen to become and remain union members. In Allis-Chalmers, the union members were subject to the discipline of an internal rule which strengthened the union’s hand in bargaining and in this respect benefited both the members who obeyed the rule and the nonmembers who did not. The same is true here, and the price of obeying the rule is not as high as in Allis-Chahners. There the member could be replaced for his refusal to report to work during a strike; here he need simply limit his production and suffer whatever consequences that conduct may entail. If a member chooses not to engage in this concerted activity and is unable to prevail on the other members to change the rule, then he may leave the union and obtain whatever benefits in job advancement and extra pay may result from extra work, at the same time enjoying the protection from competition, the high piece rate, and the job security which compliance with the union rule by union members tends to promote.
That the choice to remain a member results in differences between union members and other employees raises no serious issue under § 8 (b) (2) and § 8 (a) (3) of the Act, because the union has not induced the employer to discriminate against the member but has merely forbidden the member to take advantage of benefits which the employer stands willing to confer. Those sections are not aimed at completely internal union discipline of union members, even though the discipline may result in the member’s refusal to accept work offered by the employer. Allis-Chalmers makes this quite clear.
The union rule here left the collective bargaining process unimpaired, breached no collective contract, required no pay for unperformed services, induced no discrimination by the employer against any class of employees, and represents no dereliction by the union of its duty of fair representation. In light of this, and the acceptable manner in which the rule was enforced, vindicating a legitimate union interest, it is impossible to say that it contravened any policy of the Act.
We affirm, holding that the union rule is valid and that its enforcement by reasonable fines does not constitute the restraint or coercion proscribed by § 8 (b)(1)(A).
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Marshall took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
There is a union security clause in the current contract, giving each employee, after a 30-day waiting period, the option of becoming and remaining a member in good standing of the union, or of declining membership but paying the union a “service fee.”
There is also a “day rate,” lower than the machine rate, which applies to periods in which the incentive worker has not been producing, or has produced scrap, through no fault of the company’s. That rate is of no concern here.
Unless the rule or its enforcement impinges on some policy of the federal labor law, the regulation of the relationship between union and employee is a contractual matter governed by local law. As the trial examiner put it in this case, the Board “never intended ... to suggest that the disciplinary action [s] in enforcement of [union] rules . . . were affirmatively protected under the Act, as opposed to merely being not violations thereof.” It is thus a “federally unentered enclave” open to state law. 145 N. L. R. B., at 1133.
The Board has long held that § 8 (b) (1) (A)’s legislative history requires a narrow construction which nevertheless proscribes unacceptable methods of union coercion, such as physical violence to induce employees to join the union or to join in a strike. In re Maritime Union, 78 N. L. R. B. 971, enforced, 175 F. 2d 686 (C. A. 2d Cir. 1949).
The Court has held that the “policy of the Act is to insulate employees’ jobs from their organizational rights.” Radio Officers’ Union v. National Labor Relations Board, 347 U. S. 17, 40 (1954). As an employee, he may be a “good, bad, or indifferent” member so long as he meets the financial obligations of the union security contract. Thus the Board has found an unfair labor practice by union and employer where an employee was discharged for violation of a union rule limiting production. Printz Leather Co., 94 N. L. R. B. 1312 (1951). But as a union member, so long as he chooses to remain one, he is subject to union discipline.
As part of the bill of rights of union members, the Landrum-Griffin Act guaranteed freedom of speech and assembly “Provided, That nothing herein shall be construed to impair the right of a labor organization to adopt and enforce reasonable rules as to the responsibility of every member toward the organization as an institution and to his refraining from conduct that would interfere with its performance of its legal or contractual obligations.” Pub. L. 86-257, Tit. I, §101 (a)(2), 73 Stat. 522, 29 U. S. C. §411 (a)(2).
Local 188, International Union of Operating Engineers, 148 N. L. R. B. 679 (1964).
Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers of America, 159 N. L. R. B. 1065 (1966).
National Labor Relations Board v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipbuilding Workers, 391 U. S. 418 (1968).
The company prefers to employ the minimum number of the most energetic men available; a piecework pay scheme without a ceiling could help it obtain its objective of winnowing the men and reducing their piecework rate. Each employee, as well, has an interest in the ceiling. A slow worker would prefer a low ceiling to protect himself against invidious comparison with faster workers and a possible reduction of the work force beginning with him. A fast worker may prefer to earn as much as possible in a day and so desire a high ceiling or none at all. But all workers have an interest in maintaining a ceiling to the extent that it is necessary to prevent reductions in the piecework rate. The employer and the union (representing the group) may seek to vindicate their interests in bargaining. The individual member may express his interest within the union councils in determining what the group position shall be— and here the trial examiner found that the employees overwhelmingly approved of the ceiling — or through exercising the option of withdrawing from the union.
The trial examiner suggests that if the ceilings did not exist, the management might well invent them to serve its own purposes: maintaining careful work standards and a low scrap rate, and permitting the prediction of production output. 145 N. L. R. B., at 1119-1120.
Senator Taft, cosponsor of the bill and Chairman of the Senate Committee on Labor and Public Welfare, stated on the floor of the Senate that to do more “would require a practical application of the law by the courts in hundreds of different industries, and a determination of facts which it seemed to me would be almost impossible.” By contrast, he said, “we did accept one provision” which “seemed to be a fairly clear case, easy to determine” and narrow. 93 Cong. Rec. 6441.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
G
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U. S. 209 (1977), “we found no constitutional barrier to an agency shop agreement between a municipality and a teacher’s union insofar as the agreement required every employee in the unit to pay a service fee to defray the costs of collective bargaining, contract administration, and grievance adjustment. The union, however, could not, consistently with the Constitution, collect from dissenting employees any sums for the support of ideological causes not germane to its duties as collective-bargaining agent.” Ellis v. Railway Clerks, 466 U. S. 435, 447 (1984). The Ellis case was primarily concerned with the need “to define the line between union expenditures that all employees must help defray and those that are not sufficiently related to collective bargaining to justify their being imposed on dissenters.” Ibid. In contrast, this case concerns the constitutionality of the procedure adopted by the Chicago Teachers Union, with the approval of the Chicago Board of Education, to draw that necessary line and to respond to nonmembers’ objections to the manner in which it was drawn.
I
The Chicago Teachers Union has acted as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of the Board’s educational employees continuously since 1967. Approximately 95% of the 27,500 employees in the bargaining unit are members of the Union. Until December 1982, the Union members’ dues financed the entire cost of the Union’s collective bargaining and contract administration. Nonmembers received the benefits of the Union’s representation without making any financial contribution to its cost.
In an attempt to solve this “free rider” problem, the Union made several proposals for a “fair share fee” clause in the labor contract. Because the Illinois School Code did not expressly authorize such a provision, the Board rejected these proposals until the Illinois General Assembly amended the School Code in 1981. In the following year, the Chicago Teachers Union and the Chicago Board of Education entered into an agreement requiring the Board to deduct “proportionate share payments” from the paychecks of nonmembers. The new contractual provision authorized the Union to specify the amount of the payment; it stipulated that the amount could not exceed the members’ dues. The contractual provision also required the Union to indemnify the Board for all action taken to implement the new provision.
For the 1982-1983 school year, the Union determined that the “proportionate share” assessed on nonmembers was 95% of union dues. At that time, the union dues were $17.35 per month for teachers and $12.15 per month for other covered employees; the corresponding deduction from the nonmembers’ checks thus amounted to $16.48 and $11.54 for each of the 10 months that dues were payable.
Union officials computed the 95% fee on the basis of the Union’s financial records for the fiscal year ending on June 30, 1982. They identified expenditures unrelated to collective bargaining and contract administration (which they estimated as $188,549.82). They divided this amount by the Union’s income for the year ($4,103,701.58) to produce a percentage of 4.6%; the figure was then rounded off to 5% to provide a “cushion” to cover any inadvertent errors.
The Union also established a procedure for considering objections by nonmembers. Before the deduction was made, the nonmember could not raise any objection. After the deduction was made, a nonmember could object to the “proportionate share” figure by writing to the Union President within 30 days after the first payroll deduction. The objection then would meet a three-stage procedure. First, the Union’s Executive Committee would consider the objection and notify the objector within 30 days of its decision. Second, if the objector disagreed with that decision and appealed within another 30 days, the Union’s Executive Board would consider the objection. Third, if the objector continued to protest after the Executive Board decision, the Union President would select an arbitrator from a list maintained by the Illinois Board of Education. The Union would pay for the arbitration, and, if there were multiple objections, they could be consolidated. If an objection was sustained at any stage of the procedure, the remedy would be an immediate reduction in the amount of future deductions for all nonmembers and a rebate for the objector.
In October 1982, the Union formally requested the Board to begin making deductions and advised it that a hearing procedure had been established for nonmembers’ objections. The Board accepted the Union’s 95% determination without questioning its method of calculation and without asking to review any of the records supporting it. The Board began to deduct the fee from the paychecks of nonmembers in December 1982. The Board did not provide the nonmembers with any explanation of the calculation, or of the Union’s procedures. The Union did undertake certain informational efforts. It asked its member delegates at all schools to distribute flyers, display posters, inform nonmembers of the deductions, and invite nonmembers to join the Union with an amnesty for past fines. It also described the deduction and the protest procedures in the December issue of the Union newspaper, which was distributed to nonmembers.
Three nonmembers — Annie Lee Hudson, K. Celeste Campbell, and Walter Sherrill — sent identical letters of protest to the Union stating that they believed the Union was using part of their salary for purposes unrelated to collective bargaining and demanding that the deduction be reduced. A fourth nonmember — Beverly Underwood — objected to any deduction from her paycheck. The Union’s response to each of the four briefly explained how the proportionate-share fee had been calculated, described the objection procedure, enclosed a copy of the Union Implementation Plan, and concluded with the advice that “any objection you may file” would be processed in compliance with that procedure. None of the letters was referred to the Executive Committee. Only Hudson wrote a second letter; her request for detailed financial information was answered with an invitation to make an appointment for an “informational conference” at the Union’s office, at which she could review the Union’s financial records. The four nonmembers made no further effort to invoke the Union procedures; instead, they challenged the new procedure in court.
I — I I — I
In March 1983, the four nonmembers, joined by three other nonmembers who had not sent any letters, filed suit in Federal District Court, naming as defendants, the Union, its officials, the Board, and the Board members. They objected to the Union procedure for three principal reasons: it violated their First Amendment rights to freedom of expression and association; it violated their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights; and it permitted the use of their proportionate shares for impermissible purposes.
The District Court rejected the challenges. 573 F. Supp. 1505 (ND Ill. 1983). It first noted that the procedure passed the initial threshold established by an earlier Seventh Circuit opinion on the subject because the procedure itself was fair; it represented a good-faith effort by the Union; and it was not unduly cumbersome. The District Court then rejected' the First Amendment objection because it found that the procedure was the “least restrictive means” to protect the nonmembers’ First Amendment rights while also protecting the Union’s legitimate interest in promptly obtaining service fees from nonmembers. The District Court also rejected the argument that the procedure deprived the plaintiffs of property without due process because it did not accept the plaintiffs’ analogy to cases requiring predeprivation hearings. Finally, the District Court refused to reach the contention that the nonmembers’ proportionate shares were, in fact, being used for impermissible purposes. The District Court found that only two of the plaintiffs (Hudson and Underwood) had validly invoked the Union procedure; that only those two were thus entitled to rebates if their objections were sustained; and that any assessment of the permissible use of the funds should await the outcome of the Union procedure.
The posture of the case changed significantly in the Court of Appeals. The plaintiffs no longer focused on the claim that particular expenditures were inappropriate; they concentrated their attack on the procedure used by the Union to determine the amount of the deductions and to respond to their objections. The Union also modified its position. Instead of defending the procedure upheld by the District Court, it advised the Court of Appeals that it had voluntarily placed all of the dissenters’ agency fees in escrow, and thereby avoided any danger that respondents’ constitutional rights would be violated.
The Court of Appeals was unanimous in its judgment reversing the District Court. 743 F. 2d 1187 (CA7 1984). All three judges agreed that the Constitution requires the Union to follow a procedure that protects the nonmembers from being compelled to subsidize political or ideological activities not germane to the collective-bargaining process, that the Union’s objection procedure was inadequate, and that any rebate which allowed the Union temporary use of money for activities that violate the nonmembers’ rights was unconstitutional. In his concurring opinion, however, Judge Flaum declined to reach certain questions discussed by the majority.
Specifically, the majority concluded that the category of impermissible expenditures included all those that were not germane to collective bargaining, even if they might not be characterized as “political or ideological.” Judge Flaum found it unnecessary to reach this constitutional issue because the procedure could be deemed inadequate without deciding it and because, in his view, the collective-bargaining agreement and the Illinois statute limited agency shop fees to collective-bargaining and representational expenses. However, the majority believed that its conclusion derived from the fact that the possible infringement on the “liberty” of the nonmembers was not limited to the forced subsidization of political or ideological views, but also included the negative dimension of the freedom of association.
Determining that the Union’s existing procedure was constitutionally inadequate, and that the Union “must go back to the drawing board,” id., at 1196, the majority suggested that the “constitutional minimum” of any revised procedure must include “fair notice, a prompt administrative hearing before the Board of Education or some other state or local agency— the hearing to incorporate the usual safeguards for eviden-tiary hearings before administrative agencies — and a right of judicial review of the agency’s decision. The combination of an internal union remedy and an arbitration procedure is unlikely to satisfy constitutional requirements given the nature of the issues to be decided and the union’s stake in how they are decided.” Ibid.
In response to the Union’s advice that it had voluntarily placed dissenters’ agency fees in escrow, the majority noted that the Union had made no commitment to continue the escrow in the future, had not indicated the terms of the escrow, and, in all events, “[t]he terms cannot be left entirely up to the Union.” Id., at 1197.
The importance of the case, and the divergent approaches of other courts to the issue, led us to grant certiorari, 472 U. S. 1007 (1985). We affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals, but we do not find it necessary to resolve all of the questions discussed in its opinion.
I — Í HH l-H
In Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U. S. 209 (1977), we recognized that requiring nonunion employees to support their collective-bargaining representative “has an impact upon their First Amendment interests,” id., at 222, and may well “interfere in some way with an employee’s freedom to associate for the advancement of ideas, or to refrain from doing so, as he sees fit,” ibid. See also id., at 255 (Powell, J., concurring in judgment). We nevertheless rejected the claim that it was unconstitutional for a public employer to designate a union as the exclusive collective-bargaining representative of its employees, and to require nonunion employees, as a condition of employment, to pay a fair share of the union’s cost of negotiating and administering a collective-bargaining agreement. We also held, however, that nonunion employees do have a constitutional right to “prevent the Union’s spending a part of their required service fees to contribute to political candidates and to express political views unrelated to its duties as exclusive bargaining representative.” Id., at 234.
The question presented in this case is whether the procedure used by the Chicago Teachers Union and approved by the Chicago Board of Education adequately protects the basic distinction drawn in Abood. “[T]he objective must be to devise a way of preventing compulsory subsidization of ideological activity by employees who object thereto without restricting the Union’s ability to require every employee to contribute to the cost of collective-bargaining activities.” Id., at 237.
Procedural safeguards are necessary to achieve this objective for two reasons. First, although the government interest in labor peace is strong enough to support an “agency-shop” notwithstanding its limited infringement on nonunion employees’ constitutional rights, the fact that, those rights are protected by the First Amendment requires that the procedure be carefully tailored to minimize the infringement. Second, the nonunion employee — the individual whose First Amendment rights are being affected — must have a fair opportunity to identify the impact of the governmental action on his interests and to assert a meritorious First Amendment claim.
In Ellis v. Railway Clerks, 466 U. S., at 443, we determined that, under the Railway Labor Act, a “pure rebate approach is inadequate.” We explained that, under such an approach, in which the union refunds to the non-union employee any money to which the union was not entitled, “the union obtains an involuntary loan for purposes to which the employee objects.” Id., at 444. We noted the possibility of “readily available alternatives, such as advance reduction of dues and/or interest-bearing escrow accounts,” ibid., but, for purposes of that case, it was sufficient to strike down the rebate procedure.
In this case, we must determine whether the challenged Chicago Teachers Union procedure survives First Amendment scrutiny, either because the procedure upheld by the District Court was constitutionally sufficient, or because the subsequent adoption of an escrow arrangement cured any constitutional defect. We consider these questions in turn.
r — I <
The procedure that was initially adopted by the Union and considered by the District Court contained three fundamental flaws. First, as in Ellis, a remedy which merely offers dissenters the possibility of a rebate does not avoid the risk that dissenters’ funds may be used temporarily for an improper purpose. “[T]he Union should not be permitted to exact a service fee from nonmembers without first establishing a procedure which will avoid the risk that their funds will be used, even temporarily, to finance ideological activities unrelated to collective bargaining.” Abood, 431 U. S., at 244 (concurring opinion). The amount at stake for each individual dissenter does not diminish this concern. For, whatever the amount, the quality of respondents’ interest in not being compelled to subsidize the propagation of political or ideological views that they oppose is clear. In Abood, we emphasized this point by quoting the comments of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison about the tyrannical character of forcing an individual to contribute even “three pence” for the “propagation of opinions which he disbelieves.” A forced exaction followed by a rebate equal to the amount improperly expended is thus not a permissible response to the nonunion employees’ objections.
Second, the “advance reduction of dues” was inadequate because it provided nonmembers with inadequate information about the basis for the proportionate share. In Abood, we reiterated that the nonunion employee has the burden of raising an objection, but that the union retains the burden of proof: “‘Since the unions possess the facts and records from which the proportion of political to total union expenditures can reasonably be calculated, basic considerations of fairness compel that they, not the individual employees, bear the burden of proving such proportion.’” Abood, 431 U. S., at 239-240, n. 40, quoting Railway Clerks v. Allen, 373 U. S. 113, 122 (1963). Basic considerations of fairness, as well as concern for the First- Amendment rights at stake, also dictate that the potential objectors be given sufficient information to gauge the propriety of the union’s fee. Leaving the nonunion employees in the dark about the source of the figure for the agency fee — and requiring them to object in order to receive information — does not adequately protect the careful distinctions drawn in Abood.
In this case, the original information given to the nonunion employees was inadequate. Instead of identifying the expenditures for collective bargaining and contract administration that had been provided for the benefit of nonmembers as well as members — and for which nonmembers as well as members can fairly be charged a fee — the Union identified the amount that it admittedly had expended for purposes that did not benefit dissenting nonmembers. An acknowledgment that nonmembers would not be required to pay any part of 5% of the Union’s total annual expenditures was not an adequate disclosure of the reasons why they were required to pay their share of 95%.
Finally, the original Union procedure was also defective because it did not provide for a reasonably prompt decision by an impartial decisionmaker. Although we have not so specified in the past, we now conclude that such a requirement is necessary. The nonunion employee, whose First Amendment rights are affected by the agency shop itself and who bears the burden of objecting, is entitled to have his objections addressed in an expeditious, fair, and objective manner.
The Union’s procedure does not meet this requirement. As the Seventh Circuit observed, the “most conspicuous feature of the procedure is that from start to finish it is entirely controlled by the union, which is an interested party, since it is the recipient of the agency fees paid by the dissenting employees.” 743 F. 2d, at 1194-1195. The initial consideration of the agency fee is made by Union officials, and the first two steps of the review procedure (the Union Executive Committee and Executive Board) consist of Union officials. The third step — review by a Union-selected arbitrator — is also inadequate because the selection represents the Union’s unrestricted choice from the state list.
Thus, the original Union procedure was inadequate because it failed to minimize the risk that nonunion employees’ contributions might be used for impermissible purposes, because it failed to provide adequate justification for the advance reduction of dues, and because it failed to offer a reasonably prompt decision by an impartial decisionmaker.
V
The Union has not only created an escrow of 100% of the contributions exacted from the respondents, but has also advised us that it would not object to the entry of a judgment compelling it to maintain an escrow system in the future. The Union does not contend that its escrow has made the case moot. Rather, it takes the position that because a 100% escrow completely avoids the risk that dissenters’ contributions could be used improperly, it eliminates any valid constitutional objection to the procedure and thereby provides an adequate remedy in this case. We reject this argument.
Although the Union’s self-imposed remedy eliminates the risk that nonunion employees’ contributions may be temporarily used for impermissible purposes, the procedure remains flawed in two respects. It does not provide an adequate explanation for the advance reduction of dues, and it does not provide a reasonably prompt decision by an impartial decisionmaker. We reiterate that these characteristics are required because the agency shop itself impinges on the nonunion employees’ First Amendment interests, and because the nonunion employee has the burden of objection. The appropriately justified advance reduction and the prompt, impartial decisionmaker are necessary to minimize both the impingement and the burden.
We need not hold, however, that a 100% escrow is constitutionally required. Such a remedy has the serious defect of depriving the Union of access to some escrowed funds that it is unquestionably entitled to retain. If, for example, the original disclosure by the Union had included a certified public accountant’s verified breakdown of expenditures, including some categories that no dissenter could reasonably challenge, there would be no reason to escrow the portion of the nonmember’s fees that would be represented by those categories. On the record before us, there is no reason to believe that anything approaching a 100% “cushion” to cover the possibility of mathematical errors would be constitutionally required. Nor can we decide how the proper contribution that might be made by an independent audit, in advance, coupled with adequate notice, might reduce the size, of any appropriate escrow.
Thus, the Union’s 100% escrow does not cure all of the problems in the original procedure. Two of the three flaws remain, and the procedure therefore continues to provide less than the Constitution requires in this context.
VI
We hold today that the constitutional requirements for the Union’s collection of agency fees include an adequate explanation of the basis for the fee, a reasonably prompt opportunity to challenge the amount of the fee before an impartial decisionmaker, and an escrow for the amounts reasonably in dispute while such challenges are pending.
The determination of the appropriate remedy in this case is a matter that should be addressed in the first instance by the District Court. The Court of Appeals correctly reversed the District Court’s original judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings. That judgment of reversal is affirmed, and those further proceedings should be consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The statute, which became effective on August 1, 1981, provided:
“Where a collective bargaining agreement is entered into with an employee representative organization, the school board may include in the agreement a provision requiring employees covered by the agreement who are not members of the representative organization to pay their proportionate share of the cost of the collective bargaining process and contract administration, measured by the amount of dues uniformly required by members. In such case, proportionate share payments shall be deducted by the board from the earnings of the non-member employees and paid to the representative organization.” Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 122, ¶ 10-22.40a (1983).
That statute has now been superseded by the Illinois Educational Labor Relations Act, Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 48, ¶1701 et seq. (Supp. 1984).
The three other nonmembers were Estherlene Holmes, Edna Rose McCoy, and Dr. Debra Ann Petitan. For an unknown reason, proportionate shares had not been deducted from McCoy’s paycheck. 573 F. Supp. 1505, 1509, n. 6 (ND Ill. 1983). Proportionate shares had, however, been deducted from the paychecks of the other six plaintiffs. Id., at 1509.
Respondents relied on 42 U. S. C. § 1983 as a basis for their federal constitutional claims. They also alleged pendent state claims. The District Court rejected the pendent claims, and respondents have not pursued them. Similarly, respondents mounted a facial attack on the Illinois statute as violative of the First Amendment and the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. The District Court also rejected this facial attack.
The plaintiffs had challenged, for instance, the Union’s 95% calculation because more than half of the Union’s income ($2,167,000 of an income of $4,103,701.58) was passed on to affiliated state and national labor organizations. The plaintiffs claimed that some of this money was expended for political or ideological activities.
“The unusual feature of this case is that the plaintiffs, while objecting in passing to particular uses of the agency fee, make almost their whole attack on the procedure for determining how much shall be deducted.” 743 F. 2d 1187, 1191 (CA7 1984). Respondents do not dispute this assessment.
Presumably because the First Amendment arguments were dispos-itive, neither the majority nor the concurrence mentioned the plaintiffs’ objections that they were being deprived of property without due process. The majority viewed its freedom of association analysis in terms of the due process required for a deprivation of liberty. Like the District Court, moreover, the Seventh Circuit rejected the facial challenge to the constitutionality of the Illinois statute.
See, e. g.„ Robinson v. New Jersey, 741 F. 2d 598 (CA3 1984), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 1228 (1985); Kempner v. Dearborn Local 2077, 126 Mich. App. 452, 337 N. W. 2d 354 (1983), appeal dism’d, 469 U. S. 926 (1984); White Cloud Education Assn. v. Board of Education, 101 Mich. App. 309, 300 N. W. 2d 551 (1980), appeal dism’d, 469 U. S. 875 (1984); School Committee of Greenfield v. Greenfield Education Assn., 385 Mass. 70, 431 N. E. 2d 180 (1982); Association of Capitol Powerhouse Engineers v. Division of Building and Grounds, 89 Wash. 2d 177, 570 P. 2d 1042 (1977).
Earlier cases had construed the Railway Labor Act to permit a similar arrangement without violating the Constitution. See Railway Clerks v. Allen, 373 U. S. 113 (1963); Machinists v. Street, 367 U. S. 740 (1961); Railway Employees v. Hanson, 351 U. S. 225 (1956). In Abood, we emphasized that those cases reflected the important “principle of exclusive union representation,” 431 U. S., at 220, and that they accorded great weight to the congressional judgment that “it would promote peaceful labor relations to permit a union and an employer to conclude an agreement requiring employees who obtain the benefit of union representation to share its cost.” Id., at 219. See also Ellis v. Railway Clerks, 466 U. S. 435, 455-456 (1984) (“[B]y allowing the union shop at all, we have already countenanced a significant impingement on First Amendment rights.... It has long been settled that such interference with First Amendment rights is justified by the governmental interest in industrial peace”).
We explained that this right is firmly grounded in the First Amendment:
“The fact that the appellants are compelled to make, rather than prohibited from making, contributions for political purposes works no less an infringement of their constitutional rights. For at the heart of the First Amendment is the notion that an individual should be free to believe as he will, and that in a free society one’s beliefs should be shaped by his mind and his conscience rather than coerced by the State. See Elrod v. Burns, [427 U. S.], at 356-357; Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U. S. 557, 565; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 303-304....
“These principles prohibit a State from compelling any individual to affirm his belief in God, Torcaso v. Watkins, 367 U. S. 488, or to associate with a political party, Elrod v. Burns, supra; see 427 U. S., at 363-364, n. 17, as a condition of retaining public employment. They are no less applicable to the case at bar, and they thus prohibit the appellees from requiring any of the appellants to contribute to the support of an ideological cause he may oppose as a condition of holding a job as a public school teacher.” 431 U. S., at 234-235 (footnote omitted).
We also emphasized that freedom of association, as well as freedom of expression, supported our conclusion. See id., at 233. See also Roberts v. United States Jaycees, 468 U. S. 609, 623 (1984) (citing Abood for the principle that “[fjreedom of association... plainly presupposes a freedom not to associate”).
Under an “agency shop” arrangement, a union that acts as exclusive bargaining representative may charge nonunion members, who do not have to join the union or pay union dues, a fee for acting as their bargaining representative. R. Gorman, Basic Text on Labor Law 642 (1976).
See Roberts v. United States Jaycees, supra, at 623 (Infringements on freedom of association “may be justified by regulations adopted to serve compelling state interests, unrelated to the suppression of ideas, that cannot be achieved through means significantly less restrictive of associational freedoms”); Elrod v. Burns, 427 U. S. 347, 363 (1976) (government means must be “least restrictive of freedom of belief and association”); Kusper v. Pontikes, 414 U. S. 51, 58-59 (1973) (“[E]ven when pursuing a legitimate interest, a State may not choose means that unnecessarily restrict constitutionally protected liberty”); NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 438 (1963) (“Precision of regulation must be the touchstone” in the First Amendment context).
“[P]roeedural safeguards often have a special bite in the First Amendment context.” G. Gunther, Cases and Materials on Constitutional Law 1373 (10th ed. 1980). Commentators have discussed the importance of procedural safeguards in our analysis of obscenity, Monaghan, First Amendment “Due Process,” 83 Harv. L. Rev. 518, 520-524 (1970); over-breadth, L. Tribe, American Constitutional Law 734-736 (1978); vagueness, Gunther, supra, at 1373, n. 2, and 1185-1195; and public forum permits, Blasi, Prior Restraints on Demonstrations, 68 Mich. L. Rev. 1481, 1534-1572 (1970). The purpose of these safeguards is to insure that the government treads with sensitivity in areas freighted with First Amendment concerns. See generally Monaghan, supra, at 551 (“The first amendment due process cases have shown that first amendment rights are fragile and can be destroyed by insensitive procedures”).
Respondents argue that this case should be considered through the prism of the procedural due process protections necessary for deprivations of property. As in Abood, we analyze the problem from the perspective of the First Amendment concerns. We are convinced that, in this context, the procedures required by the First Amendment also provide the protections necessary for any deprivation of property.
Moreover, in view of the fact that the First Amendment principles identified in Abood require procedural safeguards and in view of the fact that respondents’ challenge is to the procedure, not the expenditures, we find it unnecessary to resolve any question concerning nongermane, nonideo-logieal expenditures. Unlike the Seventh Circuit, we are not convinced that resolution of the constitutional nongermaneness question will lead to appreciably different procedural requirements, and we thus find no need to reach that constitutional question. See Rescue Army v. Municipal Court, 331 U. S. 549, 568-572 (1947). Cf. Ellis v. Railway Clerks, 466 U. S. 435 (1984) (analyzing specific challenged expenditures under the Railway Labor Act and, as necessary, under the First Amendment).
Like the Seventh Circuit, we consider the procedure as it was presented to the District Court. It is clear that “voluntary cessation of allegedly illegal conduct does not moot a case.” United States v. Concentrated Phosphate Export Assn., Inc., 393 U. S. 199, 203 (1968). See also City of Mesquite v. Aladdin’s Castle, Inc., 455 U. S. 283, 289 (1982); United States v. W. T. Grant Co., 345 U. S. 629, 632 (1953). The same concerns — the fear that a defendant would be “free to return to his old ways,” ibid., and that he would have “a powerful weapon against public law enforcement,” ibid.— dictate that we’review the legality of the practice defended before the District Court.'
“James Madison, the First Amendment’s author, wrote in defense of religious liberty: ‘Who does not see... [t]hat the same authority which can force a citizen to contribute three pence only of his property for the support of any one establishment, may force him to conform to any other establishment in all cases whatsoever?’ 2 The Writings of James Madison 186 (G. Hunt ed. 1901). Thomas Jefferson agreed that ‘to compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves, is sinful and tyrannical.’ I. Brant, James Madison: The Nationalist 354 (1948).” Abood, 431 U. S., at 234-235, n. 31.
The nonmember’s “burden” is simply the obligation to make his objection known. See Machinists v. Street, 367 U. S., at 774 (“[Djissent is not to be presumed — it must affirmatively be made known to the union by the dissenting employee”); Railway Clerks v. Allen, 373 U. S., at 119; Abood, 431 U. S., at 238.
Although public sector unions are not subject to the disclosure requirements of the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act, see 29 U. S. C. § 402(e), the fact that private sector unions have a duty of disclosure suggests that a limited notice requirement does not impose an undue burden on the union. This is not to suggest, of course, that the information required by that Act, see 29 U. S. C. § 431(b); 29 CFR §403.3 (1985), is either necessary or sufficient to satisfy the First Amendment concerns in this context.
We continue to recognize that there are practical reasons why “[ajbso-lute precision” in the calculation of the charge to nonmembers cannot be “expected or required.” Allen, 373 U. S., at 122, quoted in Abood, 431 U. S., at 239-240, n. 40. Thus, for instance, the Union cannot be faulted for calculating its fee on the basis of its expenses during the preceding year. The Union need not provide nonmembers with an exhaustive and detailed list of all its expenditures, but adequate disclosure surely would include the major categories of expenses, as well as verification by an independent auditor. With respect to an item such as the Union’s payment of $2,167,000 to its affiliated state and national labor organizations, see n. 4, supra, for instance, either a showing that none of it was used to subsidize activities for which nonmembers may not be charged, or an explanation of the share that was so used was surely required.
Our prior opinions have merely suggested the desirability of an internal union remedy. See Abood, supra, at 240, and n. 41; Allen, supra, at 122.
We reject the Union’s suggestion that the availability of ordinary judicial remedies is sufficient. This contention misses the point. Since the agency shop itself is “a significant impingement on First Amendment rights,” Ellis, 466 U. S., at 455, the government and union have a responsibility to provide procedures that minimize that impingement and that facilitate a nonunion employee’s ability to protect his rights. We are considering here the procedural adequacy of the agency shop arrangement itself; we presume that the courts remain available as the ultimate protectors of constitutional rights.
In other First Amendment contexts, of course, we have required swift judicial review of the challenged governmental action. See, e. g., Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad, 420 U. S. 546 (1975); Blount v. Rizzi, 400 U. S. 410 (1971); Freedman v. Maryland, 380 U. S. 51 (1965). In this context, we do not believe that such special judicial procedures are necessary. Clearly, however, if a State chooses to provide extraordinarily swift judicial review for these challenges, that review would satisfy the requirement of a reasonably prompt decision by an impartial decisionmaker.
We do not agree, however, with the Seventh Circuit that a full-dress administrative hearing, with evidentiary safeguards,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
G
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The Courts of Appeals for the Fifth and Sixth Circuits have set aside cease-and-desist orders of the Federal Trade Commission prohibiting respondent insurance companies from carrying on certain advertising practices found by the Commission to be false, misleading, and deceptive, in violation of the Federal Trade Commission Act, 15 U. S. C. § 45. These orders seek to proscribe activities within the boundaries of States that have their own statutes prohibiting unfair and deceptive insurance practices as well as within States that do not. The courts below concluded that in view of the existence of these statutes, the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 15 U. S. C. §§ 1011— 1015, prohibits the Federal Trade Commission from regulating such practices within the States having these statutes. We granted certiorari to review this interpretation of an important federal statute. 355 U. S. 867.
Respondents, the National Casualty Company in No. 435 and the American Hospital and Life Insurance Company in No. 436, engage in the sale of health and accident insurance. National is licensed to sell policies in all States, as well as the District of Columbia and Hawaii, while American is licensed in fourteen States. Solicitation of business for National is carried on by independent agents who operate on commission. The company’s advertising material is prepared by it and shipped in bulk to these agents, who distribute the material locally and assume the expense of such dissemination. Only an insubstantial amount of any advertising goes directly by mail from the company to the public, and there is no use of radio, television, or other means of mass communication by the company. American does not materially differ from National in method of operation.
The pertinent portions of the McCarran-Ferguson Act are set forth in the margin. An examination of that statute and its legislative history establishes that the Act withdrew from the Federal Trade Commission the authority to regulate respondents’ advertising practices in those States which are regulating those practices under their own laws.
Petitioner asserts that for constitutional reasons the McCarran-Ferguson Act should be construed to authorize federal regulation in these cases. It is urged that because Congress understood that in accordance with due process there are territorial limitations on the power of the States to regulate an interstate business, it did not intend to foreclose federal regulation of interstate insurance as a supplement to state action. However, petitioner concedes that this constitutional infirmity on the power of the States does not operate to hinder state regulation of the advertising practices of the respondents in the instant cases. Whatever may have been the intent of Congress with regard to interstate insurance practices which the States cannot for constitutional reasons regulate effectively, that intent is irrelevant in the cases before us. Respondents’ advertising programs require distribution by their local agents, and there is no question but that the States possess ample means to regulate this adver-) tising within their respective boundaries. Cf., e. g., Robertson v. California, 328 U. S. 440, 445, n. 6, 461.
Petitioner also argues in a different vein that even if the McCarran-Ferguson Act bars federal regulation where state regulation has been effectively applied, the exercise of Commission authority in these cases should be upheld because the States have not “regulated” within the meaning of the Section 2 (b) proviso. This argument is not persuasive in the instant cases. Each State in question has enacted prohibitory legislation which proscribes unfair insurance advertising and authorizes enforcement through a scheme of administrative supervision. Petitioner does not argue that the statutory provisions here under review were mere pretense. Rather, it urges that a general prohibition designed to guarantee certain standards of conduct is too “inchoate” to be “regulation” until that prohibition has been crystallized into “administrative elaboration of these standards and application in individual cases.” However, assuming there is some difference in the McCarran-Ferguson Act between “legislation” and “regulation,” nothing in the language of that Act or its legislative history supports the distinctions drawn by petitioner. So far as we can determine from the records and arguments in these cases, the proviso in Section 2 (b) has been satisfied.
The judgments of the Courts of Appeals are
Affirmed.
The decision of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is reported at 243 F. 2d 719. The decision of the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit is reported at 245 F. 2d 883.
“That the Congress hereby declares that the continued regulation and taxation by the several States of the business of insurance is in the public interest, and that silence on the part of the Congress shall not be construed to impose any barrier to the regulation or taxation of such business by the several States.
“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 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 Sherman Act, . . . the Clayton Act, and . . . the Federal Trade Commission Act . . . shall be applicable to the business of insurance to the extent that such business is not regulated by State law. . . .” 59 Stat. 33, as amended, 61 Stat. 448, 70 Stat. 908.
The crucial proviso in Section 2 (b) was the subject of extended debate. See, especially, the remarks of Senator McCarran, 91 Cong. Rec. 1443, and Senator Ferguson, 91 Cong. Rec. 1481. A substantial amount of material appears during the formulating period of the McCarran-Ferguson Act. See, e. g., S. Rep. No. 20, 79th Cong., 1st Sess.; H. R. Rep. No. 143, 79th Cong., 1st Sess., and the remarks of Senators Ferguson, Murdock, and Radcliffe, 91 Cong. Rec. 482-483, and of Representatives Hancock and Gwynne, 91 Cong. Rec. 1087, 1089-1090.
Cf., e. g., H. R. Rep. No. 143, 79th Cong., 1st Sess. 3, and 91 Cong. Rec. 1442.
See also Hoopeston Canning Co. v. Cullen, 318 U. S. 313; Osborn v. Ozlin, 310 U. S. 53.
At the time the complaints were filed thirty-six States had enacted the “Model Unfair Trade Practices Bill for Insurance.” Eight others had statutes essentially the same in effect as the “Model Bill.”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
This is a suit for damages stemming from a warrantless wiretap authorized by petitioner, a former Attorney General of the United States. The case presents three issues: whether the Attorney General is absolutely immune from suit for actions undertaken in the interest of national security; if not, whether the District Court’s finding that petitioner is not immune from suit for his actions under the qualified immunity standard of Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800 (1982), is appealable; and, if so, whether the District Court’s ruling on qualified immunity was correct.
H
In 1970, the Federal Bureau of Investigation learned that members of an antiwar group known as the East Coast Conspiracy to Save Lives (ECCSL) had made plans to blow up heating tunnels linking federal office buildings in Washington, D. C., and had also discussed the possibility of kidnaping then National Security Adviser Henry Kissinger. On November 6, 1970, acting on the basis of this information, the then Attorney General John Mitchell authorized a war-rantless wiretap on the telephone of William Davidon, a Haverford College physics professor who was a member of the group. According to the Attorney General, the purpose of the wiretap was the gathering of intelligence in the interest of national security.
The FBI installed the tap in late November 1970, and it stayed in place until January 6, 1971. During that time, the Government intercepted three conversations between Davidon and respondent Keith Forsyth. The record before us does not suggest that the intercepted conversations, which appear to be innocuous, were ever used against Forsyth in any way. Forsyth learned of the wiretap in 1972, when, as a criminal defendant facing unrelated charges, he moved under 18 U. S. C. § 3504 for disclosure by the Government of any electronic surveillance to which he had been subjected. The Government's response to Forsyth's motion revealed that although he had never been the actual target of electronic surveillance, he “did participate in conversations that are unrelated to this case and which were overheard by the Federal Government during the course of electronic surveillance expressly authorized by the President acting through the Attorney General.” App. 20-21. The Government's response was accompanied by an affidavit, sworn to by then Attorney General Richard Kleindienst, averring that the surveillance to which Forsyth had been subjected was authorized “in the exercise of [the President’s] authority relating to the national security as set forth in 18 U. S. C. 2511(3).” Id., at 23.
Shortly thereafter, this Court ruled that the Fourth Amendment does not permit the use of warrantless wiretaps in cases involving domestic threats to the national security. United States v. United States District Court, 407 U. S. 297 (1972) (Keith). In the wake of the Keith decision, For-syth filed this lawsuit against John Mitchell and several other defendants in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Forsyth alleged that the surveillance to which he had been subjected violated both the Fourth Amendment and Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, 18 U. S. C. §§2510-2520, which sets forth comprehensive standards governing the use of wiretaps and electronic surveillance by both governmental and private agents. He asserted that both the constitutional and statutory provisions provided him with a private right of action; he sought compensatory, statutory, and punitive damages.
Discovery and related preliminary proceedings dragged on for the next five-and-a-half years. By early 1978, both Forsyth and Mitchell had submitted motions for summary judgment on which the District Court was prepared to rule. Forsyth contended that the uncontested facts established that the wiretap was illegal and that Mitchell and the other defendants were not immune from liability; Mitchell contended that the decision in Keith should not be applied retroactively to the wiretap authorized in 1970 and that he was entitled either to absolute prosecutorial immunity from suit under the rule of Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976), or to qualified or “good faith” immunity under the doctrine of Wood v. Strickland, 420 U. S. 308 (1975).
The court found that there was no genuine dispute as to the facts that the FBI had informed Mitchell of the ECCSL’s plots, that Mitchell had authorized the warrantless tap on Davidon’s phone, and that the ostensible purpose of the tap was the gathering of intelligence in the interest of national security. Such a wiretap, the court concluded, was a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment under Keith, which, in the court’s view, was to be given retroactive effect. The court also rejected Mitchell’s claim to absolute immunity from suit under Imbler v. Pachtman: Imbler, the court held, provided absolute immunity to a prosecutor only for his acts in “initiating and pursuing a criminal prosecution”; Mitchell’s authorization of the wiretap constituted the performance of an investigative rather than prosecutorial function. Forsyth v. Kleindienst, 447 F. Supp. 192, 201 (1978). Although rejecting Mitchell’s claim of absolute immunity, the court found that Mitchell was entitled to assert a qualified immunity from suit and could prevail if he proved that he acted in good faith. Applying this standard, with its focus on Mitchell’s state of mind at the time he authorized the wiretap, the court concluded that neither side had met its burden of establishing that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to Mitchell’s good faith. Accordingly, the court denied both parties’ motions for summary judgment. Id., at 203.
Mitchell appealed the District Court’s denial of absolute immunity to the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which remanded for further factfinding on the question whether the wiretap authorization was “necessary to [a]... decision to initiate a criminal prosecution” and thus within the scope of the absolute immunity recognized in Imbler v. Pachtman. Forsyth v. Kleindienst, 599 F. 2d 1203, 1217 (1979). On remand, the District Court held a hearing on the question whether the wiretap served a pros-ecutorial purpose. On the basis of the hearing and the evidence in the record, the court concluded that Mitchell’s authorization of the wiretap was not intended to facilitate any prosecutorial decision or further a criminal investigation. Mitchell himself had disavowed any such intention and insisted that the only reason for the wiretap was to gather intelligence needed for national security purposes. Taking Mitchell at his word in this regard, the court held to its conclusion that he was not entitled to absolute prosecutorial immunity.
At the same time, the court reconsidered its ruling on qualified immunity in light of Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800 (1982), in which this Court purged qualified immunity doctrine of its subjective components and held that “government officials performing discretionary functions, generally are shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” Id., at 818. The District Court rejected Mitchell’s argument that under this standard he should be held immune from suit for warrantless national security wiretaps authorized before this Court’s decision in Keith: that decision was merely a logical extension of general Fourth Amendment principles and in particular of the ruling in Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967), in which the Court held for the first time that electronic surveillance unaccompanied by physical trespass constituted a search subject to the Fourth Amendment’s warrant requirement. Mitchell and the Justice Department, the court suggested, had chosen to “gamble” on the possibility that this Court would create an exception to the warrant' requirement if presented with a case involving national security. Having lost the gamble, Mitchell was not entitled to complain of the consequences. The court therefore denied Mitchell’s motion for summary judgment, granted Forsyth’s motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, and scheduled further proceedings on the issue of damages. Forsyth v. Kleindienst, 551 F. Supp. 1247 (1982).
Mitchell again appealed, contending that the District Court had erred in its rulings on both absolute immunity and qualified immunity. Holding that it possessed jurisdiction to decide the denial of absolute immunity issue despite the fact that it was a pretrial order and arguably not a final judgment, the Court of Appeals rejected Mitchell’s argument that the national security functions of the Attorney General entitled him to absolute immunity under Imbler v. Pachtman or otherwise. With respect to the denial of qualified immunity, the Court of Appeals held that the District Court’s order was not appealable under the collateral order doctrine of Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S. 541 (1949). Fearing that allowing piecemeal appeals of such issues would unduly burden appellate courts, the court was unwilling to hold that the goal of protecting officials against frivolous litigation required that orders denying qualified immunity be immediately appealable. Forsyth’s claim, the court noted, was not a frivolous one, and the policies underlying the immunity doctrine would therefore not be frustrated if Mitchell were forced to wait until final judgment to appeal the qualified immunity ruling. Forsyth v. Kleindienst, 729 F. 2d 267 (1984). The court therefore remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings leading to the entry of final judgment, and Mitchell filed a timely petition for certiorari seeking review of the court’s rulings on both absolute and qualified immunity.
The question whether the Attorney General is absolutely immune from suit for acts performed in the exercise of his national security functions is an important one that we have hitherto left unanswered. See Halperin v. Kissinger, 196 U. S. App. D. C., 285, 606 F. 2d 1192 (1979), aff’d by an equally divided Court, 452 U. S. 713 (1981). Moreover, the issue of the appealability before final judgment of orders denying immunity under the objective standard of Harlow v. Fitzgerald is one that has divided the Courts of Appeals. Finally, the District Court’s decision — left standing by the Court of Appeals — that Mitchell’s actions violated clearly established law is contrary to the rulings of the District of Columbia Circuit in Sinclair v. Kleindienst, 207 U. S. App. D. C. 155, 645 F. 2d 1080 (1981), and Zweibon v. Mitchell, 231 U. S. App. D. C. 398, 720 F. 2d 162 (1983), cert. denied, 469 U. S. 880 (1984). We granted certiorari to address these issues, 469 U. S. 929 (1984).
HH ) — I
We first address Mitchell’s claim that the Attorney General’s actions in furtherance of the national security should be shielded from scrutiny in civil damages actions by an absolute immunity similar to that afforded the President, see Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731 (1982), judges, prosecutors, witnesses, and officials performing “quasi-judicial” functions, see Briscoe v. LaHue, 460 U. S. 325 (1983); Butz v. Economou, 438 U. S. 478, 508-517 (1978); Stump v. Sparkman, 435 U. S. 349 (1978); Imbler v. Pachtman, 424 U. S. 409 (1976), and legislators, see Dombrowski v. Eastland, 387 U. S. 82 (1967); Tenney v. Brandhove, 341 U. S. 367 (1951). We conclude that the Attorney General is not absolutely immune from suit for damages arising out of his allegedly unconstitutional conduct in performing his national security functions.
As the Nation’s chief law enforcement officer, the Attorney General provides vital assistance to the President in the performance of the latter’s constitutional duty to “preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.” U. S. Const., Art. II, §1, cl. 8. Mitchell’s argument, in essence, is that the national security functions of the Attorney General are so sensitive, so vital to the protection of our Nation’s well-being, that we cannot tolerate any risk that in performing those functions he will be chilled by the possibility of personal liability for acts that may be found to impinge on the constitutional rights of citizens. Such arguments, “when urged on behalf of the President and the national security in its domestic implications, merit the most careful consideration.” Keith, 407 U. S., at 319. Nonetheless, we do not believe that the considerations that have led us to recognize absolute immunities for other officials dictate the same result in this case.
Our decisions in this area leave no doubt that the Attorney General’s status as a Cabinet officer is not in itself sufficient to invest him with absolute immunity: the considerations of separation of powers that call for absolute immunity for state and federal legislators and for the President of the United States do not demand a similar immunity for Cabinet officers or other high executive officials. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800 (1982); Butz v. Economou, supra. Mitchell’s claim, then, must rest not on the Attorney General’s position within the Executive Branch, but on the nature of the functions he was performing in this case. See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, supra, at 810-811. Because Mitchell was not acting in a prosecutorial capacity in this case, the situations in which we have applied a functional approach to absolute immunity questions provide scant support for blanket immunization of his performance of the “national security function.”
First, in deciding whether officials performing a particular function are entitled to absolute immunity, we have generally looked for a historical or common-law basis for the immunity in question. The legislative immunity recognized in Tenney v. Brandhove, supra, for example, was rooted in the long struggle in both England and America for legislative independence, a presupposition of our scheme of representative government. The immunities for judges, prosecutors, and witnesses established by our cases have firm roots in the common law. See Briscoe v. LaHue, supra, at 330-336. Mitchell points to no analogous historical or common-law basis for an absolute immunity for officers carrying out tasks essential to national security.
Second, the performance of national security functions does not subject an official to the same obvious risks of entanglement in vexatious litigation as does the carrying out of the judicial or “quasi-judicial” tasks that have been the primary wellsprings of absolute immunities. The judicial process is an arena of open conflict, and in virtually every case there is, if not always a winner, at least one loser. It is inevitable that many of those who lose will pin the blame on judges, prosecutors, or witnesses and will bring suit against them in an effort to relitigate the underlying conflict. See Bradley v. Fisher, 13 Wall. 335, 348 (1872). National security tasks, by contrast, are carried out in secret; open conflict and overt winners and losers are rare. Under such circumstances, it is far more likely that actual abuses will go uncovered than that fancied abuses will give rise to unfounded and burdensome litigation. Whereas the mere threat of litigation may significantly affect the fearless and independent performance of duty by actors in the judicial process, it is unlikely to have a similar effect on the Attorney General’s performance of his national security tasks.
Third, most of the officials who are entitled to absolute immunity from liability for damages are subject to other checks that help to prevent abuses of authority from going unre-dressed. Legislators are accountable to their constituents, see Tenney v. Brandhove, supra, at 378, and the judicial process is largely self-correcting: procedural rules, appeals, and the possibility of collateral challenges obviate the need for damages actions to prevent unjust results. Similar built-in restraints on the Attorney General’s activities in the name of national security, however, do not exist. And despite our recognition of the importance of those activities to the safety of our Nation and its democratic system of government, we cannot accept the notion that restraints are completely unnecessary. As the Court observed in Keith, the label of “national security” may cover a multitude of sins:
“National security cases... often reflect a convergence of First and Fourth Amendment values not present in cases of ‘ordinary’ crime. Though the investigative duty of the executive may be stronger in such cases, so also is there greater jeopardy to constitutionally protected speech.... History abundantly documents the tendency of Government — however, benevolent and benign its motives — to view with suspicion those who most fervently dispute its policies.... The danger to political dissent is acute where the Government attempts to act under so vague a concept as the power to protect ‘domestic security.’ Given the difficulty of defining the domestic security interest, the danger of abuse in acting to protect that interest becomes apparent.” 407 U. S., at 313-314.
The danger that high federal officials will disregard constitutional rights in their zeal to protect the national security is sufficiently real to counsel against affording such officials an absolute immunity.
We emphasize that the denial of absolute immunity will not leave the Attorney General at the mercy of litigants with frivolous and vexatious complaints. Under the standard of qualified immunity articulated in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, the Attorney General will be entitled to immunity so long as his actions do not violate “clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person would have known.” 457 U. S., at 818. This standard will not allow the Attorney General to carry out his national security functions wholly free from concern for his personal liability; he may on occasion have to pause to consider whether a proposed course of action can be squared with the Constitution and laws of the United States. But this is precisely the point of the Harlow standard: “Where an official could be expected to know that his conduct would violate statutory or constitutional rights, he should be made to hesitate....” Id., at 819 (emphasis added). This is as true in matters of national security as in other fields of governmental action. We do not believe that the security of the Republic will be threatened if its Attorney General is given incentives to abide by clearly established law.
Ill
Although 28 U. S. C. §1291 vests the courts of appeals with jurisdiction over appeals only from “final decisions” of the district courts, “a decision ‘final’ within the meaning of § 1291 does not necessarily mean the last order possible to be made in a case.” Gillespie v. United States Steel Corp., 379 U. S. 148, 152 (1964). Thus, a decision of a district court is appealable if it falls within “that small class which finally determine claims of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action, too important to be denied review and too independent of the cause itself to require that appellate consideration be deferred until the whole case is adjudicated.” Cohen v. Beneficial Industrial Loan Corp., 337 U. S., at 546.
A major characteristic of the denial or granting of a claim appealable under Cohen’s “collateral order” doctrine is that “unless it can be reviewed before [the proceedings terminate], it never can be reviewed at all.” Stack v. Boyle, 342 U. S. 1, 12 (1952) (opinion of Jackson, J.); see also United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co., 458 U. S. 263, 266 (1982). When a district court has denied a defendant’s claim of right not to stand trial, on double jeopardy grounds, for example, we have consistently held the court’s decision appealable, for such a right cannot be effectively vindicated after the trial has occurred. Abney v. United States, 431 U. S. 651 (1977). Thus, the denial of a substantial claim of absolute immunity is an order appealable before final judgment, for the essence of absolute immunity is its possessor’s entitlement not to have to answer for his conduct in a civil damages action. See Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731 (1982); cf. Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U. S. 500 (1979).
At the heart of the issue before us is the question whether qualified immunity shares this essential attribute of absolute immunity — whether qualified immunity is in fact an entitlement not to- stand trial under certain circumstances. The conception animating the qualified immunity doctrine as set forth in Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 800 (1982), is that “where an official’s duties legitimately require action in which clearly established rights are not implicated, the public interest may be better served by action taken ‘with independence and without fear of consequences.’” Id., at 819, quoting Pierson v. Ray, 386 U. S. 547, 554 (1967). As the citation to Pierson v. Ray makes clear, the “consequences” with which we were concerned in Harlow are not limited to liability for money damages; they also include “the general costs of subjecting officials to the risks of trial — distraction of officials from their governmental duties, inhibition of discretionary action, and deterrence of able people from public service:” Harlow, 457 U. S., at 816. Indeed, Harlow emphasizes that even such pretrial matters as discovery are to be avoided if possible, as “[inquiries of this kind can be peculiarly disruptive of effective government.” Id., at 817.
With these concerns in mind, the Harlow Court refashioned the qualified immunity doctrine in such a way as to “permit the resolution of many insubstantial claims on summary judgment” and to avoid “subjecting] government officials either to the costs of trial or to the burdens of broad-reaching discovery” in cases where the legal norms the officials are alleged to have violated were not clearly established at the time. Id., at 817-818. Unless the plaintiff’s allegations state a claim of violation of clearly established law, a defendant pleading qualified immunity is entitled to dismissal before the commencement of discovery. See id., at 818. Even if the plaintiff’s complaint adequately alleges the commission of acts that violated clearly established law, the defendant is entitled to summary judgment if discovery fails to uncover evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue as to whether the defendant in fact committed those acts. Harlow thus recognized an entitlement not to stand trial or face the other burdens of litigation, conditioned on the resolution of the essentially legal question whether the conduct of which the plaintiff complains violated clearly established law. The entitlement is an immunity from suit rather than a mere defense to liability; and like an absolute immunity, it is effectively lost if a case is erroneously permitted to go to trial. Accordingly, the reasoning that underlies the immediate appealability of an order denying absolute immunity indicates to us that the denial of qualified immunity should be similarly appealable: in each case, the district court’s decision is effectively unreviewable on appeal from a final judgment.
An appealable interlocutory decision must satisfy two additional criteria: it must “conclusively determine the disputed question,” Coopers & Lybrand v. Livesay, 437 U. S. 463, 468 (1978), and that question must involve a “clai[m] of right separable from, and collateral to, rights asserted in the action,” Cohen, supra, at 546. The denial of a defendant’s motion for dismissal or summary judgment on the ground of qualified immunity easily meets these requirements. Such a decision is “conclusive” in either of two respects. In some cases, it may represent the trial court’s conclusion that even if the facts are as asserted by the defendant, the defendant’s actions violated clearly established law and are therefore not within the scope of the qualified immunity. In such a case, there will be nothing in the subsequent course of the proceedings in the district court that can alter the court’s conclusion that the defendant is not immune. Alternatively, the trial judge may rule only that if the facts are as asserted by the plaintiff, the defendant is not immune. At trial, the plaintiff may not succeed in proving.his version of the facts, and the defendant may thus escape liability. Even so, the court’s denial of summary judgment finally and conclusively determines the defendant’s claim of right not to stand trial on the plaintiff’s allegations, and because “[t]here are simply no further steps that can be taken in the District Court to avoid the trial the defendant maintains is barred,” it is apparent that “Cohen’s threshold requirement of a fully consummated decision is satisfied” in such a case. Abney v. United States, 431 U. S., at 659.
Similarly, it follows from the recognition that qualified immunity is in part an entitlement not to be forced to litigate the consequences of official conduct that a claim of immunity is conceptually distinct from the merits of the plaintiff’s claim that his rights have been violated. See id., at 659-660. An appellate court reviewing the denial of the defendant’s claim of immunity need not consider the correctness of the plaintiff’s version of the facts, nor even determine whether the plaintiff’s allegations actually state a claim. All it need determine is a question of law: whether the legal norms allegedly violated by the defendant were clearly established at the time of the challenged actions or, in cases where the district court has denied summary judgment for the defendant on the ground that even under the defendant’s version of the facts the defendant’s conduct violated clearly established law, whether the law clearly proscribed the actions the defendant claims he took. To be sure, the resolution of these legal issues will entail consideration of the factual allegations that make up the plaintiff’s claim for relief; the same is true, however, when a court must consider whether a prosecution is barred by a claim of former jeopardy or whether a Congressman is absolutely immune from suit because the complained of conduct falls within the protections of the Speech and Debate Clause. In the case of a double jeopardy claim, the court must compare the facts alleged in the second indictment with those in the first to determine whether the prosecutions are for the same offense, while in evaluating a claim of immunity under the Speech and Debate Clause, a court must analyze the plaintiff’s complaint to determine whether the plaintiff seeks to hold a Congressman liable for protected legislative actions or for other, unprotected conduct. In holding these and similar issues of absolute immunity to be appealable under the collateral order doctrine, see Abney v. United States, supra; Helstoski v. Meanor, 442 U. S. 500 (1979); Nixon v. Fitzgerald, 457 U. S. 731 (1982), the Court has recognized that a question of immunity is separate from the merits of the underlying action for purposes of the Cohen test even though a reviewing court must consider the plaintiff’s factual allegations in resolving the immunity issue.
Accordingly, we hold that a district court’s denial of a claim of qualified immunity, to the extent that it turns on an issue of law, is an appealable “final decision” within the meaning of 28 U. S. C. § 1291 notwithstanding the absence of a final judgment.
IV
The Court of Appeals thus had jurisdiction over Mitchell’s claim of qualified immunity, and that question was one of the questions presented in the petition for certiorari which we granted without limitation. Moreover, the purely legal question on which Mitchell’s claim of immunity turns is “appropriate for our immediate resolution” notwithstanding that it was not addressed by the Court of Appeals. Nixon v. Fitzgerald, supra, at 743, n. 23. We therefore turn our attention to the merits of Mitchell’s claim of immunity.
Under Harlow v. Fitzgerald, Mitchell is immune unless his actions violated clearly established law. See 457 U. S., at 818-819; see also Davis v. Scherer, 468 U. S. 183, 197 (1984). Forsyth complains that in November 1970, Mitchell authorized a warrantless wiretap aimed at gathering intelligence regarding a domestic threat to national security — the kind of wiretap that the Court subsequently declared to be illegal. Keith, 407 U. S. 297 (1972). The question of Mitchell’s immunity turns on whether it was clearly established in November 1970, well over a year before Keith was decided, that such wiretaps were unconstitutional. We conclude that it was not.
The use of warrantless electronic surveillance to gather intelligence in cases involving threats to the Nation’s security can be traced back to 1940, when President Roosevelt instructed Attorney General Robert Jackson that he was authorized to approve wiretaps of persons suspected of subversive activities. In 1946, President Truman’s approval of Attorney General Tom Clark’s request for expanded wiretapping authority made it clear that the Executive Branch perceived its authority to extend to cases involving “domestic security.” See Report of the National Commission for the Review of Federal and State Laws Relating to Wiretapping and Electronic Surveillance 36 (1976). Attorneys General serving Presidents Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon continued the practice of employing warrantless electronic surveillance in their efforts to combat perceived threats to the national security, both foreign and domestic. See Keith, supra, at 310-311, n. 10.
Until 1967, it was anything but clear that these practices violated the Constitution: the Court had ruled in Olmstead v. United States, 277 U. S. 438 (1928), that a wiretap not involving a physical trespass on the property of the person under surveillance was not a search for purposes of the Fourth Amendment, and although the rule in Olmstead had suffered some erosion, see Silverman v. United States, 365 U. S. 505 (1961), the Court had never explicitly disavowed it. Not until 1967 did the Court hold that electronic surveillance unaccompanied by any physical trespass constituted a search subject to the Fourth Amendment’s restrictions, including the Warrant Clause. Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347. Yet the Katz Court recognized that warrantless searches do not in all circumstances violate the Fourth Amendment; and though the Court held that no recognized exception to the warrant requirement could justify warrantless wiretapping in an ordinary criminal case, the Court was careful to note that “[wjhether safeguards other than prior authorization by a magistrate would satisfy the Fourth Amendment in a situation involving the national security is a question not presented by this case.” Id., at 358, n. 23. In separate concurrences, Members of the Court debated the question whether the President or the Attorney General could constitutionally authorize warrantless wiretapping in the interest of national security. Compare id., at 359-360 (Douglas, J., joined by Brennan, J., concurring), with id., at 362-364 (White, J., concurring).
In the aftermath of Katz, Executive authority to order warrantless national security wiretaps remained uncertain. This uncertainty found expression in Title III of the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968, in which Congress attempted to fashion rules governing wiretapping and electronic surveillance that would “meet the constitutional requirements for electronic surveillance enunciated by this Court in Berger v. New York, 388 U. S. 41 (1967), and Katz v. United States, 389 U. S. 347 (1967).” Keith, supra, at 302. Although setting detailed standards governing wiretapping by both state and federal law enforcement agencies, the Act disclaimed any intention “to limit the constitutional power of the President to take such measures as he deems necessary to protect the United States against the overthrow of the Government by force or other unlawful means, or against any other clear and present danger to the structure or existence of the Government.” 18 U. S. C. §2511(3) (1976 ed.). As subsequently interpreted by this Court in Keith, this provision of the Act was an “expression of neutrality,” 407 U. S., at 308, reflecting both an awareness on the part of Congress of the uncertain scope of Executive authority to conduct warrantless national security wiretaps and an unwillingness to circumscribe whatever such authority might exist.
Uncertainty regarding the legitimacy of warrantless national security wiretapping during the period between Katz and Keith is also reflected in the decisions of the lower federal courts. In a widely cited decision handed down in July 1969, the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas held that the President, acting through the Attorney General, could legally authorize warrantless wiretaps to gather foreign intelligence in the interest of national security. United States v. Clay, CR. No. 67-H-94 (SD Tex., July 14, 1969), aff’d, 430 F. 2d 165, 171 (CA5 1970), rev’d on other grounds, 403 U. S. 698 (1971). Clay, of course, did not speak to the legality of surveillance directed against domestic threats to the national security, but it was soon applied by two Federal District Courts to uphold the constitutionality of warrantless wiretapping directed against the Black Panthers, a domestic group believed by the Attorney General to constitute a threat to the national security. United States v. Dellinger, No. 69 CR 180 (ND Ill., Feb. 20, 1970) (App. 30), rev’d, 472 F. 2d 340 (CA7 1972); United States v. O’Neal, No. KC-CR-1204 (Kan., Sept. 1, 1970) (App. 38), appeal dism’d, 453 F. 2d 344 (CA10 1972).
So matters stood when Mitchell authorized the Davidon ■wiretap at issue in this case. Only days after the termination of the Davidon wiretap, however, two District Courts explicitly rejected the Justice Department’s contention that the Attorney General had the authority to order warrantless wiretaps in domestic national security cases. United States v. Smith, 321 F. Supp. 424 (CD Cal., Jan. 8, 1971); United States v. Sinclair, 321 F. Supp. 1074 (ED Mich., Jan. 26, 1971). The Sixth Circuit affirmed the Sinclair decision in United States v. United States District Court for Eastern Dist. of Mich., 444 F. 2d 651 (1971), and our own affirmance followed in 1972. Keith, supra.
In short, the doctrine of Executive authority to conduct warrantless domestic security wiretaps did not long survive the expiration of the Davidon wiretap. It by no means follows, however, that Mitchell’s actions in authorizing the wiretap violated law that was clearly established at the time of the authorization. As of 1970, the Justice Departments of six successive administrations had considered warrantless domestic security wiretaps constitutional. Only three years earlier, this Court had expressly left open the possibility that this view was correct. Two Federal District Courts had accepted the Justice Department’s position, and although the Sixth Circuit later firmly rejected the notion that the Fourth Amendment countenanced warrantless domestic security wiretapping, this Court found the issue sufficiently doubtful to warrant the exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction. In framing the issue before it, the Keith Court explicitly recognized that the question was one that had yet to receive the definitive answer that it demanded:
“The issue before us is an important one for the people of our country and their Government. It involves the delicate question of the President’s power, acting through the Attorney General, to authorize electronic surveillance in internal security matters without prior judicial approval. Successive Presidents for more than one-quarter of a century have authorized such surveillance in varying degrees, without guidance from the Congress or a definitive decision of this Court. This case brings the issue here for the first time. Its resolution is a matter of national concern, requiring sensitivity both to the Government’s right to protect itself from unlawful subversion and attack and to the citizen’s right to be secure in his privacy
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court."
We are called upon to resolve a series of issues regarding the law of habeas corpus, including questions of the proper application of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA). We hold as follows:
First, when a habeas corpus petitioner seeks to initiate an appeal of the dismissal of a habeas corpus petition after April 24, 1996 (the effective date of AEDPA), the right to appeal is governed by the certificate of appealability (COA) requirements now found at 28 U. S. C. § 2253(c) (1994 ed., Supp. III). This is true whether the habeas corpus petition was filed in the district court before or after AEDPA’s effective date.
Second, when the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue (and an appeal of the district court’s order may be taken) if the,prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right, and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling.
Third, a habeas petition which is filed after an initial petition was dismissed without adjudication on the merits for failure to exhaust state remedies is not a “second or successive” petition as that term is understood in the habeas corpus context. Federal courts do, however, retain broad powers to prevent duplicative or unnecessary litigation.
I
Petitioner Antonio Slack was convicted of second-degree murder in Nevada state court in 1990. His direct appeal was unsuccessful. On November 27,1991, Slack filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus in federal court under 28 U. S. C. § 2254. Early in the federal proceeding, Slack decided to litigate claims he had not yet presented to the Nevada courts. He could not raise the claims in federal court because, under the exhaustion of remedies rule explained in Rose v. Lundy, 455 U. S. 509 (1982), a federal court was required to dismiss a petition presenting claims not yet litigated in state court. Accordingly, Slack filed a motion seeking to hold his federal petition in abeyance while he returned to state court to exhaust the new claims. Without objection by the State, the District Court ordered the habeas petition dismissed “without prejudice.” The order, dated February 19,1992, further stated, “Petitioner is granted leave to file an application to renew upon exhaustion of all State remedies.” Slack v. Director, Nev. Dept. of Prisons, No. CV-N-91-561 (D. Nev.), App. 22.
After an unsuccessful round of state postconvietion proceedings, Slack filed a new federal habeas petition on May 30,1995. The District Court later appointed counsel, directing him to file an amended petition or a notice of intention to proceed with the current petition. On December 24,1997, counsel filed an amended petition presenting 14 claims for relief. The State moved to dismiss the petition. As its first ground, the State argued that Slack’s petition must be dismissed because it was a mixed petition, that is to say a petition raising some claims which had been presented to the state courts and some which had not. As its second ground, the State cited Farmer v. McDaniel, 98 F. 3d 1548 (CA9 1996), and contended that, under the established rule in the Ninth Circuit, claims Slack had not raised in his 1991 federal habeas petition must be dismissed as an abuse of the writ.
The District Court granted the State’s motion. First, the court relied on Farmer to hold that Slack’s 1995 petition was “[a] second or successive petition,” even though his 1991 petition had been dismissed without prejudice for a failure to exhaust state remedies. The court then invoked the abuse of the writ doctrine to dismiss with prejudice the claims Slack had not raised in the 1991 petition. This left Slack with four claims, each having been raised in the 1991 petition; but one of these, the court concluded, had not yet been presented to the state courts. The court therefore dismissed Slack’s remaining claims because they were in a mixed petition. Here, Slack seeks to challenge the dismissal of claims as abusive; he does not contend that all claims presented in the amended petition were exhausted.
The District Court’s dismissal order was filed March 30, 1998. On April 29, 1998, Slack filed in the District Court a pleading captioned “Notice of Appeal.” Consistent with Circuit practice, the court treated the notice as an application for a certificate of probable cause (CPC) under the pre-AEDPA version of 28 U. S. C. §2253; and it denied a CPC, concluding the appeal would raise no substantial issue. The Court of Appeals likewise denied a CPC. No. CV-95-194 (CA9, July 7, 1998), App. 197. As a result, Slack was not permitted to take an appeal of the order dismissing his petition. We granted certiorari. 525 U. S. 1138 (1999). Slack contends that he is entitled to an appeal of the dismissal of his petition, arguing that the District Court was wrong to hold that his 1995 petition was “second or successive.” We agree that Slack’s 1995 petition was not second or successive, but first we must resolve two preliminary questions.
II
Before AEDPA, appellate review of the dismissal of a ha-beas petition was governed by a version of 28 U. S. C. § 2253 enacted in 1948. Act of June 25, 1948, 62 Stat. 967. The statute provided no appeal could be taken from the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding “unless the justice or judge who rendered the order or a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of probable cause.” Ibid. The statute did not explain the standards for the issuance of a CPC, but the Court established what a prisoner must show to obtain a CPC in Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U. S. 880 (1983): “a substantial showing of the denial of a federal right.” Id., at 893 (citation and brackets omitted).
Effective April 24,1996, AEDPA amended § 2253. As relevant here, AEDPA added subsection (c), which provides:
“(1) Unless a circuit justice or judge issues a certificate of appealability, an appeal may not be taken to the court of appeals from—
“(A) the final order in a habeas corpus proceeding in which the detention complained of arises out of process issued by a State court; or
“(B) the final order in a proceeding under section 2255.
“(2) A certificate of appealability may issue under paragraph (1) only if the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.
“(3) The certificate of appealability under paragraph (1) shall indicate which specific issue or issues satisfy the showing required by paragraph (2).” 28 U. S. C. § 2253(c) (1994 ed., Supp. III).
The issue we consider at the outset is whether the pre- or post-AEDPA version of §2253 controls Slack’s right to appeal. In Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320 (1997), the Court held that AEDPA’s amendments to 28 U. S. C. §2254, the statute governing entitlement to habeas relief in the district court, applied to cases filed after AEDPA’s effective date. 521 U. S., at 327. Slack contends that Lindh means § 2253(e) does not apply to him because his case was commenced in the District Court pre-AEDPA. That position is incorrect. For purposes of implementing the holding in Lindh, it must be recognized that §2254 is directed to proceedings in the district courts while §2253 is directed to proceedings in the appellate courts. Just as §2254 applies to cases filed in the trial court post-AEDPA, §2253 applies to appellate proceedings initiated post-AEDPA. True, Lindh requires a court of appeals to apply pre-AEDPA law in reviewing the trial court’s ruling, for cases commenced there pre-AEDPA; but post-AEDPA law governs the right to appeal in cases such as the one now before us.
While an appeal is a continuation of the litigation started in the trial court, it is a distinct step. Hohn v. United States, 524 U. S. 236, 241 (1998); Mackenzie v. A. Engelhard & Sons Co., 266 U. S. 131 (1924). We have described proceedings in the courts of appeals as “appellate cases.” E. g., Order of Apr. 30, 1991, 500 U. S. 1009 (amendments to Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure “shall govern all proceedings in appellate cases thereafter commenced”). Under AEDPA, an appellate case is commenced when the application for a COA is filed. Hohn, supra, at 241. When Congress instructs us (as Lindh says it has) that application of a statute is triggered by the commencement of a case, the relevant case for a statute directed to appeals is the one initiated in the appellate court. Thus, § 2253(c) governs appellate court proceedings filed after AEDPA’s effective date. We see no indication that Congress intended to tie application of the provisions to the date a petition was filed in the district court. The COA statute establishes procedural rules and requires a threshold inquiry into whether the circuit court may entertain an appeal. Hohn, supra, at 248; cf. Lindh, supra, at 327. Because Slack sought appellate review two years after AEDPA’s effective date, § 2253(c) governs his right to appeal.
We further note that we applied § 2253 in our post-Lindh decision in Hohn, a case which arrived in the same posture as this case. Like Slack, Hohn argued § 2253(c) did not apply because his petition had been filed in the District Court before AEDPA’s effective date. Brief for Petitioner in Hohn v. United States, O. T. 1997, No. 96-8986, pp. 40-44. Though our opinion did not discuss whether § 2253(c) applied to Hohn, we would have had no reason to reach the issue we did resolve, that we had statutory certiorari jurisdiction to review the denial of a COA, if AEDPA did not apply at all. Our disposition today is consistent with Hohn. AEDPA governs the conditions of Slack’s appeal, and so he was required to seek a COA to obtain appellate review of the dismissal of his habeas petition.
III
As AEDPA applied, the Court of Appeals. should have treated the notice of appeal as an application for a COA. Fed. Rule App. Proc. 22(b); Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 8(f); see also Holm, swpra, at 240. To evaluate whether the Court of Appeals should have granted a COA, we must determine what the habeas applicant must show to satisfy the requirements of § 2258(c).
Citing § 2253(e)’s requirement that a COA may issue only upon the “substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right,” the State contends that no appeal can be taken if the District Court relies on procedural grounds to dismiss the petition. According to the State, only constitutional rulings may be appealed. Under this view, a state prisoner who can demonstrate he was convicted in violation of the Constitution and who can demonstrate that the district court was wrong to dismiss the petition on procedural grounds would be denied relief. We reject this interpretation. The writ of habeas corpus plays a vital role in protecting constitutional rights. In setting forth the preconditions for issuance of a COA under § 2253(c), Congress expressed no intention to allow trial court procedural error to bar vindication of substantial constitutional rights on appeal.
Our conclusion follows from AEDPA’s present provisions, which incorporate earlier habeas corpus principles. Under AEDPA, a COA may not issue unless “the applicant has made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right.” 28 U.S.C. 12253(c) (1994 ed., Supp. III). Except for substituting the word “constitutional” for the word “federal,” § 2253 is a codification of the CPC standard announced in Barefoot v. Estelle, 463 U. S., at 894. Congress had before it the meaning Barefoot had given to the words it selected; and we give the language found in § 2253(c) the meaning ascribed it in Barefoot, with due note for the substitution of the word “constitutional.” See Williams v. Taylor, ante, at 434. To obtain a COA under § 2253(c), a habeas prisoner must make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a demonstration that, under Barefoot, includes showing that reasonable jurists could debate whether (or, for that matter, agree that) the petition should have been resolved in a different manner or that the issues presented were “ ‘adequate to deserve encouragement to proceed further.’ ” Barefoot, supra, at 893, and n. 4 (“sum[ming] up” the “ ‘substantial showing’ ” standard).
Where a district court has rejected the constitutional claims on the merits, the showing required to satisfy § 2253(c) is straightforward: The petitioner must demonstrate that reasonable jurists would find the district court’s assessment of the constitutional claims debatable or wrong. The issue becomes somewhat more complicated where, as here, the district court dismisses the petition based on procedural grounds. We hold as follows: When the district court denies a habeas petition on procedural grounds without reaching the prisoner’s underlying constitutional claim, a COA should issue when the prisoner shows, at least, that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the petition states a valid claim of the denial of a constitutional right and that jurists of reason would find it debatable whether the district court was correct in its procedural ruling. This construction gives meaning to Congress’ requirement that a prisoner demonstrate substantial underlying constitutional claims and is in conformity with the meaning of the “substantial showing” standard provided in Barefoot, supra, at 893, and n. 4, and adopted by Congress in AEDPA. Where a plain procedural bar is present and the district court is correct to invoke it to dispose of the case, a reasonable jurist could not conclude either that the district court erred in dismissing the petition or that the petitioner should be allowed to proceed further. In such a circumstance, no appeal would be warranted.
Determining whether a COA should issue where the petition was dismissed on procedural grounds has two components, one directed at the underlying constitutional claims and one directed at the district court’s procedural holding. Section 2253 mandates that both showings be made before the court of appeals may entertain the appeal. Each component of the § 2253(c) showing is part of a threshold inquiry, and a court may find that it can dispose of the application in a fair and prompt manner if it proceeds first to resolve the issue whose answer is more apparent from the record and arguments. The recognition that the “Court will not pass upon a constitutional question although properly presented by the record, if there is also present some other ground upon which the case may be disposed of,” Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 347 (1936) (Brandeis, J., concurring), allows and encourages the court to first resolve procedural issues. The Ashwander rule should inform the court’s discretion in this regard.
In this ease, Slack did not attempt to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, instead arguing only that the District Court’s procedural rulings were wrong. We will not attempt to détermine whether Slack could make the required showing of constitutional error, for the issue was neither briefed nor presented below because of the view that the CPC, rather than COA, standards applied. It will be necessary to consider the matter upon any remand for further proceedings. We will, however, address the second component of the § 2253(e) inquiry, whether jurists of reason could conclude that the District Court’s dismissal on procedural grounds was debatable or incorrect. The issue has been discussed in the briefs presented to us; it is the question upon which we granted certiorari; and its resolution would end the case, were we to decide the matter in the State’s favor.
The District Court dismissed claims Slack failed to raise in his 1991 petition based on its conclusion that Slack’s 1995 petition was a second or successive habeas petition. This conclusion was wrong. A habeas petition filed in the district court after an initial habeas petition was unadjudicated on its merits and dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies is not a second or successive petition.
Slack commenced this habeas proceeding in the District Court in 1995, before AEDPA’s effective date. Because the question whether Slack’s petition was second or successive implicates his right to relief in the trial court, pre-AEDPA law governs, see Lindh v. Murphy, 521 U. S. 320 (1997), though we do not suggest the definition of second or successive would be different under AEDPA. See Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, 523 U. S. 637 (1998) (using pre-AEDPA law to interpret AEDPA’s provision governing “second or successive habeas applications”). The parties point us to Rule 9(b) of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States District Courts as controlling the issue. The Rule incorporates our prior decisions regarding successive petitions and abuse of the writ, McCleskey v. Zant, 499 U. S. 467, 487 (1991), and states: “A second or successive petition [alleging new and different grounds] may be dismissed if... the judge finds that the failure of the petitioner to assert those grounds in a prior petition constituted an abuse of the writ.” As the text demonstrates, Rule 9(b) applies only to “a second or successive petition.”
The phrase “second or successive petition” is a term of art given substance in our prior habeas corpus cases. The Court’s decision in Rose v. Lundy, 455 U. S., at 510, instructs us in reaching our understanding of the term. Rose v. Lundy held that a federal district court must dismiss habeas corpus petitions containing both exhausted and unexhausted claims. The opinion, however, contemplated that the prisoner could return to federal court after the requisite exhaustion. Id., at 520 (“Those prisoners who . . . submit mixed petitions nevertheless are entitled to resubmit a petition with only exhausted claims or to exhaust the remainder of their claims”). It was only if a prisoner declined to return to state court and decided to proceed with his exhausted claims in federal court that the possibility arose that a subsequent petition would be considered second or successive and subject to dismissal as an abuse of the writ. Id., at 520-521 (plurality opinion) (“[A] prisoner who decides to proceed only with his exhausted claims and deliberately sets aside his unexhausted claims risks dismissal of subsequent federal petitions”).
This understanding of the second or successive rule was confirmed two Terms ago when we wrote as follows: “[N]one of our cases . . . have ever suggested that a prisoner whose habeas petition was dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies, and who then did exhaust those remedies and returned to federal court, was by such action filing a successive petition. A court where such a petition was filed could adjudicate these claims under the same standard as would govern those made in any other first petition.” Stewart v. Martinez-Villareal, supra, at 644. We adhere to this analysis. A petition filed after a mixed petition has been dismissed under Rose v. Lundy before the district court adjudicated any claims is to be treated as "any other first petition” and is not a second or successive petition.
The State contends that the prisoner, upon his return to federal court, should be restricted to the claims made in his initial petition. Neither Rose v. Lundy nor Martinez-Villareal requires this result, which would limit a prisoner to claims made in a pleading that is often uncounseled, handwritten, and pending in federal court only until the State identifies one unexhausted claim. The proposed rule would bar the prisoner from raising nonfrivolous claims developed in the subsequent state exhaustion proceedings contemplated by the Rose dismissal, even though a federal court had yet to review a single constitutional claim. This result would be contrary to our admonition that the complete exhaustion rule is not to "trap the unwary pro se prisoner.” Rose supra, at 520 (internal quotation marks omitted). It is instead more appropriate to treat the initial mixed petition as though it had not been filed, subject to whatever conditions the court attaches to the dismissal. Rose v. Lundy dictated that, whatever particular claims the petition contained, none could be considered by the federal court.
Slack’s 1991 petition was dismissed under the procedure established in Rose v. Lundy. No claim made in Slack’s 1991 petition was adjudicated during the three months it was pending in federal court. As such, the 1995 petition should not have been dismissed on the grounds that it was second or successive. Reasoning to the contrary found in the Court of Appeals’ Farmer decision, rendered before Martinez-Villareal, is incorrect. See also In re Turner, 101 F. 3d 1323 (CA9 1997) (refusing to apply rules governing second or successive petitions to a petitioner whose prior habeas petition had been dismissed for failure to exhaust). Our view that established practice demonstrates that Slack’s 1995 petition is not second or successive is confirmed as well by opinions of the Courts of Appeals which have addressed the point under similar circumstances. E. g., Carlson v. Pitcher, 137 F. 3d 416, 420 (CA6 1998) (“We join with every other court to consider the question, and hold that a habeas petition filed after a previous petition has been dismissed on exhaustion grounds is not a 'second or successive’ petition”); Turner, supra; Christy v. Horn, 115 F. 3d 201, 208 (CA3 1997); Dickinson v. Maine, 101 F. 3d 791 (CA1 1996); Camarano v. Irvin, 98 F. 3d 44, 45-46 (CA2 1996).
The State complains that this rule is unfair. The filing of a mixed petition in federal court requires it to appear and to plead failure to exhaust. The petition is then dismissed without prejudice, allowing the prisoner to make a return trip through the state courts to exhaust new claims. The State expresses concern that, upon exhaustion, the prisoner would return to federal court but again file a mixed petition, causing the process to repeat itself. In this manner, the State contends, a vexatious litigant could inject undue delay into the collateral review process. To the extent the tactic would become a problem, however, it can be countered without upsetting the established meaning of a second or successive petition.
First, the State remains free to impose proper procedural bars to restrict repeated returns to state court for postcon-viction proceedings. Second, provisions of AEDPA may bear upon the question in cases to which the Act applies. AEDPA itself demonstrates that Congress may address matters relating to exhaustion and mixed petitions through means other than rules governing “second or successive” petitions. E. g., 28 U.S.C. §2254(b)(2) (1994 ed., Supp. III). Third, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, applicable as a general matter to habeas cases, vest the federal courts with due flexibility to prevent vexatious litigation. As Slack concedes, in the habeas corpus context it would be appropriate for an order dismissing a mixed petition to instruct an applicant that upon his return to federal court he is to bring only exhausted claims. See Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 41(a) and (b). Once the petitioner is made aware of the exhaustion requirement, no reason exists for him not to exhaust all potential claims before returning to federal court. The failure to comply with an order of the court is grounds for dismissal with prejudice. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 41(b). In this case, however, the initial petition was dismissed without condition and without prejudice. We reject the State’s argument that refusing to give a new meaning to the established term “second or successive” opens the door to the abuses described.
IV
Slack has demonstrated that reasonable jurists could conclude that the District Court’s abuse of the writ holding was wrong, for we have determined that a habeas petition filed after an initial petition was dismissed under Rose v. Lundy without an adjudication on the merits is not a “second or successive” petition. Whether Slack is otherwise entitled to the issuance of a COA is a question to be resolved first upon remand. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Black
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Respondent, a retail druggist in Columbus, Georgia, was charged in two counts of an information with a violation of § 301 (k) of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1938. That section prohibits “the doing of any . . . act with respect to, a . . . drug ... if such act is done while such article is held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce and results in such article being misbranded.” Section 502 (f) of the Act declares a drug “to be misbranded . . . unless its labeling bears (1) adequate directions for use; and (2) such adequate warnings against use . . . dangerous to health, or against unsafe dosage ... as are necessary for the protection of users.” The information charged specifically that the respondent had performed certain acts which resulted in sulfathiazole being “misbranded” while “held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce.”
The facts alleged were these: A laboratory had shipped in interstate commerce from Chicago, Illinois, to a consignee at Atlanta, Georgia, a number of bottles, each containing 1,000 sulfathiazole tablets. These bottles had labels affixed to them, which, as required by § 502 (f) (1) and (2) of the Act, set out adequate directions for the use of the tablets and adequate warnings to protect ultimate consumers from dangers incident to this use. Respondent bought one of these properly labeled bottles of sulfathiazole tablets from the Atlanta consignee, transferred it to his Columbus, Georgia, drugstore, and there held the tablets for resale. On two separate occasions twelve tablets were removed from the properly labeled and branded bottle, placed in pill boxes, and sold to customers. These boxes were labeled “sulfathiazole.” They did not contain the statutorily required adequate directions for use or warnings of danger.
Respondent’s motion to dismiss the information was overruled, a jury was waived, evidence was heard, and respondent was convicted under both counts. 67 F. Supp. 192.
The Circuit Court of Appeals reversed. 161 F. 2d 629. The court thought that as a result of respondent’s action the sulfathiazole became “misbranded” within the meaning of the Federal Act, and that in its “broadest possible sense” the Act’s language “may include what happened.” However, it was also of the opinion that the Act ought not to be taken so broadly “but held to apply only to the holding for the first sale by the importer after interstate shipment.” Thus the Circuit Court of Appeals interpreted the statutory language of § 301 (k) “while such article is held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce” as though Congress had said “while such article is held for sale by a person who had himself received it by way of a shipment in interstate commerce.” We granted certiorari to review this important question concerning the Act’s coverage. 332 U. S. 753.
First. The narrow construction given § 301 (k) rested not so much upon its language as upon the Circuit Court’s view of the consequences that might result from the broader interpretation urged by the Government. The court pointed out that the retail sales here involved were made in Columbus nine months after this sulfathiazole had been shipped from Chicago to Atlanta. It was impressed by the fact that, if the statutory language “while such article is held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce” should be given its literal meaning, the criminal provisions relied on would “apply to all intrastate sales of imported drugs after any number of intermediate sales within the State and after any lapse of time; and not only to such sales of drugs, but also to similar retail sales of foods, devices and cosmetics, for all these are equally covered by these provisions of the Act.” The court emphasized that such consequences would result in far-reaching inroads upon customary control by local authorities of traditionally local activities, and that a purpose to afford local retail purchasers federal protection from harmful foods, drugs and cosmetics should not be ascribed to Congress in the absence of an exceptionally clear mandate, citing Federal Trade Commission v. Bunte Bros., 312 U. S. 349. Another reason of the court for refraining from construing the Act as applicable to articles misbranded while held for retail sale, even though the articles had previously been shipped in interstate commerce, was its opinion that such a construction would raise grave doubts as to the Act’s constitutionality. In support of this position the court cited Labor Board v. Jones & Laughlin Steel Corp., 301 U. S. 1, 30, and Schechter Poultry Corp. v. United States, 295 U. S. 495.
A restrictive interpretation should not be given a statute merely because Congress has chosen to depart from custom or because giving effect to the express language employed by Congress might require a court to face a constitutional question. And none of the foregoing cases, nor any other on which they relied, authorizes a court in interpreting a statute to depart from its clear meaning. When it is reasonably plain that Congress meant its Act to prohibit certain conduct, no one of the above references justifies a distortion of the congressional purpose, not even if the clearly correct purpose makes marked deviations from custom or leads inevitably to a holding of constitutional invalidity. Although criminal statutes must be so precise and unambiguous that the ordinary person can know how to avoid unlawful conduct, see Kraus & Bros., Inc. v. United States, 327 U. S. 614, 621-622, even in determining whether such statutes meet that test, they should be given their fair meaning in accord with the evident intent of Congress. United States v. Raynor, 302 U. S. 540, 552.
Second. Another consideration that moved the Circuit Court of Appeals to give the statute a narrow construction was its belief that the holding in this case with reference to misbranding of drugs by a retail druggist would necessarily apply also to “similar retail sales of foods, devices and cosmetics, for all of these,” the court said, “are equally covered by the same provisions of the Act.” And in this Court the effect of such a possible coverage of the Act is graphically magnified. We are told that its application to these local sales of sulfathiazole would logically require all retail grocers and beauty parlor operators to reproduce the bulk container labels on each individual item when it is taken from the container to sell to a purchaser. It is even prophesied that, if § 301 (k) is given the interpretation urged by the Government, it will later be applied so as to require retail merchants to label sticks of candy and sardines when removed from their containers for sale.
The scope of the offense which Congress defined is not to be judicially narrowed as applied to drugs by envisioning extreme possible applications of its different misbranding provisions which relate to food, cosmetics, and the like. There will be opportunity enough to consider such contingencies should they ever arise. It may now be noted, however, that the Administrator of the Act is given rather broad discretion — broad enough undoubtedly to enable him to perform his duties fairly without wasting his efforts on what may be no more than technical infractions of law. As an illustration of the Administrator’s discretion, § 306 permits him to excuse minor violations with a warning if he believes that the public interest will thereby be adequately served. And the Administrator is given extensive authority under §§ 405, 503 and 603 to issue regulations exempting from the labeling requirements many articles that otherwise would fall within this portion of the Act. The provisions of § 405 with regard to food apparently are broad enough to permit the relaxation of some of the labeling requirements which might otherwise impose a burden on retailers out of proportion to their value to the consumer.
Third. When we seek the meaning of § 301 (k) from its language we find that the offense it creates and which is here charged requires the doing of some act with respect to a drug (1) which results in its being misbranded, (2) while the article is held for sale “after shipment in interstate commerce.” Respondent has not seriously contended that the “misbranded” portion of § 301 (k) is ambiguous. Section 502 (f), as has been seen, provides that a drug is misbranded unless the labeling contains adequate directions and adequate warnings. The labeling here did not contain the information which § 502 (f) requires. There is a suggestion here that, although alteration, mutilation, destruction, or obliteration of the bottle label would have been a “misbranding,” transferring the pills to non-branded boxes would not have been, so long as the labeling on the empty bottle was not disturbed. Such an argument cannot be sustained. For the chief purpose of forbidding the destruction of the label is to keep it intact for the information and protection of the consumer. That purpose would be frustrated when the pills the consumer buys are not labeled as required, whether the label has been torn from the original container or the pills have been transferred from it to a non-labeled one. We find no ambiguity in the misbranding language of the Act.
Furthermore, it would require great ingenuity to discover ambiguity in the additional requirement of § 301 (k) that the misbranding occur “while such article is held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce.” The words accurately describe respondent’s conduct here. He held the drugs for sale after they had been shipped in interstate commerce from Chicago to Atlanta. It is true that respondent bought them over six months after the interstate shipment had been completed by their delivery to another consignee. But the language used by Congress broadly and unqualifiedly prohibits misbranding articles held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce, without regard to how long after the shipment the misbranding occurred, how many intrastate sales had intervened, or who had received the articles at the end of the interstate shipment. Accordingly we find that the conduct of the respondent falls within the literal language of § 301 (k).
Fourth. Given the meaning that we have found the literal language of § 301 (k) to have, it is thoroughly consistent with the general aims and purposes of the Act. For the Act as a whole was designed primarily to protect consumers from dangerous products. This Court so recognized in United States v. Dotterweich, 320 U. S. 277, 282, after reviewing the House and Senate Committee Reports on the bill that became law. Its purpose was to safeguard the consumer by applying the Act to articles from the moment of their introduction into interstate commerce all the way to the moment of their delivery to the ultimate consumer. Section 301 (a) forbids the “introduction or delivery for introduction into interstate commerce” of misbranded or adulterated drugs; § 301 (b) forbids the misbranding or adulteration of drugs while “in interstate commerce”; and § 301 (c) prohibits the “receipt in interstate commerce” of any misbranded or adulterated drug, and “the delivery or proffered delivery thereof for pay or otherwise.” But these three paragraphs alone would not supply protection all the way to the consumer. The words of paragraph (k) “while such article is held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce” apparently were designed to fill this gap and to extend the Act’s coverage to every article that had gone through interstate commerce until it finally reached the ultimate consumer. Doubtless it was this purpose to insure federal protection until the very moment the articles passed into the hands of the consumer by way of an intrastate transaction that moved the House Committee on Interstate and Foreign Commerce to report on this section of the Act as follows: “In order to extend the protection of consumers contemplated by the law to the full extent constitutionally possible, paragraph (k) has been inserted prohibiting the changing of labels so as to misbrand articles held for sale after interstate shipment.” We hold that § 301 (k) prohibits the misbranding charged in the information.
Fifth. It is contended that the Act as we have construed it is beyond any authority granted Congress by the Constitution and that it invades the powers reserved to the States. A similar challenge was made against the Pure Food and Drugs Act of 1906, 34 Stat. 768, and rejected, in McDermott v. Wisconsin, 228 U. S. 115. That Act did not contain § 301 (k), but it did prohibit misbranding and authorized seizure of misbranded articles after they were shipped from one State to another, so long as they remained “unsold.” The authority of Congress to make this requirement was upheld as a proper exercise of its powers under the commerce clause. There are two variants between the circumstances of that case and this one. In the McDermott case the labels involved were on the original containers; here the labels are required to be put on other than the original containers — the boxes to which the tablets were transferred. Also, in the McDermott case the possessor of the labeled cans held for sale had himself received them by way of an interstate sale and shipment; here, while the petitioner had received the sulfathiazole by way of" an intrastate sale and shipment, he bought it from a wholesaler who had received it as the direct consignee of an interstate shipment. These variants are not sufficient we think to detract from the applicability of the McDermott holding to the present decision. In both cases alike the question relates to the constitutional power of Congress under the commerce clause to regulate the branding of articles that have completed an interstate shipment and are being held for future sales in purely local or intrastate commerce. The reasons given for the McDermott holding therefore are equally applicable and persuasive here. And many cases decided since the McDermott decision lend support to the validity of § 301 (k). See, e. g., United States v. Walsh, 331 U. S. 432; Wickard v. Filburn, 317 U. S. 111; United States v. Wrightwood Dairy Co., 315 U. S. 110; United States v. Darby, 312 U. S. 100; see United States v. Olsen, 161 F. 2d 669.
Reversed.
“Sec. 301. The following acts and the causing thereof are hereby prohibited:
“(k) The alteration, mutilation, destruction, obliteration, or removal of the whole or any part of the labeling of, or the doing of any other act with respect to, a food, drug, device, or cosmetic, if such act is done while such article is held for sale after shipment in interstate commerce and results in such article being misbranded.” 52 Stat. 1042, 21 U. S. C. § 331 (k).
The following inscription appeared on the bottle labels as a compliance with §502 (f) (1) which requires directions as to use: “Caution. — To be used only by or on the prescription of a physician.” This would appear to constitute adequate directions since it is required by regulation issued by the Administrator pursuant to authority of the Act. 21 C. F. R. Cum. Supp. §2.106 (b) (3). The following appeared on the label of the bottles as a compliance with § 502 (f) (2) which requires warnings of danger: “Warning. — In some individuals Sulfathiazole may cause severe toxic reactions. Daily blood counts for evidence of anemia or leukopenia and urine examinations for hematuria are recommended.
“Physicians should familiarize themselves with the use of this product before it is administered. A circular giving full directions and contraindications will be furnished upon request.”
H. R. Rep. 2139, 75th Cong., 3d Sess., 3.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Marshall
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U. S. 322 (1979), we held that a court’s determinations of issues in an equitable action could collaterally estop relitigation of the same issues in a subsequent legal action without violating a litigant’s right to a jury trial. Id., at 333. In this case, petitioner brought both equitable and legal claims in the same action, but the District Court erroneously dismissed the legal claims. We must determine whether the District Court’s resolution of the issues raised by petitioner’s equitable claims bars re-litigation of the same issues before a jury in the context of his legal claims. We hold that collateral estoppel does not preclude relitigation of those issues in these circumstances.
I
John Lytle, an Afro-American, worked as a machinist for Schwitzer Turbochargers, a subsidiary of Household Manufacturing, Inc. On August 11, 1983, Lytle asked his supervisor if he could take a vacation day on Friday, August 12, so that he could see a doctor. Although his supervisor approved that request, the supervisor later told Lytle that he was required to work on Saturday, August 13. Lytle objected because he would be too ill to work on Saturday. He did not report for work on either day, and the parties dispute whether he informed his employer of his intention to be absent both days. Schwitzer classified Lytle’s absences as “unexcused.” Under the company’s discharge policy, more than eight hours of unexcused absences within a 12-month period provides grounds for dismissal. On that basis, Schwitzer fired Lytle.
Lytle filed a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleging that he had been treated differently from white workers who had missed work. At the same time, Lytle applied for jobs with other employers, several of whom sought references from Schwitzer. Lytle alleges that his job search was unsuccessful because Schwitzer provided prospective employers only with Lytle’s dates of employment and his job title.
After receiving a right to sue letter from the EEOC, Lytle filed this action seeking monetary and injunctive relief under both Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, 42 U. S. C. §2000e et seq. (1982 ed.), and 16 Stat. 144, 42 U. S. C. § 1981 (1982 ed.). He alleged that Schwitzer had discharged him because of his race and had retaliated against him for filing a charge with the EEOC by providing inadequate references to prospective employers. In his complaint, Lytle requested a jury trial on all issues triable by a jury.
At the beginning of the trial, the District Court dismissed Lytle’s § 1981 claims, concluding that Title VII provided the exclusive remedy for Lytle’s alleged injuries. The District Court then conducted a bench trial on the Title VII claims. At the close of Lytle’s case in chief, the court granted Schwitzer’s motion to dismiss the claim of discriminatory discharge pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) (“After the plaintiff, in an action tried by the court without a jury, has completed the presentation of evidence, the defendant, without waiving the right to offer evidence in the event the motion is not granted, may move for a dismissal on the ground that upon the facts and the law the plaintiff has shown no right to relief. The court as trier of the facts may then determine them and render judgment against the plaintiff or may decline to render any judgment until the close of all the evidence”). After both parties had presented all their evidence, the judge entered a judgment in favor of Schwitzer on the retaliation claim.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, 831 F. 2d 1057 (CA4 1987) (judgment order), but noted that the dismissal of the § 1981 claims was “apparently erroneous” because “Title VII and §1981 remedies [are] separate, independent and distinct.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 7a, n. 2. Nevertheless, it ruled that the District Court’s findings with respect to the Title VII claims collaterally estopped Lytle from litigating his § 1981 claims because the elements of a cause of action under § 1981 are identical to those under Title VII. The Court of Appeals rejected Lytle’s claim that the Seventh Amendment precluded according collateral-estoppel effect to the District Court’s findings, reasoning that the judicial interest in economy of resources overrode Lytle’s interest in relitigating the issues before a jury. We granted certiorari, 492 U. S. 917 (1989), and now reverse.
II
The Seventh Amendment preserves the right to trial by jury in “Suits at common law.” Respondent does not dispute that, had the District Court not dismissed Lytle’s § 1981 claims, Lytle would have been entitled to a jury trial on those claims. See Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U. S. 164, 211-212, 216 (1989) (Brennan, J., concurring in judgment in part and dissenting in part). When legal and equitable claims are joined in the same action, “the right to jury trial on the legal claim, including all issues common to both claims, remains intact.” Curtis v. Loether, 415 U. S. 189, 196, n. 11 (1974). Further, had the § 1981 claims remained in the suit, a jury would have been required to resolve those claims before the court considered the Title VII claims, because “only under the most imperative circumstances, circumstances which in view of the flexible procedures of the Federal Rules we cannot now anticipate, can the right to a jury trial of legal issues be lost through prior determination of equitable claims.” Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U. S. 500, 510-511 (1959) (footnote omitted). Accord, Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U. S. 469, 473 (1962). The Court in Beacon Theatres emphasized the importance of the order in which legal and equitable claims joined in one suit would be resolved because it “thought that if an issue common to both legal and equitable claims was first determined by a judge, relitigation of the issue before a jury might be foreclosed by res judicata or collateral estoppel.” Parklane Hosiery Co., 439 U. S., at 334.
In Parklane Hosiery Co., this Court held that “an equitable determination can have collateral-estoppel effect in a subsequent legal action and that this estoppel does not violate the Seventh Amendment.” Id., at 335 (emphasis added). In that case, a judgment had already been issued by a District Court and affirmed on appeal in a suit in which a jury trial was not constitutionally required. This Court held that the District Court’s resolution of issues in that case collaterally estopped relitigation of the same issues in a second, separate action, even though the plaintiff was entitled to a jury trial in the second action. Respondent argues that this case is governed by Parklane Hosiery Co., rather than by Beacon Theatres, because the District Court made its findings when no legal claims were pending before it. In respondent’s view, if an appellate court finds that a trial court’s dismissal of legal claims was erroneous and remands the legal claims to the trial court, that case would in effect constitute a separate action and therefore be subject to collateral estoppel under Parklane Hosiery Co.
We are not persuaded. Only the District Court’s erroneous dismissal of the § 1981 claims enabled that court to resolve issues common to both claims, issues that otherwise would have been resolved by a jury. But for that erroneous ruling, this case would be indistinguishable from Beacon Theatres and Dairy Queen. It would be anomalous to hold that a district court may not deprive a litigant of his right to a jury trial by resolving an equitable claim before a jury hears a legal claim raising common issues, but that a court may accomplish the same result by erroneously dismissing the legal claim. Such a holding would be particularly unfair here because Lytle was required to join his legal and equitable claims to avoid the bar of res judicata. See Harnett v. Billman, 800 F. 2d 1308, 1315 (CA4 1986) (holding that prior adjudication barred a claim that arose out of the same transactions and that could have been raised in prior suit).
Our conclusion is consistent with this Court’s approach in cases involving a wrongful denial of a petitioner’s right to a jury trial on legal issues. In such cases, we have never accorded collateral-estoppel effect to the trial court’s factual determinations. Instead, we have reversed and remanded each case in its entirety for a trial before a jury. See Meeker v. Ambassador Oil Corp., 375 U. S. 160 (1963) (per curiam) (reversing trial court’s decision to try equitable claims first and thereby to bar jury trial on legal claims that relied on the same facts); Tull v. United States, 481 U. S. 412 (1987) (reversing and remanding claims for monetary penalties and injunctive relief because trial court improperly denied plaintiff a jury trial on the claims for monetary penalties); Granfinanciera, S. A. v. Nordberg, 492 U. S. 33 (1989) (reversing and remanding Bankruptcy Court’s judgment because petitioners were denied a jury trial and according no weight to trial judge’s factual findings).
Furthermore, the purposes served by collateral estoppel do not justify applying the doctrine in this case. Collateral estoppel protects parties from multiple lawsuits and the possibility of inconsistent decisions, and it conserves judicial resources. Montana v. United States, 440 U. S. 147, 153-154 (1979). Application of collateral estoppel is unnecessary here to prevent multiple lawsuits because this case involves one suit in which the plaintiff properly joined his legal and equitable claims. Moreover, our refusal to apply collateral estoppel does not dissipate judicial resources in “needless litigation” over previously resolved issues, Parklane Hosiery Co., 439 U. S., at 326. Although our holding requires a new trial in this case, we view such litigation as essential to vindicating Lytle’s Seventh Amendment rights. The relitigation of factual issues before a jury is no more “needless” in this context than in cases in which a trial court erroneously concludes that a claim is equitable rather than legal, see, e. g., Dairy Queen, Inc. v. Wood, 369 U. S. 469 (1962), or that resolution of an equitable claim can precede resolution of a legal claim, see, e. g., Beacon Theatres, Inc. v. Westover, 359 U. S. 500 (1959). In all of these circumstances, relitigation is the only mechanism that can completely correct the error of the court below. Thus, concern about judicial economy, to the extent that it supports respondent’s position, remains an insufficient basis for departing from our longstanding commitment to preserving a litigant’s right to a jury trial.
Ill
Respondent argues that notwithstanding our resolution of the collateral-estoppel issue, we should affirm the Court of Appeals’ judgment because the record indicates that the District Court would have directed a verdict in favor of respondent on the § 1981 claims even if those claims had been litigated before a jury. This argument is not compelling with respect to either the discriminatory discharge claim or the retaliation claim.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), the District Court dismissed the Title VII claim relating to allegations of discriminatory discharge. After making several factual findings on the basis of evidence adduced by Lytle, Tr. 258, the court concluded that he had not established a prima facie case. Id., at 259. Respondent contends that this ruling establishes that the court would also have directed a verdict against Lytle on his similar § 1981 claim because that claim required proof of the same prima facie case.
Respondent’s reasoning ignores the important distinction between a dismissal under Rule 41(b) and a directed verdict under Rule 50(a). Rule 41(b) allows the court “as trier of the facts” to determine the facts and the law “and render judgment against the plaintiff or . . . decline to render any judgment until the close of all the evidence.” In contrast, in considering a motion for a directed verdict, the court does not weigh the evidence, but draws all factual inferences in favor of the nonmoving party. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U. S. 242, 255 (1986) (“Credibility determinations, the weighing of the evidence, and the drawing of legitimate inferences from the facts are jury functions, not those of a judge .... The evidence of the nonmovant is to be believed, and all justifiable inferences are to be drawn in his favor”). Thus, although a court might, after reviewing the evidence, decide in favor of the party moving for a dismissal under Rule 41(b), that court might not take the same case away from the jury because it might believe that the jury could reasonably find for the nonmoving party. The District Court’s observation that Lytle’s interpretation of the evidence supporting his discriminatory discharge claims was “reasonable,” Tr. 253, supports our conclusion that that court would not necessarily have granted a directed verdict on Lytle’s similar § 1981 claim.
Respondent’s argument with respect to Lytle’s allegations of retaliation is even further off base. The District Court declined to dismiss the retaliation claim, finding that Lytle had adduced some evidence of disparate treatment, Tr. 256, 257, and required respondent to present evidence on that issue. After both parties presented closing statements, the court found no evidence of discrimination on the part of respondent, id., at 301, and then entered a judgment in respondent’s favor. Nothing in the record indicates that the court reached the only reasonable conclusions or that a jury could not have found the facts differently and entered a different verdict. As we have long recognized, a jury and a judge can draw different conclusions from the same evidence. See, e. g., Railroad Co. v. Stout, 17 Wall. 657, 664 (1874). Thus, we are not convinced that the District Court would have granted a motion for a directed verdict on Lytle’s § 1981 claim concerning retaliation.
IV
We decline to extend Parklane Hosiery Co., supra, and to accord collateral-estoppel effect to a district court’s determinations of issues common to equitable and legal claims where the court resolved the equitable claims first solely because it erroneously dismissed the legal claims. To hold otherwise would seriously undermine a plaintiff’s right to a jury trial under the Seventh Amendment. We therefore vacate the judgment of the Fourth Circuit, vacate the decision of the District Court with respect to Lytle’s Title VII claims, and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice O’Connor,
with whom Justice Scalia joins, concurring.
I join the Court’s opinion but write separately to note what the Court acknowledges in the last sentence of a footnote, see ante, at 551-552, n. 3: that the question whether petitioner has stated a valid claim under § 1981 remains open. In the District Court, petitioner claimed that respondent had fired him because of his race and retaliated against him for filing a charge of discrimination with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Ante, at 548. As Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U. S. 164 (1989), was decided after the Court of Appeals issued its decision, the applicability of § 1981 to these claims was not specifically addressed. This Court’s usual practice is to decline to address questions raised for the first time here. See United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U. S. 544, 551-552, n. 5 (1980); Youakim v. Miller, 425 U. S. 231, 234 (1976). The Court adheres to this practice, noting that arguments based on Patterson neither were “presented to either court below” nor are to be found “in the record.” Ante, at 552, n. 3. The Court correctly concludes that there is “therefore . . . nothing in the record to justify affirming the Fourth Circuit’s judgment” at this juncture. Ibid. On remand, therefore, the parties will have ample opportunity to present arguments, and the lower courts will have the first opportunity to consider whether either of petitioner’s charges relates to the formation or enforcement of a contract, the two types of claims actionable under § 1981, Patterson, 491 U. S., at 176-178, or relates only to “postformation conduct unrelated to an employee’s right to enforce [his] contract.” Id., at 180.
Under Fourth Circuit precedent, a plaintiff does not have a right to a jury trial on a Title VII claim. See Keller v. Prince George’s County, 827 F. 2d 952, 955 (1987). This Court has not ruled on the question whether a plaintiff seeking relief under Title VII has a right to a jury trial. See Chauffeurs, Teamsters and Helpers v. Tetry, post, at 572. Because Lytle does not argue that he was entitled to a jury trial on his Title VII claims, we express no opinion on that issue here. Instead, we assume for purposes of this opinion that he has no such right.
The Fourth Circuit’s decision to apply collateral estoppel in this situation directly conflicts with the Seventh Circuit’s decision in Hussein v. Oshkosh Motor Truck Co., 816 F. 2d 348 (1987).
Respondent argues that dismissal of Lytle’s § 1981 claims was not erroneous because Lytle’s allegations do not state § 1981 claims in light of this Court’s decision in Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, 491 U. S. 164 (1989). Under our Rules, “[o]nly the questions set forth in the petition, or fairly included therein, will be considered by the Court.” This Court’s Rule 14.1(a). The question of Patterson’s effect on Lytle’s claims is not even remotely related to the question on which we granted certiorari. See Pet. for Cert, i (“Did the Fourth Circuit correctly hold that district court violations of the Seventh Amendment are unreviewable by the appellate courts if the trial judge, after violating the Amendment by refusing to empanel a jury, compounds that constitutional infraction by deciding himself the very factual issue which should have been presented to and decided by a jury?”).
Respondent nonetheless contends that, whether or not the Patterson issue is fairly included in the question presented, the Court can consider its argument because, as the prevailing party below, it may “defend its judgment on any ground properly raised below whether or not that ground was relied upon, rejected, or even considered by the District Court or the Court of Appeals.” Washington v. Yakima Indian Nation, 439 U. S. 463, 476, n. 20 (1979). The argument that the allegations of discriminatory discharge and retaliation did not concern conduct within the scope of § 1981 as defined by Patterson, however, was not presented to either court below, nor is it supported by arguments in the record. We therefore find nothing in the record to justify affirming the Fourth Circuit’s judgment on the ground that Lytle has not stated a cause of action under § 1981.
Respondent also argues that because Patterson was decided after Lytle filed his petition for a writ of certiorari but before we granted the petition, the Court can consider that decision’s effect on Lytle’s § 1981 claims. In other words, respondent claims that the intervening decision is an extraordinary circumstance that justifies departing from our Rules. We are not persuaded that an exception is warranted in this case. Applying our analysis in Patterson to the facts of a particular case without the benefit of a full record or lower court determinations is not a sensible exercise of this Court’s discretion. See Blonder-Tongue Laboratories, Inc. v. University of Illinois Foundation, 402 U. S. 313, 320, n. 6 (1971); Sure-Tan, Inc. v. NLRB, 467 U. S. 883, 896, n. 7 (1984). Cf. Piccirillo v. New York, 400 U. S. 548 (1971) (dismissing a writ of certiorari as improvidently granted because both parties agreed that an intervening state-court judgment rendered any decision by this Court meaningless). On remand, the Fourth Circuit should consider the impact of Patterson on Lytle’s § 1981 claims.
Vacating the District Court’s determination regarding Lytle’s Title VII claims is required to afford Lytle complete and consistent relief. Had his § 1981 claims not been dismissed, the jury’s determination of legal and factual issues could not have been disregarded when the District Court considered his equitable claims. Moreover, vacating the District Court’s judgment avoids the possibility of inconsistent determinations. See Montana v. United States, 440 U. S. 147, 154 (1979) (noting that inconsistent decisions pose threat of diminishing reliance on the judiciary).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 evening of December 5, 1952, the motor vessel Tungus docked at Bayonne, New Jersey, with a cargo of coconut oil in its deep tanks. El Dorado Oil Works had been engaged by the consignee to handle the discharge of this cargo, and for the next several hours the work of pumping the oil ashore was carried on by El Dorado employees, using a pump and hoses furnished by their employer. Two officers and two crew members of the Tungus remained aboard, the latter specifically assigned to assist in the discharge operations. Shortly after midnight the pump became defective, resulting in the spillage of a large quantity of oil over the adjacent deck area. The pump was stopped and the oil cleaned from its immediate vicinity. Efforts to restore the pump to normal operation were unsuccessful, and Carl Skovgaard, an El Dorado maintenance foreman, was therefore summoned from his home to assist in the repair work. After arriving on board he walked through an area from which the oil had not been removed, and in attempting to step from the hatch beams to the top of the partly uncovered port deep tank, he slipped and fell to his death in eight feet of hot coconut oil.
His widow and administratrix, the respondent here, commenced this suit in admiralty against the ship and its owners to recover damages for his death, alleging unseaworthiness of the vessel and a negligent failure to provide the decedent with a reasonably safe place to work. The District Court dismissed the libel, holding that a wrongful death action for unseaworthiness would not lie, and that the petitioners owed no duty of exercising ordinary care to provide the decedent a safe place to work. 141 F. Supp. 653. The Court of Appeals set aside this decree and remanded the case for further proceedings, a divided en banc court deciding that the New Jersey Wrongful Death Act embraces a claim for unseaworthiness, and also that the District Court had erred with respect to the scope of the petitioners’ duty to exercise reasonable care for the decedent’s safety. 252 F. 2d 14. The court did not decide “what defenses, if any, might be available,” leaving that question for the District Court to determine. Cer-tiorari was granted primarily to consider the relationship of maritime and local law in cases of this kind. 357 U. S. 903.
We begin as did the Court of Appeals with the established principle of maritime law that in the absence of a statute there is no action for wrongful death. The Harrisburg, 119 U. S. 199. Although Congress has enacted legislation, notably the Jones Act and the Death on the High Seas Act, providing for wrongful death actions in a limited number of situations, no federal statute is applicable to the present case; Skovgaard was not a seaman, and his death occurred upon the territorial waters of New Jersey. The respondent’s rights in this suit depended entirely, therefore, upon the New Jersey wrongful death statute, and the long-settled doctrine that “where death . . . results from a maritime tort committed on navigable waters within a State whose statutes give a right of action on account of death by wrongful act, the admiralty courts will entertain a libel in personam for the damages sustained by those to whom such right is given.” Western Fuel Co. v. Garcia, 257 U. S. 233, 242.
The primary issue in this case, therefore, as the Court of Appeals unanimously saw it, was whether the New Jersey statute giving a right of action where death is caused “by a wrongful act, neglect or default” is broad enough to encompass an action for death caused by the unseaworthiness of a vessel. It was upon this issue— construction of the state statute — that the court divided.
The respondent asks us to uphold the interpretation which the majority in the Court of Appeals has put upon the New Jersey statute. Failing that, a much broader alternative argument is advanced — that a court in a case such as this may disregard completely the conditions which the State has put upon the right it has created, and may apply instead the full corpus of the maritime law, free of any qualifications imposed by the State. If death occurs upon navigable waters within a State, the argument runs, the law should seize only upon the blunt fact that there is some kind of state statute providing some kind of a right of action for death caused by some kind of tortious conduct. That, it is said, is enough to fill the “void” in the maritime law, which then becomes, applicable in all its facets, without further inquiry as to what it is that the State has actually enacted.
This broad argument must be rejected. The decisions of this Court long ago established that when admiralty adopts a State’s right of action for wrongful death, it must enforce the right as an integrated whole, with whatever conditions and limitations the creating State has attached. That is what was decided in The Harrisburg, where the Court’s language was unmistakable: . . [I]f the admiralty adopts the statute as a rule of right to be administered within its own jurisdiction, it must take the right subject to the limitations which have been made a part of its existence. . . . The liability and the remedy are created by the same statutes, and the limitations of the remedy are, therefore, to be treated as limitations of the right.” 119 U. S. 199, at 214. That is the doctrine which has been reiterated by the Court through the years. See The Hamilton, 207 U. S. 398; La Bourgogne, 210 U. S. 95; Western Fuel Co. v. Garcia, 257 U. S. 233; Levinson v. Deupree, 345 U. S. 648; cf. Just v. Chambers, 312 U. S. 383.
“[AJdmiralty courts, when invoked to protect rights rooted in state law, endeavor to determine the issues in accordance with the substantive law of the State.” Garrett v. Moore-McCormack Co., 317 U. S. 239, 245. The policy expressed by a State Legislature in enacting a wrongful death statute is not merely that death shall give rise to a right of recovery, nor even that tortious conduct resulting in death shall be actionable, but that damages shall be recoverable when conduct of a particular kind results in death. It is incumbent upon a court enforcing that policy to enforce it all; it may not pick or choose.
It is manifest, moreover, that acceptance of the respondent’s argument would defeat the intent of Congress to preserve state sovereignty over deaths caused by maritime torts within the State’s territorial waters. The legislative history of the Death on the High Seas Act discloses a clear congressional purpose to leave “unimpaired the rights under State statutes as to deaths on waters within the territorial jurisdiction of the States.” S. Rep. No. 216, 66th Cong., 1st Sess. 3; H. R. Rep. No. 674, 66th Cong., 2d Sess. 3. The record of the debate in the House of Representatives preceding passage of the bill reflects deep concern that the power of the States to create actions for wrongful death in no way be affected by enactment of the federal law. 59 Cong. Rec. 4482-4486.
There is no merit to the contention that application of state law to determine rights arising from death in state territorial waters is destructive of the uniformity of federal maritime law. Even Southern Pacific Co. v. Jensen, which fathered the “uniformity” concept, recognized that uniformity is not offended by “the right given to recover in death cases.” 244 U. S. 205, at 216. It would be an anomaly to hold that a State may create a right of action for death, but that it may not determine the circumstances under which that right exists. The power of a State to create such a right includes of necessity the power to determine when recovery shall be permitted and when it shall not. Cf. Caldarola v. Eckert, 332 U. S. 155.
We hold, therefore, that the Court of Appeals was correct in viewing the basic question before it as one of interpretation of the law of New Jersey. It is within that frame of reference that we consider the issues presented.
The negligence claim needs little discussion. Obviously the New Jersey wrongful death statute embraces a claim for death negligently caused. The majority in the Court of Appeals pointed out that the officers and crew of the Tungus remained in over-all control of the vessel, and that they were well aware of the existence of the oil spill and of the danger created by it for approximately an hour before Skovgaard arrived on board. Upon these facts it was concluded that the law imposed upon the petitioners a duty of exercising ordinary care to provide Skovgaard with a reasonably safe place to carry on his work of repairing the pump. In reaching this conclusion the court distinguished the New Jersey Supreme Court’s decision in Broecker v. Armstrong Cork Co., 128 N. J. L. 3, 24 A. 2d 194. We find no reason to question the disposition of this branch of the case.
As to the other issues, a majority of the Court of Appeals concluded that a claim for unseaworthiness is encompassed by the New Jersey Wrongful Death Act as a matter of state law. The three dissenting members of the court reached the opposite conclusion. Apparently because the trial court had made no finding as to the decedent’s contributory negligence or assumption of risk, the Court of Appeals refrained from deciding what effect state law would give to such findings, leaving that question to be decided if it arose on retrial.
In a case such as this it is incumbent upon the admiralty to enforce the New Jersey statute just “as it would one originating in any foreign jurisdiction.” Levinson v. Deupree, 345 U. S. 648, 652. Yet the fact is that the New Jersey courts have simply not spoken upon the question of whether in a case such as this maritime law or common law is applicable under the State’s Wrongful Death Act. In sum, there is no way of knowing whether New Jersey would impose uniform legal standards throughout its jurisdiction, or would apply in this case rules different from those that would govern if, instead of meeting his death aboard the Tungus, Skovgaard had been killed on the adjacent dock. An effort to resolve that question here, no less than the effort of the Court of Appeals, could be nothing but a prediction, a prediction that might tomorrow be proved wrong by the courts of New Jersey, which alone have power to render an authoritative interpretation.
In view of these considerations, it might plausibly be argued that the judgment should be vacated, and the case remanded to the District Court to be held until the parties can secure from the courts of New Jersey a decision upon the controlling and seriously doubtful question of state law. Under traditional principles of equitable abstention this Court has often followed such a course for the limited and obviously wise purpose of avoiding unnecessary resolution of constitutional issues. Railroad Comm’n of Texas v. Pullman Co., 312 U. S. 496; Chicago v. Fieldcrest Dairies, 316 U. S. 168; Spector Motor Service, Inc., v. McLaughlin, 323 U. S. 101; American Federation of Labor v. Watson, 327 U. S. 582; Leiter Minerals v. United States, 352 U. S. 220. Cf. Thompson v. Magnolia Petroleum Co., 309 U. S. 478.
Before deciding to dispose of a case like the present one in that way, however, important and competing jurisdictional considerations would have to be thoroughly evaluated. See Propper v. Clark, 337 U. S. 472, 486-489; Meredith v. Winter Haven, 320 U. S. 228. This case has not presented the occasion for full exploration of these jurisdictional questions. The Court of Appeals, en banc, has given careful consideration to the meaning of the state statute. We cannot say that its conclusion is clearly wrong. Therefore, despite the inherent uncertainties involved, we will not disturb that court’s interpretation of the New Jersey law. Such a course is consistent with the practice that has been followed in the past. Estate of Spiegel v. Commissioner, 335 U. S. 701, 707-708; Ragan v. Merchants Transfer Co., 337 U. S. 530, 534; General Box Co. v. United States, 351 U. S. 159, 165.
Affirmed.
The libel also asserted a claim, presumably under the New Jersey survival statute, N. J. Stat. Ann. 2A:15-3, for damages sustained by the decedent prior to his death. This claim has been abandoned.
41 Stat. 1007, 46 U. S. C. § 688.
41 Stat. 537 et seq., 46 U. S. C. § 761 et seq.
See also the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, 44 Stat. 1424 et seq., 33 U. S. C. § 901 et seq. In the present case, the record shows that the respondent was awarded compensation under the New Jersey compensation act upon a finding that her decedent’s death occurred in the "twilight zone." See Davis v. Department of Labor, 317 U. S. 249.
The Jones Act applies “in case of the death of any seaman. . . .”
The Death on the High Seas Act creates a right of action only for a “wrongful act, neglect, or default occurring on the high seas beyond a marine league from the shore of any State . . . .” 46 U. S. C. § 761.
The relevant text of the New Jersey statute is as follows:
“When the death of a person is caused by a wrongful act, neglect or default, such as would, if death had not ensued, have entitled the person injured to maintain an action for damages resulting from the injury, the person who would have been liable in damages for the injury if death had not ensued shall be liable in an action for damages, notwithstanding the death of the person injured and although the death was caused under circumstances amounting in law to a crime.” N. J. Stat. Ann. 2A:31-1.
That this is the law has been generally understood by the other federal courts. United New York and New Jersey Pilots Assn. v. Halecki, 251 F. 2d 708 (C. A. 2d Cir.), judgment vacated and cause remanded, post, p. 613; Continental Casualty Co. v. The Benny Skou, 200 F. 2d 246 (C. A. 4th Cir.); Graham v. A. Lusi, Ltd., 206 F. 2d 223 (C. A. 5th Cir.); Lee v. Pure Oil Co., 218 F. 2d 711 (C. A. 6th Cir.); Klingseisen v. Costanzo Transp. Co., 101 F. 2d 902 (C. A. 3d Cir.); The H. S., Inc., No. 72, 130 F. 2d 341 (C. A. 3d Cir.); Feige v. Hurley, 89 F. 2d 575 (C. A. 6th Cir.); Curtis v. A. Garcia y Cia., 241 F. 2d 30 (C. A. 3d Cir.); O’Brien v. Luckenbach S. S. Co., 293 F. 170 (C. A. 2d Cir.); Quinette v. Bisso, 136 F. 825 (C. A. 5th Cir.); The A. W. Thompson, 39 F. 115 (D. C. S. D. N. Y.); but cf. Riley v. Ag-wilines, Inc., 296 N. Y. 402, 73 N. E. 2d 718; Kuhn v. City of New York, 274 N. Y. 118, 8 N. E. 2d 300; O’Leary v. United States Line Co., 215 F. 2d 708 (C. A. 1st Cir.).
The Court of Appeals also determined that the decedent was within the class protected by the warranty of seaworthiness as developed by federal maritime law, which it found the New Jersey statute had incorporated. This subsidiary determination is clearly correct. The decedent’s status is practically indistinguishable from that of the plaintiff in Pope & Talbot, Inc., v. Hawn, 346 U. S. 406, the only difference being that the cargo here was oil instead of grain, and was being unloaded instead of loaded.
Indeed, such a disposition has not even been suggested by counsel.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Whittaker
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Petitioners, nine individuals and two state banking corporations, were indicted in 20 counts in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas, Houston Division, for mail fraud and conspiracy to commit mail fraud. The first 19 counts charged that petitioners devised, prior to September 1, 1949, and continued to February 20, 1954, a scheme to defraud the Benavides Independent School District (“District”) of Duval County, Texas, the State of Texas, and the taxpayers of each, and that they used the mails for the purpose of executing the scheme, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 1341. The twentieth count charged that petitioners conspired to commit the substantive offense charged in the first count, in violation of 18 U. S. C. § 371.
After their various motions,'including one challenging venue and asking transfer of the action to the Corpus Christi Division of the court, and one for a bill of particulars, were denied, petitioners entered pleas of “not guilty” and in due course the case was put to trial before a jury. The jury returned verdicts finding petitioners guilty as charged — some of them on all counts and others on only some of the counts. After denying timely motions in arrest of judgment and for a new trial, the court entered judgments upon the verdicts, convicting petitioners and sentencing them to imprisonment. On appeal, the judgments were affirmed, 265 F. 2d 894, and, to determine questions of importance relative to the scope and proper application of § 1341, we granted certiorari. 361 U. S. 912.
Petitioners' principal contentions here are: (1) that, although the indictment charged and the evidence tended to show that petitioners devised and practiced a scheme to defraud the District by the local or state crimes of misappropriating and embezzling its money and property, neither the indictment nor the proofs support the judgments, because the indictment did not charge, and the proofs did not show, any use of the mails “for the purpose of executing such scheme” within the meaning of that phrase as used in § 1341, and (2) that the court’s charge did not submit to the jury any theory or issue of fact that could constitute use of the mails “for the purpose of executing such scheme.” The nature of these contentions requires a detailed examination of the indictment, the evidence adduced, and of the issues of fact actually tried and submitted to the jury, for its resolution, by the court in its charge.
We turn first to the indictment. Summarized as briefly as fair statement permits, the first count alleged that the District is a public corporation organized under the laws of Texas to acquire and hold the facilities necessary for, and to operate, the public schools within the District, and, for those purposes, to assess and collect taxes; that the laws of Texas vest exclusive control.of the property and management of the affairs of the District in its Board of Trustees, consisting of seven members; that prior to September 1, 1949, petitioners devised, and continued to February 20, 1954, a scheme to defraud the District, the State of Texas, and the taxpayers of each, and to obtain their money and property for themselves and their relatives.
It then alleged that, as part of the scheme, petitioners would falsely represent that district checks were issued, and its funds disbursed, only to persons and concerns for services rendered and materials furnished to the District, and that its Annual Reports to the State Commissioner of Education were correct.
It next alleged that, as a further part of the scheme, seven of the petitioners would establish and maintain domination and control of the District; that three of them would acquire and maintain control of petitioner, the Texas State Bank of Alice, which was the authorized depository of the District’s funds, and that one of them would acquire and maintain control of petitioner, the San Diego State Bank.
It then alleged that it was a further part of the scheme that petitioners would send or cause to be sent letters, tax statements, checks in payment of taxes, and receipted tax statements, through the United States mails; that the checks and moneys received by the District from taxpayers and others would be deposited to the credit of the District in the authorized depository bank, against which petitioners would issue district checks payable to fictitious persons, and to existing persons, "without consideration (falsifying the District’s records to show that such checks were issued in payment for services or materials), and would cash such checks, upon forged endorsements or without endorsements of the payees, at the depository bank and convert the proceeds; that they would open accounts and deposit checks received in payment of taxes in unauthorized banks, and that petitioner Chapa would withdraw and convert the funds; that they would convert and cash checks received by the District in payment of taxes and keep the proceeds; that they would obtain merchandise for themselves on the credit and at the expense of the District; that they would prepare, and the Board of Trustees would approve, false Annual Reports of the District and mail them to the State Commissioner of Education at Austin, Texas; that they would conceal their fraudulent misuse of district funds by destroying canceled checks, bank statements and other records of the District and the microfilmed records of the petitioner banks showing the fraudulent checks drawn against and paid out of the District’s accounts.
The last paragraph of the count — the only paragraph purporting to charge an offense — charged that petitioners on September 29, 1952, for the purpose of executing the scheme, caused to be taken from the post office, in the Houston Division of the court, a letter addressed to Humble Oil & Refining Company, Houston, Texas.
Each of Counts 2 through 19 adopted by reference all allegations of the first count, except those contained in the last paragraph of that count which charged a specific offense against petitioners, and then proceeded to allege that on a stated date the petitioners, for the purpose of executing the scheme, “caused” a particular letter, tax statement, check, tax receipt or invoice to be placed in or taken from an authorized depository for United States mail in the Houston Division of the court. Doubtless the charge in each of these counts was so limited, in the light of Rule 18 of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure fixing venue over crimes in the District and division where committed, in order to give the Houston Division venue over this action, and consequently the indictment does not count upon petitioners’ full uses of the mails, for they were principally made in Duval County in the Corpus Christi Division of the court.
The twentieth count charged that throughout the relevant period petitioners feloniously conspired and agreed among themselves and with others to commit “the offenses... which are fully described and set out in the first count of this indictment,” and that, to effect the object of the conspiracy, petitioners committed'specified overt acts.
We now look to the evidence. Condensed to pith, the 6,000 pages of evidence disclose that the District, acting through its Board of Trustees of seven members, operated the public schools in the towns of Benavides and Freer, each having slightly more than 1,000 pupils. From time to time the Board met to appoint (a) an assessor-collector, (b) an independent firm of engineers and accountants to assist the assessor-collector in determining the ownership and valuation of property — particularly mineral lands and complex fractional interests therein — in the District, (c) a Board of Equalization, and (d) a depository of the District's funds, and also met (e) to consider and propose to the electorate the authorization and sale of bonds in 1949 ($265,000) and in 1950 ($362,500) to finance the construction of new school facilities.
In actual operations the engineering-accounting firm would annually prepare and submit to the assessor-collector a list showing the ownership and its appraisal of the value of the various properties and mineral interests in the District, from which, after the Board of Equalization had completed its work thereon (in June and July), the assessor-collector would prepare the tax rolls for the current year and therefrom prepare and send out the tax statements by mail, and on receipt of checks in payment of taxes (the great majority of which were received in the mails) would — with éxceptions later noted — deposit them to the credit of the District in the depository bank, and then mail receipts to the taxpayers.
Three members of the Board resided in Freer, and the other four resided in Benavides. Aside from the meetings for the purposes above stated, the Trustees rarely met as a board. Each group, rather independently, operated the schools in its town, and the actual costs of operation were about the same in each town. But the Benavides members handled generally the day-to-day business of the District, including the staffing and operation of its office, the keeping of its books and records, the making of its contracts, its relations with the assessor-colléctor, the Annual Report to the State Commissioner of Education (to obtain from the State the amount per pupil prescribed to be paid to such school districts by the Texas law) and the routine disbursement of its funds.
Petitioners Saenz, Garza and Garcia were three of the four Benavides members of the Board. Petitioners Oscar Carrillo, Sr., and O. P. Carrillo were, respectively, the secretary of and the attorney for the Board. Petitioner Chapa was the assessor-collector. Petitioner Parr was the president and principal stockholder of petitioner Texas State Bank — the authorized depository of the District’s funds — and of petitioner San Diego State Bank, and there was evidence that, although having no official connection with the District, he practically dominated and controlled its affairs, kept its books and records in his office, outside the District, until July 1951, and countersigned all its checks after June 1950. Petitioner Donald was the cashier and administrative manager of the Texas State Bank, and petitioner Oliveira was a director of that bank.
There was evidence that throughout the relevant period the District's funds, in large amounts, were misappropriated, converted, embezzled and stolen by petitioners. It tended to show that four devices were used for such purposes:
(1) At least once each month numerous district checks were issued against both its building and maintenance accounts in the depository bank payable to fictitious persons and were presented in bundles, totaling from $3,000 to $12,000, to the depository bank and, under the supervision of petitioner Donald, were cashed by it, without endorsements, and the currency was placed and sealed in an envelope and handed to the presenting person for delivery to petitioner Parr. The evidence tended to show that no less than $120,000 of the District’s funds were misappropriated in this way. However, no one of these acts is charged as an offense by the indictment.
(2) At least once each month large numbers of district checks were issued to petitioners, other than Donald and the two banks, often in assumed names or in the names of members of their families, purporting to be in payment for services rendered or materials furnished to the District but which were not rendered or furnished, which checks were presented to the depository bank and, under the supervision of petitioner Donald, were cashed by it, often without or upon forged endorsements. The evidence tended to show that no less than $65,000 of the District’s funds were misappropriated in this way. But again no one of these acts is charged as an offense by the indictment.
(3) Petitioner Chapa converted district checks received by mail in payment of taxes, cashed the same — some at a local bank and some at the depository bank — upon unauthorized endorsements, and misappropriated the proceeds.
(4) Petitioners Oscar Carrillo, Sr., and Garza obtained gasoline and oil for themselves upon the credit card and at the expense of the District. Use of the mails by “causing” the oil company to place its invoices for these goods in the mails and to take the District’s check in payment from the mails in Houston, constitutes the basis of Counts 17, 18 and 19 of the indictment.
The letters, checks and invoices which Counts 1 through 19 of the indictment charge were “caused” by petitioners to be placed in or taken from the mails in Houston, were all offered and received in evidence. Having fully stated the substance of them in notes 9 and 10, we do not repeat it here. The evidence also tended to prove the overt acts alleged in the twentieth count of the indictment.
We now proceed to examine the court’s charge to determine what theories and issues of fact were predicated by the court and submitted for resolution by the jury. Relative to Counts 1 through 19 of the indictment, the court, after reminding the jury that the indictment had been read to them at the beginning of the trial and that they would have it with them for study during their deliberations in the jury room, read aloud § 1341, defined numerous words and phrases, cautioned on many scores, including the weight to be given to the testimony of “accomplices,” stressed the Government’s burden of proof, and then proceeded to give the one verdict-directing charge covering those counts which, in pertinent part, was as follows:
“Applying the law to the first 19 counts of the indictment, if you believe beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant George B. Parr and the other defendants charged and triable in Count One of the indictment considering each separately, did the things that it is alleged that he did do in the first count of the indictment, and at the time that it occurred there existed a scheme to defraud, and that, as a result of such scheme, the mails were used necessarily or incidentally to the carrying out of that scheme, and, as a result thereof,... he did cause the defrauding or obtaining of property by false pretenses and representations in any of the particulars set forth therein... and that he used the United States Mails as set forth in Count One,... then it becomes your duty... to find such defendant or defendants guilty as charged in the first count of the indictment and so find by your verdict.... The same reasoning and instructions apply to each of the first nineteen counts of the indictment and as to each of the defendants charged and triable in each of the first nineteen counts of the indictment.”
Relative to the twentieth count, the court, after reading to the jury § 371, telling them that the essence of the charge “is an agreement to use the mails to defraud,” defining “conspiracy,” commenting on “circumstantial evidence,” and stressing the Government’s burden of proof, proceeded to give the one verdict-directing charge covering that count which, in pertinent part, was as follows:
“Therefore, with reference to the 20th count, if you believe as to any of the alleged conspirators that that person, together with at least one other, did the things charged against him in such count... to effect the objects of the alleged conspiracy, and thereafter there was done one or more of the overt acts set forth in such count... then it becomes your duty under the law as to such defendant or defendants that you so believe as to such 20th count were guilty, to so say by your verdict....”
In the light of this review of the indictment, the evidence adduced and the court’s charge to the jury, we return to the questions presented by petitioners. There can be no doubt that the indictment charged and the evidence tended strongly to show that petitioners devised and practiced a brazen scheme to defraud by misappropriating, converting and embezzling the District’s moneys and property. Counsel for petitioners concede that this is so. But, as they correctly say, these were essentially state crimes and could become federal ones, under the mail fraud statute, only if the mails were used “for the purpose of executing such scheme.” Hence, the question is whether the uses of the mails that were charged in the indictment and shown by the evidence properly may be said to have been “for the purpose of executing such scheme,” in violation of § 1341. Petitioners say “no.” The Government says “yes.”
Specifically, petitioners’ position is that the School Board was required by law to assess and collect taxes for the acquisition of facilities for, and to maintain and operate, the District’s schools; that the taxes,, assessed in obedience to that duty and for those purposes, were not charged in the indictment or shown by the evidence to have been in any way illegal, and must therefore be assumed to have been entirely lawful; that to perform its duty to assess and collect such taxes, the Board was both legally authorized and compelled to cause the mailing of the letters and their enclosures (tax statements, checks and receipts) complained of in the indictment, and hence those mailings may not be said to have been “for the purpose of executing such scheme,” in violation of § 1341.
The Government, on the other hand, contends, first, that it was not necessary to charge or prove that the taxes were unlawful, for it is its view that once the scheme to defraud was shown to exist, the subsequent mailings of the letters and their enclosures, even though legally compelled to be made, constituted essential steps in the scheme and, in contemplation of § 1341, were made “for the purpose of executing such scheme”; but it asserts that, in fact, it was impliedly charged in the indictment and shown by the evidence that the taxes were illegal in that they were assessed, collected and accumulated in excess of the District’s needs in order to provide a fund for misappropriation, and, second, that the indictment charged and the evidence showed that the mailings impliedly pretended and falsely represented that the tax moneys would be used only for lawful purposes, and, hence, those mailings were caused for the purpose of obtaining money by false pretenses and misrepresentations, in violation of § 1341.
After asserting complete novelty of the Government’s position and that no reported case supports it, counsel for petitioners point to what they think would be the “explosively expanded” and incongruous results from adoption of the Government’s theory, e. g., making federal mail fraud cases out of the conduct of a doctor’s secretary or a business concern’s billing clerk or cashier in mailing out, in the course of duty, the employer’s lawful statements with the design, eventually executed, of misappropriating part of the receipts — the aptness of which supposed analogies, happily, we are not called on to determine. But petitioners’ counsel concede that if such secretary, clerk or cashier — and similarly a member of a School Board — improperly “pads” or increases the amounts of the statements and causes them to be mailed to bring in a fund to be looted, such mailings, not being those of the employer (or School Board), would not be duty bound or legally compelled and would constitute an essential step “for the purpose of executing [a] scheme” to defraud, in violation of § 1341. They then repeat and stress their claim that here the indictment did not allege, and there was no evidence tending to show, that the taxes assessed and collected were excessive, “padded” or in any way illegal, that the court did not submit any such issue to the jury and that such was not the Government’s theory.
It is clear and undisputed that the School Board was under an express constitutional mandate to levy and collect taxes for the acquisition of facilities for, and to maintain and operate, the schools of the District, Constitution of Texas, Art. 7, § 3, and was required by statute to issue statements for such taxes and to deliver receipts upon payment.
The Texas laws leave to the discretion of such school boards the valuation of properties and the fixing of the tax rate, within a prescribed limit, in the making of their assessments, and their determinations, made within the prescribed limit as here, are not judicially reviewable, Madeley v. Trustees of Conroe Ind. School Dist., 130 S. W. 2d 929, 934 (Tex. Civ. App.), except enforcement may be enjoined for fraud. But the question whether the amount of such an assessment might be collaterally attacked, even for fraud, in a federal mail fraud case is not presented here, for after a most careful examination we are compelled to say that the indictment did not expressly or impliedly charge, and there was no evidence tending to show, that the taxes assessed were excessive, “padded” or in any way illegal. Nor did the court submit any such issue to the jury. Indeed, the court refused a charge proffered by counsel for petitioners that would have submitted that issue to the jury. Such was not the Government’s theory. In fact, the Government took the position at the trial, and argued to the jury, that the taxes assessed and collected were needed by the District for a new “science hall,” “office building,” “plumbing facilities [and] all sorts of things,” and that petitioners’ misappropriations not only deprived the District of those needed things but left it “two and one-half years in debt” — a sum several times greater than that said to have been misappropriated by petitioners.
The theory that it was impliedly charged and shown that the taxes were illegal in that they were assessed, collected and accumulated in excess of the District’s needs in order to provide a fund for misappropriation, was first injected into the case by the Court of Appeals. That court rested its judgment largely upon its conclusion that the assessments were designed to bring in not only “enough money... to provide for the legitimate operation of the schools [but also] enough additional... to provide the funds to be looted.” 265 F. 2d, at 897. We think that theory and conclusion is not supported by the record. As stated, no such fact or theory was charged in the indictment, shown by the evidence or submitted to the jury, and moreover the Government negatived any such possible implication by taking the position at the trial that the assessed taxes were needed for new school facilities and improvements and that the misappropriations deprived the District of those needed things and left it “two and one-half years in debt.”
Nor does the Government question that the Board, to collect the District’s taxes (largely from nonresident property owners), was required by the state law to use the mails. Indeed, it took the position at the trial, and argued to the jury, that the Board could not “collect these taxes from Houston, from the Humble, from The Texas Oil Company, and from the taxpayers all over the State of Texas without the use of the United States mails.” The Court of Appeals thought that such legal compulsion placed petitioners “on the horns of a dilemma” because they could not at once contend that the law compelled them to cause the mailings and deny that they did cause them. 265 F. 2d, at 898.
The crucial question, respecting Counts 1 through 16 of the indictment, then comes down to whether the legally compelled mailings of the lawful — or, more properly, what are not charged or shown to have been unlawful — letters, tax statements, checks and receipts, complained of in those counts, properly may be said to have been for the purpose of executing a scheme to defraud because those legally compelled to cause and causing those mailings planned to steal an indefinite part of the receipts.
The fact that a scheme may violate state laws does not exclude it from the proscriptions of the federal mail fraud statute, for Congress “may forbid any... [mailings]... in furtherance of a scheme that it regards as contrary to public policy, whether it can forbid the scheme or not.” Badders v. United States, 240 U. S. 391, 393. In exercise of that power, Congress enacted § 1341 forbidding and making criminal any use of the mails “for the purpose of executing [a] scheme” to defraud or to obtain money by false representations — leaving generally the matter of what conduct may constitute such a scheme for determination under other laws. Its purpose was “to prevent the post office from being used to carry [such schemes] into effect....” Durland v. United States, 161 U. S. 306, 314. Thus, as its terms and purpose make clear, “[t]he federal mail fraud statute does not purport to reach all frauds, but only those limited instances in which the use of the mails is a part of the execution of the fraud, leaving all other cases to be dealt with by appropriate state law." Kann v. United States, 323 U. S. 88, 95. Therefore, only if the mailings were “a part of the execution of the fraud," or, as we said in Pereira v. United States, 347 U. S. 1, 8, were “incident to an essential part of the scheme,” do they fall within the ban of the federal mail fraud statute.
The Government, with the support of the cases, soundly argues that immunization from the ban of the statute is not effected by the fact that those causing the mailings were public officials or by the fact that the things they caused to be mailed were “innocent in themselves,” if their mailing was “a step in a plot.” Badders v. United States, supra, at 394. It then argues that the jury properly could find that the mailings, complained of in the first 16 counts — namely, the letter notice of a modification in assessed valuation, two letters giving notice of hearings before the Board of Equalization to determine taxable value of property, one letter complying with a property owner’s request for an “auxiliary tax notice,” and 12 checks of taxpayers and their letters of transmittal— were, even if innocent in themselves, each “a step in a plot” or scheme to defraud, and that they were caused to be made “for the purpose of executing such scheme” in violation'of § 1341. But it cites no case holding that the mailing of a thing which the law required to be mailed may be regarded as mailed for the purpose of executing a plot or scheme to defraud. Instead, it frankly concedes that there is no such case. It says that “there is no reported case exactly like this,” but expresses its view that this case rests on a factually “unique situation.”
We agree that the factual situation is unique, and, of course, agree, too, that the fact there is no reported decision involving similar factual circumstances or legal theories is not determinative. But in the light of the particular circumstances of this case, and especially of the facts (1) that the School Board was legally required to assess and collect taxes, (2) that the indictment did not charge nor the proofs show that the taxes assessed and collected were in excess of the District’s needs or that they were “padded” or in any way unlawful, (3) that no such issue was submitted to, nor, hence, determined by, the jury, (4) that the Board was compelled to collect and receipt for the taxes by state law, which, in the circumstances here, compelled it to use and cause (here, principally by permitting) the use of the mails for those purposes, we must conclude that the legally compelled mailings, complained of in the first 16 counts of the indictment, were not shown to have been unlawful “step[s] in a plot,” Badders v. United States, supra, 240 U. S., at 394, “part[s] of the execution of the fraud,” Kann v. United States, supra, 323 U. S., at 95, “incident to an essential part of the scheme,” Pereira v. United States, supra, 347 U. S., at 8, or to have been made “for the purpose of executing such scheme,” within the meaning of § 1341, for we think it cannot be said that mailings made or caused to be made under the imperative command of duty imposed by state law are criminal under the federal mail fraud statute, even though some of those who are so required to do the mailing for the District plan to steal, when or after received, some indefinite part of its moneys.
Nor, in the light of the facts in this record, can it be said that the mailings complained of in the first 16 counts of the indictment constituted false pretenses and misrepresentations to obtain money. Surely the letters giving notice of the modification of an assessed valuation and of valuation hearings to be conducted by the Board of Equalization, constituting the basis of Counts 1, 2 and 5, contained no false pretense or misrepresentation. We fail to see how the letter complying with a property owner’s request for an “auxiliary tax notice,” constituting the basis of Count 7, could be said to be a misrepresentation. And the mailings complained of in the remaining counts, even though “caused” by petitioners, certainly carried no misrepresentations by petitioners for they were checks (and covering letters) of taxpayers in payment of taxes which, so far as this record shows, were in all respects lawful obligations. On this phase of the case, the Government has principally relied on the fact that the Annual Reports of the Board and the depository bank to the State Commissioner of Education, apparently necessary to obtain the amount per pupil allowed by the State to such districts, contained false entries. But the fact is those mailings were not charged as offenses in the indictment, doubtless because they were, as shown, between Benavides and Austin, Texas, and therefore not within the Division, nor hence the venue, of the court.
Counts 17, 18 and 19 of the indictment relate to a different subject. They charged, and there was evidence tending to show, that petitioners Oscar Carrillo, Sr., and Garza fraudulently obtained gasoline and other filling station products and services for themselves upon the credit card and at the expense of the District knowing, or charged with knowledge, that the oil company would use the mails in billing the District for those things. The mailings complained of in those counts were two invoices, said to contain amounts for items so procured by Carrillo and Garza, mailed by the oil company, at Houston, to the District, at Benavides, and the District’s check mailed to the oil company, at Houston, in payment of the latter invoice. We think these counts are ruled by Kann v. United States, supra. Here, as in Kann, “[t]he scheme in each case had reached fruition” when Carrillo and Garza received the goods and services complained of. “The persons intended to receive the [goods and services] had received [them] irrevocably. It was immaterial to them, or to any consummation of the scheme, how the [oil company]... would collect from the [District]. It cannot be said that the mailings in question were for the purpose of executing the scheme, as the statute requires.” 323 U. S., at 94.
Inasmuch as the twentieth count charged petitioners with conspiring to commit the offense complained of in Count 1, and inasmuch as, on the facts of this record, that count cannot be sustained, it follows that petitioners’ convictions upon the twentieth count cannot stand.
In view of our stated conclusions, it is unnecessary to discuss other contentions made by petitioners.
. The strongest element in the Government’s case is that petitioners’ behavior was shown to have been so bad and brazen, which, coupled with the inability or at least the failure of the state authorities to bring them to justice, doubtless persuaded the Government to undertake this prosecution. But the showing, however convincing, that state crimes of misappropriation, conversion, embezzlement and theft were committed does not establish the federal crime of using the mails to defraud, and, under our vaunted legal system, no man, however bad his behavior, may be convicted of a crime of which he was not charged, proven and found guilty in accordance with due process.
Reversed.
The petitioners are George B. Parr, D. C. Chapa, B. F. Donald, Octavio Saenz, Jesus G. Garza, Santiago Garcia, Oscar Carrillo, Sr., O. P. Carrillo, Jesus Oliveira, Texas State Bank of Alice and San Diego State Bank, all of Duval County, Texas, in the Corpus Christi Division of the United States District Court for the Southern Division of Texas.
Section 1341 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
“Whoever, having devised... any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses... for the purpose of executing such scheme... places in any post office or authorized depository for mail matter, any matter... to be sent or delivered by the Post Office Department, or takes or receives therefrom, any such matter or thing, or knowingly causes to be delivered by mail according to the direction thereon... any such matter or thing, shall be fined not more than $1,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.” 18 U. S. C. § 1341.
Section 371 provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
“If two or more persons conspire... to commit any offense against the United States,... and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than five years, or both... 18 U. S. C. § 371.
Counts on which convicted sentences Names
All Aggregate of 10 years and $20,000 fine. George B. Parr
All Aggregate of 5 years. D. C. Chapa
1-14, 17-20 Aggregate of 4 years. B. F. Donald
All but 7 3 years, but suspended on probation. Jesus G. Garza
4, 5, 8, 13, 14, 15, 17-19 3 years, but suspended on probation. Santiago Garcia
All but 7 Aggregate of 3 years. Octavio Saenz
All Aggregate of 4 years. Oscar Carrillo, Sr.
20 2 years, but suspended on probation. O. P. Carrillo
20 2 years, but suspended on probation, and fine of $7,000. Jesus Oliveira
Fine of $2,000. All Texas State Bank of Alice
San Diego State Bank 1-3, 7, 10-12, 16, 20 Fine of $900.
The District operates the public schools in the towns of Benavides and Freer in Duval County, Texas. The schools in each town have slightly more than 1,000 pupils!
The persons named in the allegation were petitioners Parr, Chapa, Oscar Carrillo, Sr., O. P. Carrillo, Saenz, Garza and Garcia.
The persons named in the allegation were petitioners Parr, Donald and Oliveira.
The allegation was that control of the San Diego State Bank would be maintained by petitioner Parr.
The letter referred to was one by the District of Sept. 26, 1952, to Humble Oil & Refining Co., Houston, Texas, giving notice of a modification in the assessed value of the latter’s property in the District to $2,542,920 for the year 1952, and advising that the amount of tax, at the rate of $1.75 per $100, was $44,501.10.
The second count described a letter by the Secretary of the Board of Equalization of the District, dated July 18, 1952, to Humble Oil & Refining Co., Houston, Texas, giving notice of a hearing to be held by that Board at Benavides on Aug. 1, 1952, to determine the taxable value of the latter’s lands in the District for the year 1952.
The third count described a check of Humble Oil & Refining Co., Houston, Texas, dated Sept
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Appellant Richard Grayned was convicted for his part in a demonstration in front of West Senior High School in Rockford, Illinois. Negro students at the school had first presented their grievances to school administrators. When the principal took no action on crucial complaints, a more public demonstration of protest was planned. On April 25, 1969, approximately 200 people — students, their family members, and friends — gathered next to the school grounds. Appellant, whose brother and twin sisters were attending the school, was part of this group. The demonstrators marched around on a sidewalk about 100 feet from the school building, which was set back from the street. Many carried signs which summarized the grievances: “Black cheerleaders to cheer too”; “Black history with black teachers”; “Equal rights, Negro counselors.” Others, without placards, made the “power to the people” sign with their upraised and clenched fists.
In other respects, the evidence at appellant’s trial was sharply contradictory. Government witnesses reported that the demonstrators repeatedly cheered, chanted, baited policemen, and made other noise that was audible in the school; that hundreds of students were distracted from their school activities and lined the classroom windows to watch the demonstration; that some demonstrators successfully yelled to their friends to leave the school building and join the demonstration; that uncontrolled latenesses after period changes in the school were far greater than usual, with late students admitting that they had been watching the demonstration; and that, in general, orderly school procedure was disrupted. Defense witnesses claimed that the demonstrators were at all times quiet and orderly; that they did not seek to violate the law, but only to “make a point”; that the only noise was made by policemen using loudspeakers; that almost no students were noticeable at the schoolhouse windows; and that orderly school procedure was not disrupted.
After warning the demonstrators, the police arrested 40 of them, including appellant. For participating in the demonstration, Grayned was tried and convicted of violating two Rockford ordinances, hereinafter referred to as the “antipicketing” ordinance and the “antinoise” ordinance. A $25 fine was imposed for each violation. Since Grayned challenged the constitutionality of each ordinance, he appealed directly to the Supreme Court of Illinois. Ill. Sup. Ct. Rule 302. He claimed that the ordinances were invalid on their face, but did not urge that, as applied to him, the ordinances had punished constitutionally protected activity. The Supreme Court of Illinois held that both ordinances were constitutional on their face. 46 Ill. 2d 492, 263 N. E. 2d 866 (1970). We noted probable jurisdiction, 404 U. S. 820 (1971). We conclude that the antipicketing ordinance is unconstitutional, but affirm the court below with respect to the antinoise ordinance.
I
At the time of appellant’s arrest and conviction, Rockford’s antipicketing ordinance provided that
“A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly:
“(i) Pickets or demonstrates on a public way within 150 feet of any primary or secondary school building while the school is in session and one-half hour before the school is in session and one-half hour after the school session has been concluded, provided that this subsection does not prohibit the peaceful picketing of any school involved in a labor dispute... Code of Ordinances, c. 28, § 18.1 (i).
This ordinance is identical to the Chicago disorderly conduct ordinance we have today considered in Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, ante, p. 92. For the reasons given in Mosley, we agree with dissenting Justice Schaefer below, and hold that § 18.1 (i) violates the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Appellant’s conviction under this invalid ordinance must be reversed.
II
The antinoise ordinance reads, in pertinent part, as follows:
“[N]o person, while on public or private grounds adjacent to any building in which a school or any class thereof is in session, shall willfully make or assist in the making of any noise or diversion which disturbs or tends to disturb the peace or good order of such school session or class thereof... Code of Ordinances, c. 28, § 19.2 (a).
Appellant claims that, on its face, this ordinance is both vague and overbroad, and therefore unconstitutional. We conclude, however, that the ordinance suffers from neither of these related infirmities.
A. Vagueness
It is a basic principle of due process that an enactment is void for vagueness if its prohibitions are not clearly defined. Vague laws offend several important values. First, because we assume that man is free to steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, we insist that laws give the person of ordinary intelligence a reasonable opportunity to know what is prohibited, so that he may act accordingly. Vague laws may trap the innocent by not providing fair warning. Second, if arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement is to be prevented, laws must provide explicit standards for those who apply them. A vague law impermissibly delegates basic policy matters to policemen, judges, and juries for resolution on an ad hoc and subjective basis, with the attendant dangers of arbitrary and discriminatory application. Third, but related, where a vague statute “abut[s] upon sensitive areas of basic First Amendment freedoms,” it “operates to inhibit the exercise of [those] freedoms.” Uncertain meanings inevitably lead citizens to “'steer far wider of the unlawful zone’... than if the boundaries of the forbidden areas were clearly marked.”
Although the question is close, we conclude that the antinoise ordinance is not impermissibly vague. The court below rejected appellant’s arguments “that proscribed conduct was not sufficiently specified and that police were given too broad a discretion in determining whether conduct was proscribed.” 46 Ill. 2d, at 494, 263 N. E. 2d, at 867. Although it referred to other, similar statutes it had recently construed and upheld, the court below did not elaborate on the meaning of the antinoise ordinance. In this situation, as Mr. Justice Frankfurter put it, we must “extrapolate its allowable meaning.” Here, we are “relegated... to the words of the ordinance itself,” to the interpretations the court below has given to analogous statutes, and, perhaps to some degree, to the interpretation of the statute given by those charged Avith enforcing it. “Extrapolation,” of course, is a delicate task, for it is not within our power to construe and narrow state- laws.
With that warning, we find no unconstitutional vagueness in the antinoise ordinance. Condemned to the use of words, we can never expect mathematical certainty from our language. The words of the Rockford ordinance are marked by “flexibility and reasonable breadth, rather than meticulous specificity,” Esteban v. Central Missouri State College, 415 F. 2d 1077, 1088 (CA8 1969) (Blackmun, J.), cert. denied, 398 U. S. 965 (1970), but we think it is clear what the ordinance as a whole prohibits. Designed, according to its preamble, “for the protection of Schools,” the ordinance forbids deliberately noisy or diversionary activity that disrupts or is about to disrupt normal school activities. It forbids this willful activity at fixed times- — when school is in session — and at a sufficiently fixed place — “adjacent” to the school. Were we left with just the words of the ordinance, we might be troubled by the imprecision of the phrase “tends to disturb.” However, in Chicago v. Meyer, 44 Ill. 2d 1, 4, 253 N. E. 2d 400, 402 (1969), and Chicago v. Gregory, 39 Ill. 2d 47, 233 N. E. 2d 422 (1968), reversed on other grounds, 394 U. S. 111 (1969), the Supreme Court of Illinois construed a Chicago ordinance prohibiting, inter alia, a “diversion tending to disturb the peace,” and held that it permitted conviction only where there was “imminent threat of violence.” (Emphasis supplied.) See Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U. S. 111, 116-117, 121-122 (1969) (Black, J., concurring). Since Meyer was specifically cited in the opinion below, and it in turn drew heavily on Gregory, we think it proper to conclude that the Supreme Court of Illinois would interpret the Rockford ordinance to prohibit only actual or imminent interference with the “peace or good order” of the school.
Although the prohibited quantum of disturbance is not specified in the ordinance, it is apparent from the statute’s announced purpose that the measure is whether normal school activity has been or is about to be disrupted. We do not have here a vague, general “breach of the peace” ordinance, but a statute written specifically for the school context, where the prohibited disturbances are easily measured by their impact on the normal activities of the school. Given this “particular context,” the ordinance gives “fair notice to those to whom [it] is directed.” Although the Rockford ordinance may not be as precise as the statute we upheld in Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U. S. 611 (1968) — which prohibited picketing “in such a manner as to obstruct or unreasonably interfere with free ingress or egress to and from” any courthouse — we think that, as in Cameron, the ordinance here clearly “delineates its reach in words of common understanding.” Id., at 616.
Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536 (1965), and Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U. S. 611 (1971), on which appellant particularly relies, presented completely different situations. In Cox, a general breach of the peace ordinance had been construed by state courts to mean “to agitate, to arouse from a state of repose, to molest, to interrupt, to hinder, to disquiet.” The Court correctly concluded that, as construed, the ordinance permitted persons to be punished for merely expressing unpopular views. In Coates, the ordinance punished the sidewalk assembly of three or more persons who “conduct themselves in a manner annoying to persons passing by....” We held, in part, that the ordinance was impermissibly vague because enforcement depended on the completely subjective standard of “annoyance.”
In contrast, Rockford’s antinoise ordinance does not permit punishment for the expression of an unpopular point of view, and it contains no broad invitation to subjective or discriminatory enforcement. Rockford does not claim the broad power to punish all “noises” and “diversions.” The vagueness of these terms, by themselves, is dispelled by the ordinance’s requirements that (1) the “noise or diversion” be actually incompatible with normal school activity; (2) there be a demonstrated causality between the disruption that occurs and the “noise or diversion”; and (3) the acts be “willfully” done. “Undesirables” or their “annoying” conduct may not be punished. The ordinance does not permit people to “stand on a public sidewalk... only at the whim of any police officer.” Rather, there must be demonstrated interference with school activities. As always, enforcement requires the exercise of some degree of police judgment, but, as confined, that degree of judgment here is permissible. The Rockford City Council has made the basic policy choices, and has given fair warning as to what is prohibited. “[T]he ordinance defines boundaries sufficiently distinct” for citizens, policemen, juries, and appellate judges. It is not impermissibly vague.
B. Overbreadth
A clear and precise enactment may nevertheless be “overbroad” if in its reach it prohibits constitutionally protected conduct. Although appellant does not claim that, as applied to him, the antinoise ordinance has punished protected expressive activity, he claims that the ordinance is overbroad on its face. Because overbroad laws, like vague ones, deter privileged activity, our cases firmly establish appellant’s standing to raise an over-breadth challenge. The crucial question, then, is whether the ordinance sweeps within its prohibitions what may not be punished under the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Specifically, appellant contends that the Rockford ordinance unduly interferes with First and Fourteenth Amendment rights to picket on a public sidewalk near a school. We disagree.
“In considering the right of a municipality to control the use of public streets for the expression of religious [or political] views, we start with the words of Mr. Justice Roberts that Wherever the title of streets and parks may rest, they have immemorially been held in trust for the use of the public and, time out of mind, have been used for purposes of assembly, communicating thoughts between citizens, and discussing public questions.’ Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496, 515 (1939).” Kunz v. New York, 340 U. S. 290, 293 (1951). See Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147, 152 (1969). The right to use a public place for expressive activity may be restricted only for weighty reasons.
Clearly, government has no power to restrict such activity because of its message. Our cases make equally clear, however, that reasonable “time, place and manner” regulations may be necessary to further significant governmental interests, and are permitted. For example, two parades cannot march on the same street simultaneously, and government may allow only one. Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569, 576 (1941). A demonstration or parade on a large street during rush hour might put an intolerable burden on the essential flow of traffic, and for that reason could be prohibited. Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S., at 554. If overamplified loudspeakers assault the citizenry, government may turn them down. Kovacs v. Cooper, 336 U. S. 77 (1949); Saia v. New York, 334 U. S. 558, 562 (1948). Subject to such reasonable regulation, however, peaceful demonstrations in public places are protected by the First Amendment. Of course, where demonstrations turn violent, they lose their protected quality as expression under the First Amendment.
The nature of a place, "the pattern of its normal activities, dictate the kinds of regulations of time, place, and manner that are reasonable.” Although a silent vigil may not unduly interfere with a public library, Brown v. Louisiana, 383 U. S. 131 (1966), making a speech in the reading room almost certainly would. That same speech should be perfectly appropriate in a park. The crucial question is whether the manner of expression is basically incompatible with the normal activity of a particular place at a particular time. Our cases make clear that in assessing the reasonableness of a regulation, we must weigh heavily the fact that communication is involved; the regulation must be narrowly tailored to further the State’s legitimate interest. Access to the “streets, sidewalks, parks, and other similar public places... for the purpose of exercising [First Amendment rights] cannot constitutionally be denied broadly....” Free expression “must not, in the guise of regulation, be abridged or denied.”
In light of these general principles, we do not think that Rockford’s ordinance is an unconstitutional regulation of activity around a school. Our touchstone is Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U. S. 503 (1969), in which we considered the question of how to accommodate First Amendment rights with the “special characteristics of the school environment.” Id., at 506. Tinker held that the Des Moines School District could not punish students for wearing black armbands to school in protest of the Vietnam war. Recognizing that “ ‘wide exposure to... robust exchange of ideas’ ” is an “important part of the educational process” and should be nurtured, id., at 512, we concluded that free expression could not be barred from the school campus. We made clear that “undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression,” id., at 508, and that particular expressive activity could not be prohibited because of a “mere desire to avoid the discomfort and unpleasantness that always accompany an unpopular viewpoint,” id., at 509. But we nowhere suggested that students, teachers, or anyone else has an absolute constitutional right to use all parts of a school building or its immediate environs for his unlimited expressive purposes. Expressive activity could certainly be restricted, but only if the forbidden conduct “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.” Id., at 513. The wearing of armbands was protected in Tinker because the students “neither interrupted school activities nor sought to intrude in the school affairs or the lives of others. They caused discussion outside of the classrooms, but no interference with work and no disorder.” Id., at 514. Compare Burnside v. Byars, 363 F. 2d 744 (CA5 1966), and Butts v. Dallas Ind. School District, 436 F. 2d 728 (CA5 1971), with Blackwell v. Issaquena County Board of Education, 363 F. 2d 749 (CA5 1966).
Just as Tinker made clear that school property may not be declared off limits for expressive activity by students, we think it clear that the public sidewalk adjacent to school grounds may not be declared off limits for expressive activity by members of the public. But in each case, expressive activity may be prohibited if it “materially disrupts classwork or involves substantial disorder or invasion of the rights of others.” Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U. S., at 513.
We would be ignoring reality if we did not recognize that the public schools in a community are important institutions, and are often the focus of significant grievances. Without interfering with normal school activities, daytime picketing and handbilling on public grounds near a school can effectively publicize those grievances to pedestrians, school visitors, and deliverymen, as well as to teachers, administrators, and students. Some picketing to that end will be quiet and peaceful, and will in no way disturb the normal functioning of the school. For example, it would be highly unusual if the classic expressive gesture of the solitary picket disrupts anything related to the school, at least on a public sidewalk open to pedestrians. On the other hand, schools could hardly tolerate boisterous demonstrators who drown out classroom conversation, make studying impossible, block entrances, or incite children to leave the schoolhouse.
Rockford’s antinoise ordinance goes no further than Tinker says a municipality may go to prevent interference with its schools. It is narrowly tailored to further Rockford’s compelling interest in having an un-disrupted school session conducive to the students’ learning, and does not unnecessarily interfere with First Amendment rights. Far from having an impermissibly broad prophylactic ordinance, Rockford punishes only conduct which disrupts or is about to disrupt normal school activities. That decision is made, as it should be, on an individualized basis, given the particular fact situation. Peaceful picketing which does not interfere with the ordinary functioning of the school is permitted. And the ordinance gives no license to punish anyone because of what he is saying.
We recognize that the ordinance prohibits some picketing that is neither violent nor physically obstructive. Noisy demonstrations that disrupt or are incompatible with normal school activities are obviously within the ordinance’s reach. Such expressive conduct may be constitutionally protected at other places or other times, cf. Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229 (1963); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536 (1965), but next to a school, while classes are in session, it may be prohibited. The antinoise ordinance imposes no such restriction on expressive activity before or after the school session, while the student/faculty “audience” enters and leaves the school.
In Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 559 (1965), this Court indicated that, because of the special nature of the place, persons could be constitutionally prohibited from picketing “in or near” a courthouse “with the intent of interfering with, obstructing, or impeding the administration of justice.” Likewise, in Cameron v. Johnson, 390 U. S. 611 (1968), we upheld a statute prohibiting picketing “in such a manner as to obstruct or unreasonably interfere with free ingress or egress to and from any... county... courthouses.” As in those two cases, Rockford’s modest restriction on some peaceful picketing represents a considered and specific legislative judgment that some kinds of expressive activity should be restricted at a particular time and place, here in order to protect the schools. Such a reasonable regulation is not inconsistent with the First and Fourteenth Amendments. The antinoise ordinance is not invalid on its face.
The judgment is
Affirmed in part and reversed in part.
Mr. Justice Blackmun joins in the judgment and in Part I of the opinion of the Court. He concurs in the result as to Part II of the opinion.
Police officers testified that “there was no way of picking out any one in particular” while making arrests. Report of Proceedings in Circuit Court, 17th Judicial Circuit, Winnebago County 66. However, apparently only males were arrested. Id., at 65, 135, 147. Since appellant’s sole claim in this appeal is that he was convicted under facially unconstitutional ordinances, there is no occasion for us to evaluate either the propriety of these selective arrests or the sufficiency of evidence that appellant himself actually engaged in conduct within the terms of the ordinances. Mr. Justice Douglas, in concluding that appellant’s particular behavior was protected by the First Amendment, reaches a question not presented by the parties here or in the court below. See Tr. of Oral Arg. 16-17; Jurisdictional Statement 3; City of Rockford v. Grayned, 46 Ill. 2d 492, 494, 263 N. E. 2d 866, 867 (1970).
In November 1971, the antipicketing ordinance was amended to delete the labor picketing proviso. As Rockford notes, “This amendment and deletion has, of course, no effect on Appellant’s personal situation.” Brief 2. Necessarily, we must consider the facial constitutionality of the ordinance in effect when appellant was arrested and convicted.
E. g., Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, 405 U. S. 156, 162 (1972); Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, 368 U. S. 278, 287 (1961); United States v. Harriss, 347 U. S. 612, 617 (1954); Jordan v. De George, 341 U. S. 223, 230-232 (1951); Lanzetta v. New Jersey, 306 U. S. 451, 453 (1939); Connolly v. General Construction Co., 269 U. S. 385, 391 (1926); United States v. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U. S. 81, 89 (1921); International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U. S. 216, 223-224 (1914).
E. g., Papachristou v. City of Jacksonville, supra; Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U. S. 611, 614 (1971); Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U. S. 111, 120 (1969) (Black, J., concurring); Interstate Circuit v. Dallas, 390 U. S. 676, 684-685 (1968); Ashton v. Kentucky, 384 U. S. 195, 200 (1966); Giaccio v. Pennsylvania, 382 U. S. 399 (1966); Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 382 U. S. 87, 90-91 (1965); Kunz v. New York, 340 U. S. 290 (1951); Saia v. New York, 334 U. S. 558, 559-560 (1948); Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U. S. 88, 97-98 (1940); Herndon v. Lowry, 301 U. S. 242, 261-264 (1937).
Where First Amendment interests are affected, a precise statute “evincing a legislative judgment that certain specific conduct be... proscribed,” Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229, 236 (1963), assures us that the legislature has focused on the First Amendment interests and determined that other governmental policies compel regulation. See Kalven, The Concept of the Public Forum: Cox v. Louisiana, 1965 Sup. Ct. Rev. 1, 32; Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U. S. 157, 200, 202 (1961) (Harlan, J., concurring in judgment).
Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U. S. 360, 372 (1964).
Cramp v. Board of Public Instruction, 368 U. S., at 287.
Baggett v. Bullitt, supra, at 372, quoting Speiser v. Randall, 357 U. S. 513, 526 (1958). See Interstate Circuit v. Dallas, supra, at 684; Ashton v. Kentucky, supra, at 195, 200-201; Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S. 479, 486 (1965); Smith v. California, 361 U. S. 147, 150-152 (1959); Winters v. New York, 333 U. S. 507 (1948); Stromberg v. California, 283 U. S. 359, 369 (1931).
The trial magistrate simply charged the jury in the words of the ordinance. The complaint and verdict form used slightly different language. See n. 24, infra.
Garner v. Louisiana, 368 U. S., at 174 (concurring in judgment).
Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U. S., at 614.
E. g., Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518 (1972).
E. g., Lake Carriers Assn. v. MacMullan, 406 U. S. 498, 506-508 (1972); Cole v. Richardson, 405 U. S. 676 (1972); Ehlert v. United States, 402 U. S. 99, 105, 107 (1971); cf. Poe v. Ullman, 367 U. S. 497 (1961).
United States v. 37 Photographs, 402 U. S. 363, 369 (1971).
It will always be true that the fertile legal “imagination can conjure up hypothetical cases in which the meaning of [disputed] terms will be in nice question.” American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U. S. 382, 412 (1950).
“Diversion” is defined by Webster’s Third New International Dictionary as “the act or an instance of diverting from one course or use to another... : the act or an instance of diverting (as the mind or attention) from some activity or concern... : a turning aside... : something that turns the mind from serious concerns or ordinary matters and relaxes or amuses.”
Cf. Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 559, 568-569 (1965) (“near” the courthouse not impermissibly vague).
See Gregory v. Chicago, 394 U. S., at 119-120 (Black, J., concurring) ; Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S., at 525-527; Craig v. Harney, 331 U. S. 367, 372 (1947); cf. Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire, 315 U. S. 568 (1942) (statute punishing “fighting words,” that have a “direct tendency to cause acts of violence,” upheld); Street v. New York, 394 U. S. 576, 592 (1969).
Cf. Chicago v. Terminiello, 400 Ill. 23, 79 N. E. 2d 39 (1948), reversed on other grounds, 337 U. S. 1, 6 (1949).
Some intermediate appellate courts in Illinois appear to have interpreted the phrase “tending to” out of the Chicago ordinance entirely, at least in some contexts. Chicago v. Hansen, 337 Ill. App. 663, 86 N. E. 2d 415 (1949); Chicago v. Holmes, 339 Ill. App. 146, 88 N. E. 2d 744 (1949); Chicago v. Nesbitt, 19 Ill. App. 2d 220, 153 N. E. 2d 259 (1958); but cf. Chicago v. Williams, 45 Ill. App. 2d 327, 195 N. E. 2d 425 (1963).
In its brief, the city of Rockford indicates that its sole concern is with actual disruption. “[A] court and jury [are] charged with the duty of determining whether or not... a school has been disrupted and that the defendant's conduct, [no matter what it was,] caused or contributed to cause the disruption.” Brief for Appellee 16 (emphasis supplied). This was the theory on which the city tried appellant’s case to the jury, Report, supra, n. 1, at- 12-13, although the jury was instructed in the words of the ordinance. As already noted, supra, n. 1, no challenge is made here to the Rockford ordinance as applied in this case.
American Communications Assn. v. Douds, 339 U. S., at 412.
Cf. Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S. 229 (1963); Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S. 296, 308 (1940). Similarly, in numerous other cases, we have condemned broadly worded licensing ordinances which grant such standardless discretion to public officials that they are free to censor ideas and enforce their own personal preferences. Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147 (1969); Staub v. City of Baxley, 355 U. S. 313 (1958); Saia v. New York, 334 U. S. 558 (1948); Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147, 163-164 (1939); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S. 444 (1938); Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S. 496 (1939).
Cf. Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 536, 546-550 (1965); Edwards v. South Carolina, 372 U. S., at 234-237.
Tracking the complaint, the jury verdict found Grayned guilty of “[w]ilfully causing diversion of good order of public school in session, in that while on school grounds and while school was in session, did wilfully make and assist in the making of a diversion which tended to disturb the peace and good order of the school session and class thereof.”
Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 382 U. S., at 90.
Chicago v. Fort, 46 Ill. 2d 12, 16, 262 N. E. 2d 473, 476 (1970), a case cited in the opinion below.
See Zwickler v. Koota, 389 U. S. 241, 249-250 (1967), and cases cited.
E. g., Gooding v. Wilson, 405 U. S. 518 (1972); Coates v. Cincinnati, 402 U. S., at 616; Dombrowski v. Pfister, 380 U. S., at 486, and cases cited; Kunz v. New York, 340 U. S. 290 (1951).
Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, ante, p. 92.
Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S. 569, 575-576 (1941); Kunz v. New York, 340 U. S., at 293-294; Poulos v. New Hampshire, 345 U. S. 395, 398 (1953); Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S., at 554-555; Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 559 (1965); Adderley v. Florida, 385 U. S. 39, 46-48 (1966); Food Employees v. Logan Valley Plaza, 391 U. S. 308, 320-321 (1968); Shuttlesworth v. Birmingham, 394 U. S. 147 (1969).
Police Department of Chicago v. Mosley, ante, at 95-96, and cases cited.
See generally T. Emerson, The System of Freedom of Expression 328-345 (1970).
'Wright, The Constitution on the Campus, 22 Vand. L. Rev. 1027, 1042 (1969). Cf. Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S. 559 (1965); Adderley v. Florida, 385 U. S. 39 (1966); Food Employees v. Logan Valley Plaza, 391 U. S. 308 (1968); Tinker v. Des Moines School District, 393 U. S. 503 (1969).
E. g., Schneider v. State, 308 U. S. 147 (1939); Talley v. California, 362 U. S. 60 (1960); Saia v. New York, 334 U. S., at 562; Cox v. New Hampshire, 312 U. S., at 574; Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S., at 516. See generally Kalven, The Concept of the Public Forum: Cox v. Louisiana, 1965 Sup. Ct. Rev. 1.
De Jonge v. Oregon, 299 U. S. 353, 364-365 (1937); Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U. S., at 451; Schneider v. State, 308 U. S., at 164; Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U. S., at 307; Cox v. Louisiana, 379 U. S., at 562-564; Davis v. Francois, 395 F. 2d 730 (CA5 1968). Cf. Shelton v. Tucker, 364 U. S. 479, 488 (1960); NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 438 (1963).
Food Employees v. Logan Valley Plaza, 391 U. S., at 315.
Hague v. CIO, 307 U. S., at 516.
Cf. Hague v. CIO, supra, at 516.
In Tinker we recognized that the principle of that case was not limited to expressive activity within the school building itself. Id., at 512 n. 6, 513
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The judgment is reversed. Hamm v. City of Rock Hill and Lupper v. Arkansas, 379 U. S. 306.
Mr. Justice Stewart would vacate the judgment and remand the case to the Supreme Court of Tennessee for reconsideration in the light of supervening federal legislation, in accordance with the views expressed in his dissenting opinion in Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U. S. 306, 326.
Mr. Justice Black, Mr. Justice Harlan, and Mr. Justice White would affirm the judgment of the Supreme Court of Tennessee for the reasons stated in their dissenting opinions in Hamm v. City of Rock Hill, 379 U. S. 306, 318, 322, 327.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Jackson
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These are companion cases to Nos. 298 and 314,- ante, p. 446. Here, the petitioners attached the accounts of the Deutsche Reichsbank with the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. The attachments were levied at the same time as those levied on the Chase Bank accounts, and were also followed by state court actions against the Reichsbank, culminating in default judgments that have not been satisfied because of the Federal Government’s freezing program. The Alien Property Custodian served on the Federal Reserve Bank Vesting Orders similar to those served on the Chase Bank in Nos. 298 and 314. But he also served on the Federal Reserve Bank a “turnover directive” describing the specific property which he required to be “turned over to the undersigned to be held, administered and accounted for as provided by law,” and calling attention to the protection which § 5 (b) of the Trading With the Enemy Act gives for compliance. No such directive was served on the Chase Bank in the companion cases. The Federal Reserve Bank refused to release to him the portion of the accounts that had been subjected to the attachment levies. The Custodian has been sustained by the courts below, as he was in Nos. 298 and 314, on the basis of Propper v. Clark, 337 U. S. 472.
All that we have said in subdivisions numbered I, II, and III in Nos. 298 and 314, respecting the nature of the rights acquired under New York law by an attaching creditor, and the position occupied by those rights consistent with the freezing program, is equally applicable to the attachments here involved. The important distinction between these cases and their companions is in the Vesting Orders issued by the Custodian and the nature of the judgment he has sought in each. The only order issued to the Chase Bank was a “right, title, and interest” Vesting Order, which, as we understand the Custodian to concede, put him in the place of the German banks and left open to judicial determination whether any valid interests as against anyone were created by the attachments. In the litigation involving the Chase Bank, the Custodian sought a declaratory judgment that the freezing program precluded attaching creditors from obtaining any interest in the blocked property good as against the debtors.
In these cases the Custodian pursued a different course, not only in that he served on the Federal Reserve Bank a “turnover directive,” but also in that the relief asked in this case omits any request for a declaration that the attachments are invalid. He asks a decree only that the Custodian is “entitled to possession” of the accounts in their entirety. In other words', in the actions involving the Chase Bank the Custodian stepped into the shoes of the German banks and sought to free their titles of the state liens; here he seeks to step into the shoes of the Federal Reserve Bank as possessor of the credits and funds, leaving unadjudicated the effect of such substitution of custody upon the attaching creditors’ rights.
While the statute under which the funds are to be “held, administered and accounted for” authorizes the vesting of such foreign-owned property in the Custodian and its administration “in the interest of and for the benefit of the United States,” it is not a confiscation measure, but a liquidation measure for the protection of American creditors. It provides for the filing and proving of claims and states that the funds “shall be equitably applied” for the payment of debts. If the Custodian disallows a claim, or if he disallows a claim of priority where claims exceed assets, the claimant may seek relief in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. The transfer of possession of these funds does not purport to work any automatic deprivation of rights of any class of creditors, but takes over the estate for administration.
In view of these facts, we decide, and decide only, that the Custodian has power to possess himself of these funds and to administer them. To hold otherwise would be incompatible with the federal program. The consequences, if any, that flow from the substitution of the Custodian in place of the Bank as holder of the funds, upon rights derived from valid state court judgments secured by attachment, are not ripe for determination. They may never come into controversy. All questions as to the petitioners’ claims, judgments, or priorities are reserved for decision in the proceedings prescribed by statute.
The power of the United States to take and administer the fund is paramount. The judgment below must, therefore, be
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Clark took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
82 F. Supp. 740; 182 F. 2d 349.
Trading With the Enemy Act of 1917, 40 Stat. 411, as amended, §5 (b) (1), 55 Stat. 839.
§34 (a), 60 Stat. 925.
Id. § 34 (e), (f).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
L
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
Under Moore v. Illinois Central Railroad Co., 312 U. S. 630, decided in 1941, a discharged railroad employee aggrieved by the discharge may either (1) pursue his remedy under the administrative procedures established by an applicable collective bargaining agreement subject to the Railway Labor Act, and his right of review before the National Railroad Adjustment Board, or (2) if he accepts his discharge as final, bring an action at law in an appropriate state court for money damages if the state courts recognize such a claim. See also Slocum v. Delaware, L. & W. R. Co., 339 U. S. 239, 244; Transcontinental & Western Air, Inc. v. Koppal, 345 U. S. 653. The question in this case is whether those decisions should be overruled in light of Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U. S. 650, decided in 1965.
Petitioner was a yard fireman in the employ of respondent, the railroad. He sued in a North Carolina court on a claim that respondent had unlawfully discharged him on May 29, 1957, in violation of its collective bargaining agreement with the Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen. The action was removed by respondent to the Federal District Court by reason of diversity of citizenship. The District Court overruled respondent’s challenge to its jurisdiction, citing Moore, Slocum, and Koppal, and entered a judgment for damages in petitioner’s favor. 237 F. Supp. 278. The Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit reversed, holding that Maddox, decided after the entry of the District Court judgment, required that petitioner first exhaust his administrative remedies. 354 F. 2d 950. Since our opinion in Maddox expressly stated that “we do not mean to overrule [Moore v. Illinois Central R. Co.] within the field of the Railway Labor Act” but that “ [consideration of such action should properly await a case presented” under that Act, 379 U. S., at 657, n. 14, we granted certiorari, 384 U. S. 926. We reverse.
Maddox presented the question whether contract grievance procedures provided in a collective bargaining agreement subject to the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, and culminating in binding arbitration might be sidestepped in favor of a lawsuit, in light of the federal policy reflected in the LMRA of favoring such agreed-upon contract grievance procedures as the preferred method for settling disputes. The action was brought in an Alabama state court by an employee of the Republic Steel Corporation for severance pay allegedly owed him under the terms of a collective bargaining agreement which contained such a grievance procedure. We held that contract grievance procedures voluntarily incorporated by the parties in collective bargaining agreements subject to the LMRA, unless specified by the parties to be nonexclusive, must be exhausted before direct legal redress may be sought by the employee.
Provision for arbitration of a discharge grievance, a minor dispute, is not a matter of voluntary agreement under the Railway Labor Act; the Act compels the parties to arbitrate minor disputes before the National Railroad Adjustment Board established under the Act. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Chicago River & Indiana R. Co., 353 U. S. 30. Both at the time of petitioner’s alleged discharge and at the time he brought his lawsuit, there was considerable dissatisfaction with the operations of the National Railroad Adjustment Board and with some of the statutory features. Congress initiated an inquiry and found that among other causes for dissatisfaction, “railroad employees who have grievances sometimes have to wait as long as 10 years or more before a decision is rendered [by the Board] on their claim”; for example, “the First Division [which has jurisdiction over disputes involving yard service employees of petitioner’s class] . . . has never been current in its work, [and has] a backlog of approximately 7% years . . . .” H. R. Rep. No. 1114, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., at 3, 5; S. Rep. No. 1201, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., at 2. The Congress also found that “if an employee receives an award in his favor from the Board, the railroad affected may obtain judicial review of that award by declining to comply with it. If, however, an employee fails to receive an award in his favor, there is no means by which judicial review may be obtained.” H. R. Rep., supra, at 15. S. Rep., supra, at 3.
In consequence, Congress enacted Public Law 89-456, 80 Stat. 208, effective June 20, 1966, which drastically revises the procedures in order to remedy the defects. Of course the new procedures were not available to petitioner, and his case is governed by Moore, Slocum, and Koppal. The contrast between the administrative remedy before us in Maddox and that available to petitioner persuades us that we should not overrule those decisions in his case.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The question in this case is whether the single-factor sales formula employed by Iowa to apportion the income of an interstate business for income tax purposes is prohibited by the Federal Constitution.
I
Appellant, Moorman Manufacturing Co., is an Illinois corporation engaged in the manufacture and sale of animal feeds. Although the products it sells to Iowa customers are manufactured in Illinois, appellant has over 500 salesmen in Iowa and it owns six warehouses in the State from which deliveries are made to Iowa customers. Iowa sales account for about 20% of appellant's total sales.
Corporations, both foreign and domestic, doing business in Iowa are subject to the State’s income tax. The taxable income for federal income tax purposes, with certain adjustments, is treated as the corporation’s “net income” under the Iowa statute. If a corporation’s business is not conducted entirely within Iowa, the statute imposes a tax only on the portion of its income “reasonably attributable” to the business within the State.
There are essentially two steps in computing the share of a corporation’s income “reasonably attributable” to Iowa. First, certain income, “the geographical source of which is easily identifiable,” is attributed entirely to a particular State. Second, if the remaining income is derived from the manufacture or sale of tangible personal property, “the part thereof attributable to business within the state shall be in that proportion which the gross sales made within the state bear to the total gross sales.” This is the single-factor formula that appellant challenges in this case.
If the taxpayer believes that application of this formula subjects it to taxation on a greater portion of its net income than is “reasonably attributable” to business within the State, it may file a statement of objections and submit an alternative method of apportionment. If the evidence submitted by the taxpayer persuades the Director of Revenue that the statute is “inapplicable and inequitable” as applied to it, he may recalculate the corporation’s taxable income.
During the fiscal years 1949 through 1960, the State Tax Commission allowed appellant to compute its Iowa income on the basis of a formula consisting of three, equally weighted factors — property, payroll, and sales — rather than the formula prescribed by statute. For the fiscal years 1961 through 1964, appellant complied with a directive of the State Tax Commission to compute its income in accordance with the statutory formula. Since 1965, however, appellant has resorted to the three-factor formula without the consent of the commission.
In 1974, the Iowa Director of Revenue revised appellant’s tax assessment for the fiscal years 1968 through 1972. This assessment was based on the statutory formula, which produced a higher percentage of taxable income than appellant, using the three-factor formula, had reported on its return in each of the disputed years. The higher percentages, of course, produced a correspondingly greater tax obligation for those years.
After the Tax Commission had rejected Moorman’s appeal from the revised assessment, appellant challenged the constitutionality of the single-factor formula in the Iowa District Court for Polk County. That court held the formula invalid under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the Commerce Clause. The Supreme Court of Iowa reversed, holding that an apportionment formula that is necessarily only a rough approximation of the income properly attributable to the taxing State is not subject to constitutional attack unless the taxpayer proves that the formula has produced an income attribution “out of all proportion to the business transacted” within the State. The court concluded that appellant had not made such a showing.
We noted probable jurisdiction of Moorman’s appeal, 434 U. S. 953, and now affirm.
II
Appellant contends that Iowa’s single-factor formula results in extraterritorial taxation in violation of the Due Process Clause. This argument rests on two premises: first, that appellant’s Illinois operations were responsible for some of the profits generated by sales in Iowa; and, second, that a formula that reaches any income not in fact earned within the borders of the taxing State violates due process. The first premise is speculative and the second is foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court.
Appellant does not suggest that it has shown that a significant portion of the income attributed to Iowa in fact was generated by its Illinois operations; the record does not contain any separate accounting analysis showing what portion of appellant’s profits was attributable to sales, to manufacturing, or to any other phase of the company’s operations. But appellant contends that we should proceed on the assumption that at least some portion of the income from Iowa sales was generated by Illinois activities.
Whatever merit such an assumption might have from the standpoint of economic theory or legislative policy, it cannot support a claim in this litigation that Iowa in fact taxed profits not attributable to activities within the State during the years 1968 through 1972. For all this record reveals, appellant’s manufacturing operations in Illinois were only marginally profitable during those years and the high-volume sales to Iowa customers from Iowa warehouses were responsible for the lion’s share of the income generated by those sales. Indeed, a separate accounting analysis might have revealed that losses in Illinois operations prevented appellant from earning more income from exploitation of a highly favorable Iowa market. Yet even were we to assume that the Illinois activities made some contribution to the profitability of the Iowa sales, appellant’s claim that the Constitution invalidates an apportionment formula whenever it may result in taxation of some income that did not have its source in the taxing State is incorrect.
The Due Process Clause places two restrictions on a State’s power to tax income generated by the activities of an interstate business. First, no tax may be imposed unless there is some minimal connection between those activities and the taxing State. National Bellas Hess, Inc. v. Department of Revenue, 386 U. S. 753, 756. This requirement was plainly satisfied here. Second, the income attributed to the State for tax purposes must be rationally related to “values connected with the taxing State.” Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. State Tax Comm’n, 390 U. S. 317, 325.
Since 1934 Iowa has used the formula method of computing taxable income. This method, unlike separate accounting, does not purport to identify the precise geographical source of a corporation’s profits; rather, it is employed as a rough approximation of a corporation’s income that is reasonably related to the activities conducted within the taxing State. The single-factor formula used by Iowa, therefore, generally will not produce a figure that represents the actual profits earned within the State. But the same is true of the Illinois three-factor formula. Both will occasionally over-reflect or under-reflect income attributable to the taxing State. Yet despite this imprecision, the Court has refused to impose strict constitutional restraints on a State’s selection of a particular formula.
Thus, we have repeatedly held that a single-factor formula is presumptively valid. In Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Chamberlain, 254 U. S. 113, for example, the taxpayer challenged Connecticut’s use of such a formula to apportion its net income. Underwood’s manufacturing operations were conducted entirely within Connecticut. Its main office, however, was in New York City and it had branch offices in many States where its typewriters were sold and repaired. Applying a single-factor property formula, Connecticut taxed 47% of the company’s net income. Claiming that 97% of its profits were generated by transactions in tangible personal property outside Connecticut, Underwood contended that the formula taxed “income arising from business conducted beyond the boundaries of the State” in violation of the Due Process Clause. Id., at 120.
Rejecting this claim, the Court noted that Connecticut “adopted a method of apportionment which, for all that appears in this record, reached, and was meant to reach, only the profits earned within the State,” id., at 121, and held that the taxpayer had failed to carry its burden of proving that “the method of apportionment adopted by the State was inherently arbitrary, or that its application to this corporation produced an unreasonable result.” Ibid, (footnote omitted)
In individual cases, it is true, the Court has found that the application of a single-factor formula to a particular taxpayer violated due process. See Hans Rees’ Sons, Inc. v. North Carolina ex rel. Maxwell, 283 U. S. 123; Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. State Tax Comm’n, supra. In Hans Rees’, for example, the Court concluded that proof that the formula produced a tax on 83% of the taxpayer’s income when only 17% of that income actually had its source in the State would suffice to invalidate the assessement under the Due Process Clause. But in neither Hans Rees’ nor Norfolk & Western did the Court depart from the basic principles that the States have wide latitude in the selection of apportionment formulas and that a formula-produced assessment will only be disturbed when the taxpayer has proved by “clear and cogent evidence” that the income attributed to the State is in fact “out of all appropriate proportions to the business transacted ... in that State,” 283 U. S., at 135, or has “led to a grossly distorted result,” 390 U. S., at 326.
General Motors Corp. v. District of Columbia, 380 U. S. 553, on which appellant relies, does not suggest a contrary result. In that case the Court held that a regulation prescribing a single-factor sales formula was not authorized by the District of Columbia Code. It concluded that the formula violated the statutory requirement that the net income of a corporation doing business both inside and outside the District must be deemed to arise from “sources” both inside and outside the District. But that statutory requirement has no counterpart in the Constitution, and the Court in General Motors made clear that it did “not mean to take any position on the constitutionality of a state income tax based on the sales factor alone.” Id., at 561.
The Iowa statute afforded appellant an opportunity to demonstrate that the single-factor formula produced an arbitrary result in its case. But this record contains no such showing and therefore the Director’s assessment is not subject to challenge under the Due Process Clause.
Ill
Appellant also contends that during the relevant years Iowa and Illinois imposed a tax on a portion of the income derived from the Iowa sales that was also taxed by the other State in violation of the Commerce Clause. Since most States use the three-factor formula that Illinois adopted in 1970, appellant argues that Iowa’s longstanding single-factor formula must be held responsible for the alleged duplication and declared unconstitutional. We cannot agree.
In the first place, this record does not establish the essential factual predicate for a claim of duplicative taxation. Appellant’s net income during the years in question was approximately $9 million. Since appellant did not prove the portion derived from sales to Iowa customers, rather than sales to customers in other States, we do not know whether Illinois and Iowa together imposed a tax on more than 100% of the relevant net income. The income figure that appellant contends was subject to duplicative taxation was computed by comparing gross sales in Iowa to total gross sales. As already noted, however, this figure does not represent actual profits earned from Iowa sales. Obviously, all sales are not equally profitable. Sales in Iowa, although only 20%> of gross sales, may have yielded a much higher percentage of appellant’s profits. Thus, profits from Iowa sales may well have exceeded the $2.5 million figure that appellant contends was taxed by the two States. If so, there was no duplicative taxation of the net income generated by Iowa sales. In any event, on this record its existence is speculative.
Even assuming some overlap, we could not accept appellant's argument that Iowa, rather than Illinois, was necessarily at fault in a constitutional sense. It is, of course, true that if Iowa had used Illinois’ three-factor formula, a risk of duplication in the figures computed by the two States might have been avoided. But the same would be true had Illinois used the Iowa formula. Since the record does not reveal the sources of appellant’s profits, its Commerce Clause claim cannot rest on the premise that profits earned in Illinois were included in its Iowa taxable income and therefore the Iowa formula was at fault for whatever overlap may have existed. Rather, the claim must be that even if the presumptively valid Iowa formula yielded no profits other than those properly attributable to appellant’s activities within Iowa, the importance of avoiding any risk of duplication in the taxable income of an interstate concern justifies invalidation of the Iowa statute.
Appellant contends that, to the extent this overlap is permitted, the corporation that does business in more than one State shoulders a tax burden not shared by those operating entirely within a State. To alleviate the burden, appellant invites us to hold that the Commerce Clause itself, without implementing legislation by Congress, requires Iowa to compute corporate net income under the Illinois equally weighted, three-factor formula. For the reasons that follow, we hold that the Constitution does not require such a result.
The only conceivable constitutional basis for invalidating the Iowa statute would be that the Commerce Clause prohibits any overlap in the computation of taxable income by the States. If the Constitution were read to mandate such precision in interstate taxation, the consequences would extend far beyond this particular case. For some risk of duplicative taxation exists whenever the States in which a corporation does business do not follow identical rules for the division of income. Accepting appellant’s view of the Constitution, therefore, would require extensive judicial lawmaking. Its logic is not limited to a prohibition on use of a single-factor apportionment formula. The asserted constitutional flaw in that formula is that it is different from that presently employed by a majority of States and that difference creates a risk of duplicative taxation. But a host of other division-of-income problems create precisely the same risk and would similarly rise to constitutional proportions.
Thus, it would be necessary for this Court to prescribe a uniform definition of each category in the three-factor formula. For if the States in which a corporation does business have different rules regarding where a “sale” takes place, and each includes the same sale in its three-factor computation of the corporation’s income, there will be duplicative taxation despite the apparent identity of the formulas employed. A similar risk of multiple taxation is created by the diversity among the States in the attribution of “nonbusiness” income, generally defined as that portion of a taxpayer’s income that does not arise from activities in the regular course of its business. Some States do not distinguish between business and non-business income for apportionment purposes. Other States, however, have adopted special rules that attribute nonbusiness income to specific locations. Moreover, even among the latter, there is diversity in the definition of nonbusiness income and in the designation of the locations to which it is deemed attributable. The potential for attribution of the same income to more than one State is plain.
The prevention of duplicative taxation, therefore, would require national uniform rules for the division of income. Although the adoption of a uniform code would undeniably advance the policies that underlie the Commerce Clause, it would require a policy decision based on political and economic considerations that vary from State to State. The Constitution, however, is neutral with respect to the content of any uniform rule. If division-of-income problems were to be constitutionalized, therefore, they would have to be resolved in the manner suggested by appellant for resolution of formula diversity — the prevalent practice would be endorsed as the constitutional rule. This rule would at best be an amalgam of independent state decisions, based on considerations unique to each State. Of most importance, it could not reflect the national interest, because the interests of those States whose policies are subordinated in the quest for uniformity would be excluded from the calculation.
While the freedom of the States to formulate independent policy in this area may have to yield to an overriding national interest in uniformity, the content of any uniform rules to which they must subscribe should be determined only after due consideration is given to the interests of all affected States. It is clear that the legislative power granted to Congress by the Commerce Clause of the Constitution would amply justify the enactment of legislation requiring all States to adhere to uniform rules for the division of income. It is to that body, and not this Court, that the Constitution has committed such policy decisions.
Finally, it would be an exercise in formalism to declare appellant’s income tax assessment unconstitutional based on speculative concerns with multiple taxation. For it is evident that appellant would have had no basis for complaint if, instead of an income tax, Iowa had imposed a more burdensome gross-receipts tax on the gross receipts from sales to Iowa customers. In Standard Pressed Steel Co. v. Washington Revenue Dept., 419 U. S. 560, the Court sustained a tax on the entire gross receipts from sales made by the taxpayer into Washington State. Because receipts from sales made to States other than Washington were not included in Standard Pressed Steel’s taxable gross receipts, the Court concluded that the tax was “ 'apportioned exactly to the activities taxed.’ ” Id., at 564.
In this case appellant’s actual income tax obligation was the rough equivalent of a 1 % tax on the entire gross receipts- from its Iowa sales. Thus, the actual burden on interstate commerce would have been the same had Iowa imposed a plainly valid gross-receipts tax instead of the challenged income tax. Of more significance, the gross-receipts tax sustained in Standard Pressed Steel and General Motors Corp. v. Washington, 377 U. S. 436, is inherently more burdensome than the Iowa income tax. It applies whether or not the interstate concern is profitable and its imposition may make the difference between profit and loss. In contrast, the income tax is only imposed on enterprises showing a profit and the tax obligation is not heavy unless the profits are high.
Accordingly, until Congress prescribes a different rule, Iowa is not constitutionally prohibited from requiring taxpayers to prove that application of the single-factor formula has produced arbitrary results in a particular case.
The judgment of the Iowa Supreme Court is affirmed.
So ordered.
The statute provides:
“Interest, dividends, rents, and royalties (less related expenses) received in connection with business in the state, shall be allocated to the state, and where received in connection with business outside the state, shall be allocated outside of the state.” Iowa Code §422.33 (1) (a) (1977).
In describing this section, the Iowa Supreme Court stated that “certain income, the geographical source of which is easily identifiable, is allocated to the appropriate state.” 254 N. W. 2d 737, 739. Thus, for example, rental income would be attributed to the State where the property was located. And in appellant’s case, this section operated to exclude its investment income from the tax base.
Iowa Code §422.33 (1) (6) (1977).
The operation of the two formulas may be briefly described. The single-factor sales formula yields a percentage representing a ratio of gross sales in Iowa to total gross sales. The three-factor formula yields a percentage representing an average of three ratios: property within the State to total property, payroll within the State to total payroll, and sales within the State to total sales.
These percentages are multiplied by the adjusted total net income to arrive at Iowa taxable net income. This net income figure is then multiplied by the tax rate to compute the actual tax obligation of the taxpayer.
For those years the two formulas resulted in the following percentages:
For a description of how these percentages are computed, see n. 3, supra.
Thus, in 1968, for example, Moorman’s three-factor computation resulted in a tax of $81,466, whereas the Director’s single-factor computation resulted in a tax of $121,363.
See, e. g., Underwood Typewriter Co. v. Chamberlain, 254 U. S. 113; Bass, Ratcliff & Gretton, Ltd. v. State Tax Comm’n, 266 U. S. 271; Ford Motor Co. v. Beauchamp, 308 U. S. 331.
See also Bass, Ratcliff & Gretton, Ltd. v. State Tax Comm’n, supra; Norfolk & Western R. Co. v. North Carolina ex rel. Maxwell, 297 U. S. 682.
The Court, it is true, expressed doubts about the wisdom of the economic assumptions underlying the challenged formula and noted that its use in the context of the more prevalent three-factor formula would not advance the policies underlying the Commerce Clause. But these considerations were deemed relevant to the question of legislative intent, not constitutional interpretation.
In his concurring opinion, Justice McCormick of the Iowa Supreme Court made this point:
“In the present case, Moorman did not attempt to prove the amount of its actual net income from Iowa, activities in the years involved. Therefore no basis was presented for comparison of the corporation’s Iowa income and the income apportioned to Iowa under the formula. In this era of sophisticated accounting techniques, it should not be impossible for a unitary corporation to prove its actual income from activities in a particular state. However, Moorman showed only that its tax liability would be substantially less if Iowa employed a three-factor apportionment formula. We have no basis to assume that the three-factor formula produced a result equivalent to the corporation’s actual income from Iowa activities. Having failed to establish a basis for comparison of its actual income in Iowa with the income apportioned to Iowa under the single-factor formula, Moorman did not demonstrate that the single-factor formula produced a grossly unfair result. Thus it did not prove unconstitutionality of the formula as applied.” 254 N. W. 2d, at 757.
Since Illinois did not adopt its income tax until 1970, there was no possibility of any overlap until that year. The alleged overlap in the three years following Illinois’ enactment of an income tax was 34.38% in 1970, 34.51% in 1971, and 37.01% in 1972.
Since there is no evidence in the record regarding the percentages of its total net income taxed in the other States in which it did business during those years, any claim that appellant was taxed on more than 100% of its total net income would also be speculative.
Appellant also contends that the Iowa formula discriminates against interstate commerce in violation of the Commerce Clause and the Equal Protection Clause, because an Illinois corporation doing business in Iowa must pay tax on a greater portion of its income than a local Iowa company, and an Iowa company doing business in Illinois will pay tax on less of its income than an Illinois corporation doing business in Iowa. The simple answer, however, is that whatever disparity may have existed is not attributable to the Iowa statute. It treats both local and foreign concerns with an even hand; the alleged disparity can only be the consequence of the combined effect of the Iowa and Illinois statutes, and Iowa is not responsible for the latter.
Thus, appellant’s “discrimination” claim is simply a way of describing the potential consequences of the use of different formulas by the two States. These consequences, however, could be avoided by the adoption of any uniform rule; the “discrimination” does not inhere in either State’s formula.
Thus, while some States such as Iowa assign sales by destination, “sales can be assigned to the state ... of origin, the state in which, the sales office is located, the state where an employee of the business making the sale carries on his activities or where the order is first accepted, or the state in which an interstate shipment is made.” Note, State Taxation of Interstate Businesses and the Multistate Tax Compact: The Search for a Delicate Uniformity, 11 Colum. J. Law & Soc. Prob. 231, 237 n. 20 (1975) (citation omitted).
See, e. g., Uniform Division of Income for Tax Purposes Act § 1 (a).
Thus, one State in which a corporation does business may consider a particular type of income business income and simply include it in its apportionment formula; a second State may deem that same income nonbusiness income and attribute it to itself as the “commercial domicile” of the company; and a third State, though also considering it nonbusiness income, may attribute it to itself as the “legal domicile” of the company. See Note, supra n. 13, at 239.
This process is especially unsettling if a longstanding tax policy of one State, such as Iowa’s, becomes the object of constitutional attack simply because it is different from the recently adopted practice of its neighbor.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
H
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice White
delivered the opinion of the Court.
In 1970 Congress enacted the Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act, 18 U. S. C. App., pp. 1395-1398 (1976 ed.), joining the United States and the District of Columbia as parties to the Interstate Agreement on Detainers (Agreement), The Agreement, which has also been enacted by 46 States, is designed “to encourage the expeditious and orderly disposition of... charges [outstanding against a prisoner] and determination of the proper status of any and all detainers based on untried indictments, informations, or complaints.” Art. I. It prescribes procedures by which a member State may obtain for trial a prisoner incarcerated in another member jurisdiction and by which the prisoner may demand the speedy disposition of certain charges pending against him in another jurisdiction. In either case, however, the provisions of the Agreement are triggered only when a “detainer” is filed with the custodial (sending) State by another State (receiving) having untried charges pending against the prisoner; to obtain temporary custody, the receiving State must also file an appropriate “request” with the sending State. The present cases concern the scope of the United States’ obligations under the Agreement, and in particular pose the question whether a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, used by the United States to secure the presence in federal court of state prisoners, may be considered either a “detainer” or a “request” within the meaning of the Agreement.
I
A
Respondents in No. 76-1596, Mauro and Fusco, were indicted for criminal contempt in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York on November 3, 1975. At the time of their indictments, both men were serving state sentences at New Yprk correctional facilities. On November 5, 1975, the District Court issued separate writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum,\directing the wardens of the prisons where Mauro and Fusco were incarcerated to produce them before the District Court on November 19,1975. Mauro and Fusco were arraigned in the District Court on November 24, 1975, at which time they both entered pleas of not guilty. Following their arraignment, they were retained in federal custody at the Metropolitan Correctional Center in New York City.
On December 2, 1975, respondents again appeared before the District Court, this time for the purpose of setting a trial date. After trial dates had been established, the court, noting the overcrowded conditions at the federal Metropolitan Correctional Center, directed that Mauro and Fusco be returned to their respective state prisons until shortly before their trials.
On April 26, 1976, Mauro was again removed from state prison and taken before the District Court pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, as was Fusco on April 29, 1976. Prior to these appearances, respondents had moved for dismissal of their indictments on the ground that the United States had violated Art. IY (e) of the Agreement by returning them to state custody without first trying them on the federal indictment. The District Court granted their motions to dismiss the indictments, finding that the Agreement governed their removal from state custody by means of the writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum and that the Government had violated the provisions of Art. IV (e).
On appeal a divided panel of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit affirmed the dismissals of respondents’ indictments. 544 F. 2d 588 (1976). It held that a “writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum is a detainer entitling the state inmate to the protection provided in Article IV [of the Agreement] and specifically to a trial before his return to the state institution.” Id., at 592 (footnote omitted). To hold that a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum was not a detainer within the meaning of the Agreement, reasoned the court, would permit the United States to circumvent its obligations under the Agreement.
B
Respondent in No. 77-52, Ford, was arrested in Chicago on October 11, 1973, on two federal warrants. Shortly after his arrest, he was turned over to Illinois authorities for extradition to Massachusetts on older, unrelated state charges. While in the custody of the Illinois authorities, Ford requested a speedy trial on the federal bank robbery charge by means of letters sent to the United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York and the United States District Court for that District. After he was transferred to Massachusetts, federal officials lodged the federal bank robbery warrant as a detainer against him with the state prison authorities.
Following Ford's conviction on the Massachusetts charges, an indictment was filed hi the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, charging Ford with bank robbery and aggravated bank robbery. On April 1, 1974, he was produced from Massachusetts for arraignment before the District Court pursuant to a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum issued by the court on March 25, 1974. Because Ford was not represented by counsel, the proceedings were adjourned until April 15, at which time he pleaded not guilty to a superseding indictment. Trial was set for May 28, 1974.
The trial did not commence, however, until September 2, 1975, having been postponed on five separate occasions either at the request of the Government or on the court's own initiative. During the period while he was awaiting his federal trial, Ford was incarcerated in the Massachusetts state prison; he had requested and received permission to return there in order to facilitate preparation for trial. On November 4, 1974, in response to the Government’s motion to postpone the trial for a third time, Ford moved in the District Court for the dismissal of his indictment on the ground that he had been denied his right to a speedy trial. In support of his motion, he alleged that he was being denied furlough privileges at the state prison as a result of the federal detainer that remained lodged against him. His motion to dismiss the indictment was denied.
On August 8, 1975, the Government secured Ford’s presence for trial from the Massachusetts prison authorities by means of a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, issued by the District Court. At the beginning of his trial, Ford again moved unsuccessfully for a dismissal of the indictment on speedy trial grounds. His jury trial resulted in verdicts of guilty on all counts.
On appeal to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, Ford argued, among other things, that his indictment should have been dismissed with prejudice because he was not tried within 120 days of his initial arrival in the Southern District of New York, in violation of Art. IY (c) of the Agreement, and because he was returned to state prison without first being tried on the federal charges, in violation of Art. IY (e). The panel, with one judge dissenting, agreed with Ford’s contention that dismissal of the indictment was required as a result of the Government’s failure to comply with the speedy trial provisions of Art. IV (c). 550 F. 2d 732 (1977). The court reasoned that, regardless of whether a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum issued by a federal court to obtain a state prisoner is by it-self sufficient to trigger the provisions of the Agreement, the Agreement clearly governs situations such as Ford’s, in which a federal detainer is first filed with the state authorities and the writ is then used to secure the prisoner’s presence in federal court. In the view of the Court of Appeals, the writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum utilized to bring Ford to federal court was a “written request for temporary custody or availability” within the meaning of Art. IV (a). Having concluded that the Agreement was applicable and that the provisions of Art. IV (c) had been violated, the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for the dismissal of Ford’s indictment with prejudice, as required by Art. V (c) of the Agreement.
c
Because there is a conflict among the Federal Courts of Appeals on the issue, we granted certiorari in these cases to consider whether the Agreement governs the use of writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum by the United States to obtain state prisoners. In No. 76-1596 we hold that such a writ issued by a federal court to state authorities, directing the production of a state prisoner for trial on criminal charges, is not a detainer within the meaning of the Agreement and thus does not trigger the application of the Agreement. In No. 77-52 we hold that the United States is bound by the Agreement when it activates its provisions by filing a detainer against a state prisoner and then obtains his custody by means of a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum.
II
The origins of the Agreement date back to 1948, when á group known as the Joint Committee on Detainers issued a report concerning tire problems arising from the use of detain-ers and expressing five aims or principles for the guidance of prosecuting authorities, prison officials, and parole authorities. These guiding principles, which later served as the underpinnings of the Agreement, were as follows:
“1. Every effort should be made to accomplish the disposition of detainers as promptly as possible.
“2. There should be assurance that any prisoner released to stand trial in another jurisdiction will be returned to the institution from which he was released.
“3. Prison and parole authorities should take prompt action to settle detainers which have been filed by them.
“4. No prisoner should be penalized because of a de-tainer pending against him unless a thorough investigation of the detainer has been made and it has been found valid.
“5. All jurisdictions should observe the principles of interstate comity in the settlement of detainers, and each should bear its own proper burden of the expenses and effort involved in disposing of the charges and settling detainers.” Bennett, The Last Full Ounce, 23 Fed. Prob. 20, 22 (June 1959).
The Joint Committee on Detainers was later reconstituted under the auspices of the Council of State Governments. Then known as the Committee on Detainers and Sentencing and Release of Persons Accused of Multiple Offenses, it held meetings in 1955 and 1956, which resulted in the development and approval of several proposals concerning detainers. Among the proposals was a draft version of the Agreement. In April 1956 this proposal was reviewed and approved by a conference jointly sponsored by the American Correctional Association, the Council of State Governments, the National Probation and Parole Association, and the New York Joint Legislative Committee on Interstate Cooperation. Following the endorsement of the Agreement by this conference, the Council of State Governments included it within its Suggested State Legislation Program for 1957.
The Agreement, in the form adopted by the United States and other member jurisdictions, sets forth the findings upon which it is based and its purpose in Art. I. It notes that “charges outstanding against a prisoner, detainers based on untried indictments, informations, or complaints and difficulties in securing speedy trial of persons already incarcerated in other jurisdictions, produce uncertainties which obstruct programs of prisoner treatment and rehabilitation.” Accordingly, its purpose is to encourage the expeditious disposition of such charges and to provide cooperative procedures among member States to facilitate such disposition.
The central provisions of the Agreement are Art. Ill and Art. IV. Article III provides a procedure by which a prisoner against whom a detainer has been filed can demand a speedy disposition of the charges giving rise to the detainer. The warden of the institution in which the prisoner is incarcerated is required to inform him promptly of the source and contents of any detainer lodged against him and of his right to request final disposition of the charges. Art. Ill (c). If the prisoner does make such a request, the jurisdiction that filed the de-tainer must bring him to trial within 180 days. Art. Ill (a). The prisoner’s request operates as a request for the final disposition of all untried charges underlying detainers filed against’him by that State, Art. Ill (d), and is deemed to be a waiver of extradition. Art. Ill (e).
Article IV provides the means by which a prosecutor who has lodged a detainer against a prisoner in another State can secure the prisoner’s presence for disposition of the outstanding charges. Once he has filed a detainer against the prisoner, the prosecutor can have him made available by presenting to the officials of the State in which the prisoner is incarcerated “a written request for temporary custody or availability....” Art. IV (a).
Two important limitations, previously referred to, are placed on a prosecuting authority once it has obtained the presence of a prisoner pursuant to Art. IV. Article IV (c) states that
“[i]n respect of any proceeding made possible by this article, trial shall be commenced within one hundred and twenty days of the arrival of the prisoner in the receiving State, but for good cause shown in open court, the prisoner or his counsel being present, the court having jurisdiction of the matter may grant any necessary or reasonable continuance.”
And Art. IV (e) requires the receiving State to try the prisoner on the outstanding charge before returning him to the State in which he was previously imprisoned:
“If trial is not had on any indictment, information, or complaint contemplated hereby prior to the prisoner’s being returned to the original place of imprisonment pursuant to article V (e) hereof, such indictment, information, or complaint shall not be of any further force or effect, and the court shall enter an order dismissing the same with prejudice.”
Article Y (c) similarly provides that the “indictment, information, or complaint on the basis of which the detainer has been lodged” shall be dismissed if the prisoner is not brought to trial within the period specified in Art. IV (c).
Ill
Congress enacted the Agreement into law and entered into it on behalf of the United States and the District of Columbia with relatively little discussion and no apparent opposition. See 116 Cong. Rec. 13997-14000, 38840-38842 (1970). The legislation had been previously introduced in the 90th Congress at the request of the Attorney General; on that occasion, it had passed the House, but the Senate had failed to approve it. When it was introduced again in the 91st Congress, the need for the legislation was noted in both the House and Senate Reports:
“The Attorney General has advised the committee that a prisoner who has had a detainer lodged against him is seriously disadvantaged by such action. He is in custody and therefore in no position to seek witnesses or to preserve his defense. He must often be kept in close custody and is ineligible for desirable work assignments. What is more, when detainers are filed against a prisoner he sometimes loses interest in institutional opportunities because he must serve his sentence without knowing what additional sentences may lie before him, or when, if ever, he will be in a position to employ the education and skills he may be developing.” H. R. Rep. No. 91-1018, p. 3 (1970); S. Rep. No. 91-1356, p. 3 (1970).
The Government now vigorously argues that when Congress enacted the Agreement into law, the United States became a party to the Agreement only in its capacity as a “sending State.” It contends that “Congress intended the United States to participate in the Agreement only for the purposes of allowing states more readily to obtain federal prisoners and allowing such prisoners to seek trial on outstanding detainers lodged against them with their federal custodian.” Brief for United States in No. 77-52, p. 16. Thus, it argues, the Agreement has no relevance to the present cases, for here the Federal Government was the recipient of state prisoners. We have considered the grounds offered by the Government in support of this contention and conclude, as have all of the Courts of Appeals that have considered the question, that the United States is a party to the Agreement as both a sending and a receiving State.
As even the Government concedes, the Agreement as enacted by Congress expressly includes the United States within the definition of “State” and. defines “Receiving State” as “the State in which trial is to be had on an indictment, information, or complaint pursuant to article III or article IV hereof.” Art. II (c). The statute itself gives no indication that the United States is to be exempted from the category of receiving States. To the contrary, Art. VIII states that “[t]his agreement shall enter into full force and effect as to a party State when such State has enacted the same into law” (emphasis added).
The brief legislative history that exists provides no further support for the Government’s contention. It is true, as the Government points out, that most of the comment on the proposed legislation referred to problems encountered by States in obtaining federal prisoners, but there is no indication whatsoever that the United States’ participation in the Agreement was to be a limited one. Senator Hruska, for example, spoke in favor of the Agreement on the floor of the Senate, saying:
“By enactment of this bill the United States and the District of Columbia would become signatories to this agreement which has already been adopted by 28 States. By approving this measure today we can insure that the United States will become part of this vitally needed system of simplified and uniform rules for the disposition of pending criminal charges and the exchange of prisoners.” 116 Cong. Rec. 38840 (1970).
Neither he nor anyone else in Congress drew a distinction between the extent of the United States’ participation in the Agreement and that of the other member States, an observation that one would expect had the Federal Government entered into the Agreement as only a sending State.
Nor are we persuaded by the Government’s argument that, because the United States already had an efficient means of obtaining prisoners — the writ of habeas corpus ad 'prosequen-dum, — Congress could not have intended to join the United States as a receiving State. Although the United States perhaps did not gain as much from its entry into the Agreement as did some of the other member States, the fact remains that Congress did enact the Agreement into law in its entirety, and it placed no qualification upon the membership of the United States. The reference in the Committee Reports to the recommendation of the Attorney General, see supra, at 353, indicates that Congress was motivated, not only by the desire to aid States in obtaining federal prisoners, but also by the desire to alleviate the problems encountered by prisoners and prison systems as a result of the lodging of detainers. There is no reason to assume that Congress was any less concerned about the effects of federal detainers filed against state prisoners than it was about state detainers filed against federal prisoners. While the Government argues that a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum leads to none of the problems about which the drafters of the Agreement were concerned, we thinh that this argument is more properly addressed to the question whether such a writ constitutes a detainer for purposes of the Agreement, which we discuss below.
IV
A
United States district courts are authorized by 28 U. S. C. § 2241 (a) to grant writs of habeas corpus; expressly included within this authority is the power to issue such a writ when it is necessary to bring a prisoner into court to testify or for trial. § 2241 (c) (5). This Court has previously examined in great detail the history of the writ of habeas corpus ad prose-quendum, observing that § 14 of the first Judiciary Act, 1 Stat. 81, authorized courts of the United States to issue writs of habeas corpus. Carbo v. United States, 364 U. S. 611, 614 (1961). Although § 14 did not expressly state that the courts could issue ad prosequendum writs, the Court in an opinion by Mr. Chief Justice Marshall, Ex parte Bollman, 4 Cranch 75 (1807), interpreted the words “habeas corpus” as being a generic term including the writ “necessary to remove a prisoner in order to prosecute him in the proper jurisdiction wherein the offense was committed.” Carbo, supra, at 615 (emphasis omitted). Since the time of Ex parte Bollman, the statutory authority of federal courts to issue writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum to secure the presence, for purposes of trial, of defendants in federal criminal cases, including defendants then in state custody, has never been doubted. In 1948 this authority was made explicit with the enactment of 28 U. S. C. § 2241, and in, 1961 the Court held that this authority was not limited by the territorial boundaries of the federal district court. Carbo, supra. The role and functioning of the ad prosequendum writ are rooted in history, and they bear little resemblance to the typical de-tainer which activates the provisions of the Agreement.
Unlike a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum issued by a federal district court, a detainer may be lodged against a prisoner on the initiative of a prosecutor or law enforcement officer. Rather than requiring the immediate presence of the prisoner, a detainer merely puts the officials of the institution in which the prisoner is incarcerated on notice that the prisoner is wanted in another jurisdiction for trial upon his release from prison. Further action must be taken by the receiving State in order to obtain the prisoner. Before it was made clear that a prosecuting authority is not relieved of its obligation to provide a defendant a speedy trial just because he is in custody elsewhere, see Smith v. Hooey, 393 U. S. 374 (1969), detainers were allowed to remain lodged against prisoners for lengthy periods of time, quite often for the duration of a prisoner's sentence.
B
The Agreement itself contains no definition of the word “detainer.” The House and Senate Reports, however, explain that “ [a] detainer is a notification filed with the institution in which a prisoner is serving a sentence, advising that he is wanted to face pending criminal charges in another jurisdiction.” H. R. Rep. No. 91-1018, p. 2 (1970); S. Rep. No. 91-1356, p. 2 (1970). While the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit concluded that this definition is broad enough to include within its scope a federal writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum, the concerns expressed by the drafters of the Agreement and by the Congress that enacted it demonstrate that the word “detainer” was not so intended.
In recommending the adoption of the Agreement, the Council of State Governments outlined some of the problems caused by detainers that the Agreement was designed to address. It noted that prison administrators were “thwarted in [their] effort[s] toward rehabilitation [because t]he inmate who has a detainer against him is filled with anxiety and apprehension and frequently does not respond to a training program.” Council of State Governments, Suggested State Legislation Program for 1957, p. 74 (1956). Furthermore, the prisoner was often deprived of the ability to take advantage of many of the prison’s programs aimed at rehabilitation, merely because there was a detainer lodged against him. This problem was noted by the Director of the Federal Bureau of Prisons, who in 1959 stated that he “remember [ed] the day when the presence of a detainer automatically guaranteed that the inmate would be held in close custody and denied training and work experiences in more relaxed situations, such as the farm, which frequently represent, a valuable resource in treating prisoners and testing their progress.” Bennett, The Last Full Ounce, 23 Fed. Prob. 20, 21 (June 1959). The Council of State Governments also pointed out that the existence of detainers presented problems in, sentencing; when detainers had previously been filed against the defendant, the sentencing judge would hesitate to give as long a sentence as he thought might otherwise be indicated, there being a possibility that the defendant would be required to serve subsequent sentences. The Council stated that “proper sentencing, as well as proper correctional treatment, is not possie ble until the detainer system is modified.” Council of State Governments, supra, at 74. Similar concerns were expressed by the Attorney General in his recommendation to Congress. See supra, at 353.
The adverse effects of detainers that prompted the drafting and enactment of the Agreement are thus for the most part the consequence of the lengthy duration of detainers. Because a detainer remains lodged against a prisoner without any action being taken on it, he is denied certain privileges within the prison, and rehabilitation efforts may be frustrated. For these reasons the stated purpose of the Agreement is “to encourage the expeditious and orderly disposition of [outstanding] charges and determination of the proper status of any and all detainers based on untried indictments, informations, or complaints.” Art. I (emphasis added).
Because writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum issued by a federal court pursuant to the express authority of a federal statute are immediately executed, enactment of the Agreement was not necessary to achieve their expeditious disposition. Furthermore, as noted above, the issuance of ad prose-quendum writs by federal courts has a long history, dating back to the first Judiciary Act. We can therefore assume that Congress was well aware of the use of such writs by the Federal Government to obtain state prisoners and that when it used the word “detainer,” it meant something quite different from a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum. Contrary to the contention of the Court of Appeals in No. 76-1596, it is not necessary to construe “detainer” as including these writs in order to keep the United States from evading its duties under the Agreement. When the United States obtains state prisoners by means of a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequen-dum, the problems that the Agreement seeks to eliminate do not arise; accordingly, the Government is in no sense circumventing the Agreement by means of the writ. We therefore conclude that a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum is not a detainer for purposes of the Agreement.
Because in No. 76-1596 the Government never filed a detainer against Mauro and Fusco, the Agreement never became applicable and the United States was never bound by its provisions. The Court of Appeals therefore erred in affirming the dismissal of the indictments against the respondents.
V
Our analysis of the purposes of the Agreement and the reasons for its adoption by Congress leads us to reject the Government’s argument in No. 77-52 that a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum may not be considered a “written request for temporary custody” within the meaning of Art. IV of the Agreement. Once the Federal Government lodges a detainer against a prisoner with state prison officials, the Agreement by its express terms becomes applicable and the United States must comply with its provisions. And once a detainer has been lodged, the United States has precipitated the very problems with which the Agreement is concerned. Because at that point the policies underlying the Agreement are fully implicated, we see no reason to give an unduly restrictive meaning to the term “written request for temporary custody.” It matters not whether the Government presents the prison authorities in the sending State with a piece of paper labeled “request for temporary custody” or with a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum demanding the prisoner’s presence in federal court on a certain day; in either case the United States is able to obtain temporary custody of the prisoner. Because the detainer remains lodged against the prisoner until the underlying charges are finally resolved, the Agreement requires that the disposition be speed}'- and that it be obtained before the prisoner is returned to the sending State. The fact that the prisoner is brought before the district court by means of a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum in no way reduces the need for this prompt disposition of the charges underlying the detainer. In this situation it clearly would permit the United States to circumvent its obligations under the Agreement to hold that an ad prosequendum writ may not be considered a written request for temporary custody.'
The Government points to two provisions of the Agreement which it contends demonstrate that “written request” was not meant to include ad prosequendum writs; neither argument is persuasive. First the Government notes that under Art. IV (a) there is to be a 30-day waiting period after the request is presented during which the Governor of the sending State may disapprove the receiving State's request. Because a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum is a federal-court order, it would be contrary to the Supremacy Clause, the United States argues, to permit a State to refuse to obey it. We are unimpressed. The proviso of Art. IV (a) does not purport to augment the State’s authority to dishonor such a writ. As the history of the provision makes clear, it was meant to do no more than preserve previously existing rights of the sending States, not to expand them. If a State has never had authority to dishonor an ad prosequendum writ issued by a federal court, then this provision could not be read as providing such authority. Accordingly, we do not view the provision as being inconsistent with the inclusion of writs of habeas corpus ad prosequendum within the meaning of “written requests.”
The Government also points out that the speedy trial requirement of Art. IV (c) by its terms applies only to a “proceeding made possible by this article....” When a prisoner is brought before a district court by means of an ad prose-quendum writ, the Government argues, the subsequent proceedings are not made possible by Art. IY because the United States was able to obtain prisoners in that manner long before it entered into the Agreement. We do not accept the Government’s narrow reading of this provision; rather we view Art. IV (c) as requiring commencement of trial within 120 days whenever the receiving State initiates the disposition of charges underlying a detainer it has previously lodged against a state prisoner. Any other reading of this section would allow the Government to gain the advantages of lodging a detainer against a prisoner without assuming the responsibilities that the Agreement intended to arise from such an action.
Finally, we agree with the Court of Appeals in No. 77-52 that respondent Ford’s failure to invoke the Agreement in specific terms in his speedy trial motions before the District Court did not result in a waiver of his claim that the Government violated Art. IV (c). The record shows that from the time he was arrested Ford persistently requested that he be given a speedy trial. After his trial date had been continued for the third time, he sought the dismissal of his indictment on the ground that the delay in bringing him to trial while the detainer remained lodged against him was causing him to be denied certain privileges at the state prison. We deem these actions on Ford's part sufficient to put the Government and the District Court on notice of the substance of his claim.
The United States does not challenge the conclusion of the Court of Appeals that, if Art. IV (c) was applicable, it was violated by the extensive delay in bringing Ford to trial. Accordingly, we conclude that the Court of Appeals correctly reversed the judgment of the District Court and ordered that the indictment against Ford be dismissed.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals in No. 76-1596 is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. In No. 77-52, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is affirmed.
It is so ordered.
The Interstate Agreement on Detainers Act contains eight sections. Section 2 sets forth the Agreement as adopted by the United States and by other member jurisdictions. Provisions of the Agreement will be referred to herein by their original article numbers, as set forth in § 2 of the enactment of Congress.
The criminal contempt charges arose out of the refusal of Mauro and Fusco, despite a judicial grant of immunity, to testify before a federal grand jury investigating violations of the federal drug laws.
Mauro was serving a sentence of three years to life imprisonment at the Auburn, N. Y., Correctional Facility, and Fusco was serving a sentence of one year to life imprisonment at the Clinton Correctional Facility in Dannemora, N. Y.
Article IV (e) requires the dismissal of the indictment against a prisoner who is obtained by a receiving State if he is returned to his original place of imprisonment without first being tried on the indictment underlying the detainer and request by which custody of the prisoner was secured. See infra, at 352-353.
One of the warrants, issued in the Southern District of New York, was for bank robbery; the other, issued in the District of Massachusetts, was for unlawful flight. The latter charge was eventually dismissed.
In these letters, Ford stated that he was in the custody of state officials in Illinois, awaiting extradition to Massachusetts to stand trial for escape. He requested the court and -¿he United States Attorney to take action on the federal bank robbery charge against him, either bringing him to trial or dropping the charge. This request, said Ford, was based on his constitutional right to a speedy trial.
The superseding indictment was filed against Ford on April 3, 1974. It charged him and one James R. Flynn with the same bank robbery that had been charged in the first indictment and also with use of a firearm in the commission of a bank robbery, interstate transportation of a stolen vehicle, and conspiracy to commit the above offenses.
On May 17, 1974, the Government moved to adjourn the trial for a period of 90 days or until codefendant Flynn could be apprehended, whichever occurred first. The motion was granted, and the trial was rescheduled for August 21, 1974. The second postponement resulted from the reassignment of the ease to a different judge in August 1974; trial was then reset for November 18, 1974. On November 1, however, the Government requested an additional 90-day adjournment in order to apprehend Flynn. The District Court granted the Government’s motion, over Ford’s objections, and set a new trial date of February 18, 1975. Because the District Judge was engaged in a lengthy stock-fraud trial on February 18, the trial was again postponed; it was rescheduled for June 11, 1975. The trial was postponed for a final time, until September 2, 1975, because of the District Court’s decision to undertake a “crash” program for the disposition of pending civil cases.
In his motion Ford contended that he had been denied his rights to a speedy trial as guaranteed to him by the Federal Constitution and the Rules of the Southern District of New York.
For the text of Art. IV (c), see infra, at 352.
The opinion for the Court of Appeals was written by Judge Mansfield, who had dissented from the Second Circuit’s disposition of the Mauro and Fusco cases.
The Court of Appeals held that, while Ford had waived his claim under Art. IV (e) by requesting the return to state prison, he had not waived his Art. IV (c) claim, for he had repeatedly insisted on a prompt trial.
See infra, at 353.
In addition to the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit has held that a writ of habeas corpus ad prosequendum is a detainer within the meaning of the Agreement. United States v. Sorrell, 562 F. 2d 227 (1977) (en banc), cert. pending, No. 77-593. The other Courts of Appeals that have considered the question have concluded that an ad prosequendum writ does not by itself trigger the application of the Agreement. Ridgeway v. United States, 558 F. 2d 357 (CA6 1977), cert. pending, No. 77-5252; United States v. Kenaan, 557 F. 2d 912 (CA1 1977), cert. pending, No. 77-206; United States v. Scallion, 548 F. 2d 1168 (CA5 1977), cert. pending, No. 76-6559.
434 U. S. 816 (1977).
This committee was made up of representatives from the following organizations: Parole and Probation Compact Administrators Association, National Association of Attorneys General, National Conference of Commissioners on Uniform State Laws, American Prison
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
The petitioner was convicted by a jury and sentenced to death under the Federal Bank Robbery Act, 18 U. S. C. § 2113(e). The Solicitor General has filed a memorandum for the United States conceding that this death penalty provision “suffers from the same constitutional infirmity” as that found in the Federal Kidnaping Act, 18 U. S. C. § 1201 (a). United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570. Accordingly, the Solicitor General concedes that the petitioner’s “sentence must be vacated and the cause remanded ... for resentencing.” In light of this concession and upon an independent examination of the record, but without reaching any of the petitioner’s other claims, 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 to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Mr. Justice Black and Mr. Justice White dissent for the reasons stated in the dissenting opinion of Mr. Justice White in United States v. Jackson, 390 U. S. 570, 591.
Mr. Justice Black dissents for the further reasons stated in his dissenting opinion in Lopinson v. Pennsylvania, ante, p. 648.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
On April 14, 1988, Wyoming submitted a motion for leave to file a complaint under this Court’s original jurisdiction provided by Art. Ill, § 2, of the Constitution. The complaint challenged Okla. Stat., Tit. 45, §§939 and 939.1 (Supp. 1988) (Act), which requires Oklahoma coal-fired electric generating plants producing power for sale in Oklahoma to burn a mixture of coal containing at least 10% Oklahoma-mined coal. Wyoming sought a declaration that the Act violates the Commerce Clause, U. S. Const., Art. I, § 8, cl. 3, and an injunction permanently enjoining enforcement of the Act. On June 30, 1988, we granted Wyoming leave to file its bill of complaint over Oklahoma’s objections that Wyoming lacked standing to bring this action and, in any event, should not be permitted to invoke this Court’s original jurisdiction. 487 U. S. 1231. Oklahoma next filed a motion to dismiss on August 29, 1988, raising these same arguments. We denied the motion to dismiss on October 31, 1988, and ordered Oklahoma to answer Wyoming’s complaint within 30 days. 488 U. S. 921. We thereafter appointed the Special Master, 489 U. S. 1063 (1989), who ordered the parties to complete discovery and to file a stipulation of uncontested facts, any affidavits believed to be necessary, and a short statement of any disputed issues of material fact that may require a hearing. The parties complied, and each moved for summary judgment. Wyoming argued that the Act is a per se violation of the Commerce Clause. Oklahoma reasserted its arguments on standing and the appropriateness of this Court’s exercise of original jurisdiction, submitting as well that the Act was constitutional.
The Report of the Special Master was received and ordered filed on October 1,1990. 498 U. S. 803. Based on the record before him, the Special Master recommended findings of fact, to which the parties do not object, and conclusions of law generally supporting Wyoming’s motion for summary judgment and rejecting Oklahoma’s motion for summary judgment. More specifically, the Report recommends that we hold, first, that Wyoming has standing to sue and that this case is appropriate to our original jurisdiction; and second, that the Act discriminates against interstate commerce on its face and in practical effect, that this discrimination is not justified by any purpose advanced by Oklahoma, and that the Act therefore violates the Commerce Clause. The Report also recommends that the Court either dismiss the action as it relates to an Oklahoma-owned utility without prejudice to Wyoming to assert its claim in an appropriate forum, or, alternatively, find the Act severable to the extent it may constitutionally be applied to that utility.
Subsequently, the parties requested the Court to enter a stipulated decree adopting the Special Master's Report and containing conclusions of law. If the decree was to rule on the constitutionality of the Act, however, we preferred to have that issue briefed and argued, and the case was set down for oral argument. 501 U. S. 1215 (1991). We now adopt the Special Master's recommended findings of fact, and, with one exception, his recommended conclusions of law.
I
The salient facts, gathered from those recommended by the Special Master and from other materials in the record, are as follows. -
Wyoming is a major coal-producing State and in 1988 shipped coal to 19 other States. While the State of ming does not itself sell coal, it does impose a severance tax upon the privilege of severing or extracting coal from land within its boundaries. Wyo. Stat. to (1990 and Supp. 1991). The tax is assessed against the son or company extracting the coal and is payable when the coal is extracted. The valuation of the coal for severance tax purposes is based on its fair market value. Wyoming has collected severance taxes on coal extracted by eight mining companies that sell coal to four Oklahoma electric utilities.
The 40th Oklahoma Legislature, at its session in June 1985, adopted a concurrent resolution “requesting Oklahoma utility companies using coal-fired generating plants to consider plans to blend ten percent Oklahoma coal with their present use of Wyoming coal; effecting a result of keeping a portion of ratepayer dollars in Oklahoma and promoting economic development.” Okla. S. Res. 21, 40th Leg., 1985 Okla. Sess. Laws 1694 (hereinafter Res. 21). The recitals and resolutions in relevant part stated:
“WHEREAS, the use of Oklahoma coal would save significant freight charges on out-of-state coal from the State of Wyoming; and
“WHEREAS, the savings on such freight charges could offset any possible costs associated with plant adjustments; and
“WHEREAS, the coal-fired electric plants being used by Oklahoma utilities are exclusively using Wyoming coal; and
“WHEREAS, the Oklahoma ratepayers are paying $300 million annually for Wyoming coal; and
“WHEREAS, a 1982 Ozark Council Report states that $9 million of the ratepayers dollars was paid as severance tax to the State of Wyoming....
“NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED
“THAT Oklahoma utilities using coal-fired generating plants seriously consider using a blend of at least ten percent Oklahoma coal with Wyoming coal and continue to meet air quality standards.
“THAT the result of such a blend would assure at least a portion of the ratepayer dollars remaining in Oklahoma and enhancing the economy of the State of Oklahoma.”
The four Oklahoma electric utilities subject to the requirements of the Act are Oklahoma Gas and Electric Company, Public Service Company of Oklahoma, and Western Farmers Electric Cooperative, all privately owned, and the Grand River Dam Authority (GRDA), an agency of the State of Oklahoma. None of these four heeded this precatory resolution. At its second session, the 40th Legislature adopted the Act challenged in this case, thus mandating the 10% minimum purchases that the previous resolution had requested. Fifteen months after the effective date of the Act, facing substantially less than full compliance by any of the utilities, the next Oklahoma Legislature adopted a concurrent resolution directing the GRDA, Oklahoma’s state-owned public utility, to comply with the Act. Okla. S. Res. 82, 41st Leg., 1988 Okla. Sess. Laws 1915.
Charts set out in the Special Master’s Report show the percentages of each utility’s purchases of Oklahoma-mined coal and Wyoming-mined coal on an annual basis from 1981 through the first four months of 1989. See Report of Special Master 7-8. Those charts reveal that during the years 1981 through 1984, the four Oklahoma utilities purchased virtually 100% of their coal requirements from Wyoming sources. These purchases decreased slightly, if at all, in 1985 and 1986 following the adoption of the original concurrent resolution. After January 1, 1987, the effective date of the Act, these utilities reduced their purchases of Wyoming coal in favor of coal mined in Oklahoma.
Unrebutted evidence demonstrates that, since the effective date of the Act, Wyoming has lost severance taxes in the amounts of $535,886 in 1987, $542,352 in 1988, and $87,130 in the first four months of 1989. These estimates are based on an equivalence of British Thermal Unit (BTU) ratings, thus accounting for the hotter burning propensities of Oklahoma coal. Other unrebutted submissions confirm that Wyoming has a significant excess mining capacity, such that the loss of any market cannot be made up by sales elsewhere, where Wyoming’s supply has already risen to meet demand.
hH h-H
In its motion for summary judgment before the Special Master, Oklahoma again challenged Wyoming’s standing, and now excepts to the Special Master’s recommendation that we reject Oklahoma’s submission in this respect. Having granted Wyoming leave to file its complaint over Oklahoma’s objection to standing, and having denied Oklahoma’s motion to dismiss for want of standing, and the parties having submitted the case on cross-motions for summary judgment, we are not at all inclined to dismiss the action at this juncture. Although we have been reluctant to import wholesale law-of-the-case principles into original actions, Arizona v. California, 460 U. S. 605, 618-619 (1983), prior rulings in such cases “should be subject to the general principles of finality and repose, absent changed circumstances or unforeseen issues not previously litigated.” Id., at 619. Here, Oklahoma in no way suggests any change of circumstance, whether of fact or law. In each brief submitted on the issue, Oklahoma has recited the same facts, cited the same cases, and constructed the same arguments. Of course, we surely have the power to accede to Oklahoma’s request at this late date, and if convinced, which we are not, that we were clearly wrong in accepting jurisdiction of this case, we would not hesitate to depart from our prior rulings.
Article III, § 2, cl. 2, of the United States Constitution provides this Court with original jurisdiction in all cases “in which a State shall be a Party.” Congress has seen fit to designate that this Court “shall have original and exclusive jurisdiction of all controversies between two or more States.” 28' U. S. C. § 1251(a). “In order to constitute a proper ‘controversy’ under our original jurisdiction, ‘it must appear that the complaining State has suffered a wrong through the action of the other State, furnishing ground for judicial redress, or is asserting a right against the other State which is susceptible of judicial enforcement according to the accepted principles of the common law or equity systems of jurisprudence.’ ” Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725, 735-736 (1981) (quoting Massachusetts v. Missouri, 308 U. S. 1, 15 (1939)); see also New York v. Illinois, 274 U. S. 488, 490 (1927).
We are quite sure that Wyoming’s submission satisfies this test. We agree with the Master’s conclusion, arrived at after consideration of all the facts submitted to him, that Wyoming clearly had standing to bring this action. The Master observed:
“The effect of the Oklahoma statute has been to deprive Wyoming of severance tax revenues. It is undisputed that since January 1, 1987, the effective date of the Act, purchases by Oklahoma electric utilities of Wyoming-mined coal, as a percentage of their total coal purchases, have declined.... The decline came when, in response to the adoption of the Act, those utilities began purchasing Oklahoma-mined coal. The coal that, in the absence of the Act, would have been sold to Oklahoma utilities by a Wyoming producer would have been subject to the tax when extracted. Wyoming’s loss of severance tax revenues ‘fairly can be traced’ to the Act. See Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725, 736 (1981) (quoting Simon v. Eastern Kentucky Welfare Rights Organization, 426 U. S. 26, 41-42 (1976)).” Report of Special Master 11.
The Master recognized that Courts of Appeals have denied standing to States where the claim was that actions taken by United States Government agencies had injured a State’s economy and thereby caused a decline in general tax revenues. See, e. g., Pennsylvania v. Kleppe, 174 U. S. App. D. C. 441, 533 F. 2d 668, cert. denied, 429 U. S. 977 (1976); State of Iowa ex rel. Miller v. Block, 771 F. 2d 347 (CA8 1985), cert. denied, 478 U. S. 1012 (1986). He concluded, however, that none of these cases was analogous to this one because none of them involved a direct injury in the form of a loss of specific tax revenues — an undisputed fact here. See n. 6, supra. In our view, the Master’s conclusion about Wyoming’s standing is sound.
Oklahoma argues that Wyoming is not itself engaged in the commerce affected, is not affected as a consumer, and thus has not suffered the type of direct injury cognizable in a Commerce Clause action. The authorities relied on by Oklahoma for this argument, Oklahoma v. Atchison, T. & S. F. R. Co., 220 U. S. 277, 287-289 (1911), and Louisiana v. Texas, 176 U. S. 1, 16-22 (1900), are not helpful, however, for they involved claims of parens patriae standing rather than allegations of direct injury to the State itself. Moreover, we have rejected a similar argument in Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U. S. 333 (1977). In Hunt, the Washington State Apple Advertising Commission brought suit to declare as violative of the Commerce Clause a North Carolina statute requiring that all apples sold or shipped into North Carolina in closed containers be identified by no grade other than the applicable federal grade or a designation that the apples were not graded. The commission was a statutory agency designed for the promotion and protection of the Washington State apple industry and composed of 13 state growers and dealers chosen from electoral districts by their fellow growers and dealers, all of whom by mandatory assessments financed the commission’s operations. The North Carolina officials named in the suit vigorously contested the commission’s standing, either in its own right or on behalf of the apple industry it represented, arguing that it lacked a “personal stake” in the litigation because, as a state agency, it was “not itself engaged in the production and sale of Washington apples or their shipment into North Carolina.” Id., at 341. After addressing the commission’s analogues to associational standing, we turned to the commission’s allegations of direct injury:
“Finally, we note that the interests of the Commission itself may be adversely affected by the outcome of this litigation. The annual assessments paid to the Commission are tied to the volume of apples grown and packaged as Washington Apples.’ In the event the North Carolina statute results in a contraction of the market for Washington apples or prevents any market expansion that might otherwise occur, it could reduce the amount of the assessments due the Commission and used to support its activities. This financial nexus between the interests of the Commission and its constituents coalesces with the other factors noted above to ‘assure that concrete adverseness which sharpens the presentation of issues upon which the court so largely depends for illumination of difficult constitutional questions.’ Baker v. Carr, [369 U. S. 186, 204 (1962)]; see also NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 367 U. S. 449, 469-460 (1958).” Id., at 345.
That the commission was allowed to proceed in Hunt necessarily supports Wyoming’s standing against Oklahoma, where its severance tax revenues are directly linked to the extraction and sale of coal and have been demonstrably affected by the Act.
Over Oklahoma’s objection, which is repeated here, the Special Master also concluded that this case was an appropriate one for the exercise of our original jurisdiction. We agree, and we obviously shared this thought when granting Wyoming leave to file its complaint in the first instance. We have generally observed that the Court’s original jurisdiction should be exercised “sparingly,” Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S., at 739; United States v. Nevada, 412 U. S. 534, 538 (1973), and this Court applies discretion when accepting original cases, even as to actions between States where our jurisdiction is exclusive. As stated not long ago:
“In recent years, we have consistently interpreted 28 U. S. C. § 1251(a) as providing us with substantial discretion to make case-by-case judgments as to the practical necessity of an original forum in this Court for particular disputes within our constitutional original jurisdiction. See Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S. 725, 743 (1981); Ohio v. Wyandotte Chemicals Corp., 401 U. S. 493,499 (1971). We exercise that discretion with an eye to promoting the most effective functioning of this Court within the overall federal system.” Texas v. New Mexico, 462 U. S. 554, 570 (1983).
Specifically, we have imposed prudential and equitable limitations upon the exercise of our original jurisdiction, and of these limitations we have said:
“‘We construe 28 U. S. C. § 1251(a)(1), as we do Art. Ill, § 2, cl. 2, to honor our original jurisdiction but to make it obligatory only in appropriate cases. And the question of what is appropriate concerns, of course, the seriousness and dignity of the claim; yet beyond that it necessarily involves the availability of another forum where there is jurisdiction over the named parties, where the issues tendered may be litigated, and where appropriate relief may be had.’ ” Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, 406 U. S. 91, 93 (1972), quoted in California v. Texas, 457 U. S. 164, 168 (1982).
It is beyond peradventure that Wyoming has raised a claim of sufficient “seriousness and dignity.” Oklahoma, acting in its sovereign capacity, passed the Act, which directly affects Wyoming’s ability to collect severance tax revenues, an action undertaken in its sovereign capacity. As such, Wyoming’s challenge under the Commerce Clause precisely “implicates serious and important concerns of federalism fully in accord with the purposes and reach of our original jurisdiction.” Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S., at 744. Indeed, we found it not to be a “waste” of this Court’s time in Maryland v. Louisiana to consider the validity of one State’s “first-use tax” which served, in effect, as a severance tax on gas extracted from areas belonging to the people at large, to the detriment of other States on to whose consumers the tax passed. Ibid. Wyoming’s claim here is no less substantial, and touches on its direct injury rather than on any interest as parens patriae.
Oklahoma makes much of the fact that the mining companies affected in Wyoming could bring suit raising the Commerce Clause challenge, as private parties aggrieved by state action often do. But cf. Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, supra. For reasons unknown, however, they have chosen neither to intervene in this action nor to file their own, whether in state or federal court. As such, no pending action exists to which we could defer adjudication on this issue. See, e. g., Illinois v. City of Milwaukee, supra, at 98, 108; Washington v. General Motors Corp., 406 U. S. 109, 114 (1972). Even if such action were proceeding, however, Wyoming’s interests would not be directly represented. See Maryland v. Louisiana, supra, at 743; cf. Arizona v. New Mexico, 425 U. S. 794 (1976). Indeed, Wyoming brings suit as a sovereign seeking declaration from this Court that Oklahoma’s Act is unconstitutional. The Constitution provides us original jurisdiction, and Congress has made this provision exclusive as between these parties, two States. It was proper to entertain this case without assurances, notably absent here, that a State’s interests under the Constitution will find a forum for appropriate hearing and full relief.
Oklahoma points to the general requirement, reflected in the controlling principles explained above, that “[b]efore this court can be moved to exercise its extraordinary power under the Constitution to control the conduct of one State at the suit of another, the threatened invasion of rights must be of serious magnitude and it must be established by clear and convincing evidence.” New York v. New Jersey, 256 U. S. 296, 309 (1921); see also Connecticut v. Massachusetts, 282 U. S. 660, 669 (1931); Missouri v. Illinois, 200 U. S. 496, 521 (1906). On this basis Oklahoma suggests that Wyoming’s interest is de minimis solely for the reason that loss in severance tax revenues attributable to the Act has generally been less than 1% of total taxes collected. See Affidavit of Richard J. Marble (Exh. B to Appendix to Motion of Wyoming for Summary Judgment). We decline any invitation to key the exercise of this Court’s original jurisdiction on the amount in controversy. Oklahoma’s argument is, in fact, no different than the situation we faced in Pennsylvania v. West Virginia, 262 U. S. 553 (1923). When Pennsylvania challenged a West Virginia statute designed to keep natural gas within its borders, there was no question but that the issue presented rose to a level suitable to our original jurisdiction:
“The question is an important one; for what one State may do others may, and there are ten States from which natural gas is exported for consumption in other States. Besides, what may be done with one natural product may be done with others, and there are several States in which the earth yields products of great value which are carried into other States and there used.” Id., at 596.
And so it is here. Wyoming coal is a natural resource of great value primarily carried into other States for use, and Wyoming derives significant revenue from this interstate movement. “[T]he practical effect of [Oklahoma’s] statute must be evaluated not only by considering the consequences of the statute itself, but also by considering how the challenged statute may interact with the legitimate regulatory regimes of the other States and what effect would arise if not one, but many or every, State adopted similar legislation.” Healy v. Beer Institute, 491 U. S. 324, 336 (1989).
Because of the nature of Wyoming’s claim, and the absence of any other pending litigation involving the same parties or issues, we find the present case appropriate for the exercise of this Court’s original jurisdiction. Accordingly, we accept the recommendation of the Special Master that Wyoming should be permitted to bring this action, and we reject Oklahoma’s exceptions to the Special Master’s Report.
III
We also agree with the Special Master’s ultimate conclusion that the Act is invalid under the Commerce Clause.
The Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution provides that “[t]he Congress shall have Power... [t]o regulate Commerce... among the several States... Art. I, § 8, cl. 3. It is long established that, while a literal reading evinces a grant of power to Congress, the Commerce Clause also directly limits the power of the States to discriminate against interstate commerce. See New Energy Co. of Indiana v. Limbach, 486 U. S. 269, 273 (1988) (citing Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U. S. 322, 326 (1979); H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, 336 U. S. 525, 534-535 (1949); Welton v. Missouri, 91 U. S. 275 (1876)). “This ‘negative’ aspect of the Commerce Clause prohibits economic protectionism — that is, regulatory measures designed to benefit in-state economic interests by burdening out-of-state competitors.” New Energy Co., supra, at 273-274; see also Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, 468 U. S. 263, 270-273 (1984); H. P. Hood & Sons, supra, at 532-533. When a state statute clearly discriminates against interstate commerce, it will be struck down, see, e. g., New Energy Co., supra, unless the discrimination is demonstrably justified by a valid factor unrelated to economic protectionism, see, e. g., Maine v. Taylor, 477 U. S. 131 (1986). Indeed, when the state statute amounts to simple economic protectionism, a “virtually per se rule of invalidity” has applied. Philadelphia v. New Jersey, 437 U. S. 617, 624 (1978).
The Special Master correctly found that the Act, on its face and in practical effect, discriminates against interstate commerce. See Bacchus Imports, Ltd. v. Dias, supra, at 270. Section 939 of the Act expressly reserves a segment of the Oklahoma coal market for Oklahoma-mined coal, to the exclusion of coal mined in other States. Such a preference for coal from domestic sources cannot be characterized as anything other than protectionist and discriminatory, for the Act purports to exclude coal mined in other States based solely on its origin. See New Energy Co., supra, at 274; Philadelphia v. New Jersey, supra, at 626-627. The stipulated facts confirm that from 1981 to 1986 Wyoming provided virtually 100% of the coal purchased by Oklahoma utilities. In 1987 and 1988, following the effective date of the Act, the utilities purchased Oklahoma coal in amounts ranging from 3.4% to 7.4% of their annual needs, with a necessarily corresponding reduction in purchases of Wyoming coal.
As in its jurisdictional arguments, Oklahoma attempts to discount this evidence by emphasizing that the Act sets aside only a “small portion” of the Oklahoma coal market, without placing an “overall burden” on out-of-state coal producers doing business in Oklahoma. The volume of commerce affected measures only the extent of the discrimination; it is of no relevance to the determination whether a State has discriminated against interstate commerce. Bacchus Im ports, Ltd. v. Dias, supra, at 268-269; Maryland v. Louisiana, 451 U. S., at 760; Lewis v. BT Investment Managers, Inc., 447 U. S. 27, 39-42 (1980). As we have only recently reaffirmed:
“Our cases... indicate that where discrimination is patent, as it is here, neither a widespread advantage to in-state interests nor a widespread disadvantage to out-of-state competitors need be shown.... Varying the strength of the bar against economic protectionism according to the size and number of in-state and out-of-state firms affected would serve no purpose except the creation of new uncertainties in an already complex field.” New Energy Co., supra, at 276-277.
Because the Act discriminates both on its face and in practical effect, the burden falls on Oklahoma “ ‘to justify it both in terms of the local benefits flowing from the statute and the unavailability of nondiscriminatory alternatives adequate to preserve the local interests at stake/” Hughes v. Oklahoma, supra, at 336 (quoting Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm’n, 432 U. S., at 353). “At a minimum such facial discrimination invokes the strictest scrutiny of any purported legitimate local purpose and of the absence of nondiscriminatory alternatives.” Hughes v. Oklahoma, supra, at 337. We agree with the Special Master’s recommended conclusions that Oklahoma has not met its burden in this respect. In this Court, Oklahoma argues quite briefly that the Act’s discrimination against out-of-state coal is justified because sustaining the Oklahoma coal-mining industry lessens the State’s reliance on a single source of coal delivered over a single rail line. This justification, as the Special Master noted, is foreclosed by the Court’s reasoning in Baldwin v. G. A. F. Seelig, Inc., 294 U. S. 511 (1935), and H. P. Hood & Sons, Inc. v. Du Mond, supra, cases that the State’s brief ignores. We have often examined a “presumably legitimate goal,” only to find that the State attempted to achieve it by “the illegitimate means of isolating the State from the national economy.” Philadelphia v. New Jersey, supra, at 627.
The State embellishes this argument somewhat when suggesting that, by requiring the utilities to supply 10% of their needs for fuel from Oklahoma coal, which because of its higher sulfur content cannot be the primary source of supply, the State thereby conserves Wyoming’s cleaner coal for future use. We have no reason to doubt Wyoming’s unre-butted factual response to this argument: Reserves of low sulfur, clean-burning, sub-bituminous coal from the Powder River Basin are estimated to be in excess of 110 billion tons, thus providing Wyoming coal for several hundred years at current rates of extraction. Reply Brief for Wyoming 9, n. 4 (citing Geological Survey of Wyoming, Guidebook of the Coal Geology of the Powder River Basin, Public Information Circular No. 14, p. 126 (1980)). In any event, this contention, which is raised for the first time in Oklahoma’s brief on the merits, finds no support in the records made in this case. See Hughes v. Oklahoma, 441 U. S., at 337-338, and n. 20; cf. Maine v. Taylor, 477 U. S., at 148-149.
Oklahoma argues more seriously that the “saving clause” of the Federal Power Act, 16 U. S. C. § 824(b)(1), which reserves to the States the regulation of local retail electric rates, makes permissible the Act’s discriminatory impact on the movement of Wyoming coal in interstate commerce. Oklahoma argues that it “has determined that effective and helpful ways of ensuring lower local utility rates include 1) reducing over-dependence on a single source of supply, a single fuel transporter, and 2) conserving needed low-sulfur coal for the future.” Brief for Oklahoma 65. Even if the Act is accepted as part of the State's rate-regulating authority, we cannot accept the submission that it is exempt from scrutiny under the Commerce Clause. Congress must manifest its unambiguous intent before a federal statute will be read to permit or to approve such a violation of the Commerce Clause as Oklahoma here seeks to justify. Maine v. Taylor, supra, at 139; South-Central Timber Development, Inc. v. Wunnicke, 467 U. S. 82, 91 (1984). We have already examined § 824(b)(1) in New England Power Co. v. New Hampshire, 455 U. S. 331 (1982), and found nothing in the statute or legislative history “evinc[ing] a congressional intent ‘to alter the limits of state power otherwise imposed by the Commerce Clause.’” Id., at 341 (quoting United States v. Public Utilities Comm’n of Cal., 345 U. S. 295, 304 (1953)). There is no hint in that opinion, as suggested by Oklahoma, that a partial — instead of total — ban would have been permissible, or that in-state purchasing quotas imposed on utilities in an effort to regulate utility rates are within the “lawful authority” of the States under § 824(b)(1). Instead, our decision turned on the recognition that “Congress did no more than leave standing whatever valid state laws then existed relating to the exportation of hydroelectric energy; by its plain terms, [§ 824(b)] simply saves from pre-emption under Part II of the Federal Power Act such state authority as was otherwise ‘lawful.’” New England Power Co., supra, at 341. Our decisions have uniformly subjected Commerce Clause cases implicating the Federal Power Act to scrutiny on the merits. See, e. g., New England Power Co., supra; Arkansas Electric Cooperative Corp. v. Arkansas Pub. Serv. Comm’n, 461 U. S. 375, 393 (1983).
We need say no more to conclude that Oklahoma has not met its burden of demonstrating a clear and unambiguous intent on behalf of Congress to permit the discrimination against interstate commerce occurring here. In light of the foregoing, we adopt the Special Master’s conclusion that the Act manifests fatal defects under the Commerce Clause.
IV
Finally, we address a question of severability raised in the exceptions filed by Wyoming to the Special Master’s Report.
The GRDA is an agency of the State of Oklahoma, and, as such, Oklahoma acts as a market participant in directing its purchases of coal. We have recognized that the Commerce Clause does not restrict the State’s action as a free market participant. Reeves, Inc. v. Stake, 447 U. S. 429, 436-437 (1980); Hughes v. Alexandria Scrap Corp., 426 U. S. 794, 806-810 (1976). The Special Master recommends that the market-participant exception is available to Oklahoma, but only if the application of the Act to the GRDA may be considered separately, or severed, from its application to the three private utilities. As the determination of severability will in this situation be one of state law, Hooper v. Bernalillo County Assessor, 472 U. S. 612, 624 (1985), the Special Master recommends that we enter judgment with respect to the three private utilities but dismiss Wyoming’s complaint as it relates to the GRDA without prejudice to the right of Wyoming to reassert the claim in an “appropriate forum.” Report of Special Master 32. We sustain Wyoming’s exception to these recommendations of the Special Master. This action is one between two States presented under our original jurisdiction; this Court is the appropriate forum to decide issues necessary to afford the complaining State complete relief. Cf. Dorchy v. Kansas, 264 U. S. 286, 291 (1924). We deem it proper and advisable to address the issue of sever-ability ourselves.
In the alternative, the Special Master looked to Oklahoma law and found the Act severable as to the GRDA, a conclusion with which we disagree. It is true that Oklahoma courts have held that valid portions of a.statute are sever-able “‘unless it is evident that the Legislature would not have enacted the valid provisions with the invalid provisions removed, if with the invalid provisions removed the rest of the act is fully operative as a law.’” Englebrecht v. Day, 201 Okla. 585, 591, 208 P. 2d 538, 544 (1949) (quoting Sterling Refining Co. v. Walker, 165 Okla. 45, 25 P. 2d 312 (1933)). It is also true that under Oklahoma law, a severability clause in a statute creates a presumption that the legislature would have adopted the statute with the unconstitutional portions omitted. 201 Okla., at 591, 208 P. 2d, at 544; see Champlin Refining Co. v. Corporation Comm’n of Oklahoma, 286 U. S. 210, 234-235 (1932) (inquiring into severability under Oklahoma law). The Act in this case contains a severability provision:
“The provisions of this act are severable and if any part or provision shall be held void, the decision of the court so holding shall not affect or impair any of the remaining parts or provisions of this act.” Act of Mar. 26, 1986, Ch. 43, §3, 1986 Okla. Sess. Laws 74.
But there are no parts or separate provisions in the invalid § 939 of the Act. It applies to “ [a]ll entities providing electric power for sale to the consumer in Oklahoma” and commands them to purchase 10% Oklahoma-mined coal. Okla. Stat., Tit. 45, §939 (Supp. 1988). Nothing remains to be saved once that provision is stricken. Accordingly, the Act must stand or fall as a whole.
We decline Oklahoma’s suggestion that the term “all entities” be read to uphold the Act only as to the GRDA, for it is clearly not this Court’s province to rewrite a state statute. If “all entities” is to mean “the GRDA” or “state-owned utilities,” the Oklahoma Legislature must be the one to decide. Indeed, this argument perceives the nature of the severability clause to be much different than that written by the Oklahoma Legislature. Severability clauses may easily be written to provide that if application of a statute to some classes is found unconstitutional, severance of those classes permits application to the acceptable classes. Moreover, the statute could itself have been written to address explicitly the GRDA. The legislature here chose neither course.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the proper relationship between federal courts and the grievance-arbitration machinery of collective-bargaining agreements in the resolution and enforcement of an individual’s rights to equal employment opportunities under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 253, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq. Specifically, we must decide under what circumstances, if any, an employee’s statutory right to a trial de novo under Title VII may be foreclosed by prior submission of his claim to final arbitration under the nondiscrimination clause of a collective-bargaining agreement.
I
In May 1966, petitioner Harrell Alexander, Sr., a black, was hired by respondent Gardner-Denver Co. (the company) to perform maintenance work at the company’s plant in Denver, Colorado. In June 1968, petitioner was awarded a trainee position as a drill operator. He remained at that job until his discharge from employment on September 29, 1969. The company informed petitioner that he was being discharged for producing too many defective or unusable parts that had to be scrapped.
On October 1, 1969, petitioner filed a grievance under the collective-bargaining agreement in force between the company and petitioner’s union, Local No. 3029 of the United Steelworkers of America (the union). The grievance stated: “I feel I have been unjustly discharged and ask that I be reinstated with full seniority and pay.” No explicit claim of racial discrimination was made.
Under Art. 4 of the collective-bargaining agreement, the company retained “the right to hire, suspend or discharge [employees] for proper cause.” Article 5, § 2, provided, however, that “there shall be no discrimination against any employee on account of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or ancestry,” and Art. 23, § 6 (a), stated that “[n]o employee will be discharged, suspended or given a written warning notice except for just cause.” The agreement also contained a broad arbitration clause covering “differences aris[ing] between the Company and the Union as to the meaning and application of the provisions of this Agreement” and “any trouble aris[ing] in the plant.” Disputes were to be submitted to a multi-step grievance procedure, the first four steps of which involved negotiations between the company and the union. If the dispute remained unresolved, it was to be remitted to compulsory arbitration. The company and the union were to select and pay the arbitrator, and his decision was to be “final and binding upon the Company, the Union, and any employee or employees involved.” The agreement further provided that “[t]he arbitrator shall not amend, take away, add to, or change any of the provisions of this Agreement, and the arbitrator’s decision must be based solely upon an interpretation of the provisions of this Agreement.” The parties also agreed that there “shall be no suspension of work” over disputes covered by the grievance-arbitration clause.
The union processed petitioner’s grievance through the above machinery. In the final pre-arbitration step, petitioner raised, apparently for the first time, the claim that his discharge resulted from racial discrimination. The company rejected all of petitioner’s claims, and the grievance proceeded to arbitration. Prior to the arbitra-tionhearing, however, petitioner filed a charge of racial discrimination with the Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which referred the complaint to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission on November 5, 1969.
At the arbitration hearing on November 20, 1969, petitioner testified that his discharge was the result of racial discrimination and informed the arbitrator that he had filed a charge with the Colorado Commission because he “could not rely on the union.” The union introduced a letter in which petitioner stated that he was “knowledgeable that in the same plant others have scrapped an equal amount and sometimes in excess, but by all logical reasoning I... have been the target of preferential discriminatory treatment.” The union representative also testified that the company’s usual practice was to transfer unsatisfactory trainee drill operators back to their former positions.
On December 30, 1969, the arbitrator ruled that petitioner had been “discharged for just cause.” He made no reference to petitioner’s claim of racial discrimination. The arbitrator stated that the union had failed to produce evidence of a practice of transferring rather than discharging trainee drill operators who accumulated excessive scrap, but he suggested that the company and the union confer on whether such an arrangement was feasible in the present case.
On July 25, 1970, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission determined that there was not reasonable cause to believe that a violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seg., had occurred. The Commission later notified petitioner of his right to institute a civil action in federal court within 30 days. Petitioner then filed the present action in the United States District Court for the District of Colorado, alleging that his discharge resulted from a racially discriminatory employment practice in violation of § 703 (a) (1) of the Act, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-2 (a) (1).
The District Court granted respondent’s motion for summary judgment and dismissed the action. 346 F. Supp. 1012 (1971). The court found that the claim of racial discrimination had been submitted to the arbitrator and resolved adversely to petitioner. It then held that petitioner, having voluntarily elected to pursue his grievance to final arbitration under the nondiscrimination clause of the collective-bargaining agreement, was bound by the arbitral decision and thereby precluded from suing his employer under Title VII. The Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit affirmed per curiam on the basis of the District Court’s opinion. 466 F. 2d 1209 (1972).
We granted petitioner’s application for certiorari. 410 U. S. 925 (1973). We reverse.
II
Congress enacted Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000e et seq., to assure equality of employment opportunities by eliminating those practices and devices that discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792, 800 (1973); Griggs v. Duke Power Co., 401 U. S. 424, 429-430 (1971). Cooperation and voluntary compliance were selected as the preferred means for achieving this goal. To this end, Congress created the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and established a procedure whereby existing state and local equal employment opportunity agencies, as well as the Commission, would have an opportunity to settle disputes through conference, conciliation, and persuasion before the aggrieved party was permitted to file a lawsuit. In the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, Pub. L. 92-261, 86 Stat. 103, Congress amended Title VII to: provide the Commission with further authority to investigate individual charges of discrimination, to promote voluntary compliance with the requirements of Title VII, and to institute civil actions against employers or unions named in a discrimination charge.
Even in its amended form, however, Title VII does not provide the Commission with direct powers of enforcement. The Commission cannot adjudicate claims or impose administrative sanctions. Rather, final responsibility for enforcement of Title VII is vested with federal courts. The Act authorizes courts to issue injunctive relief and to order such affirmative action as may be appropriate to remedy the effects of unlawful employment practices. 42 U. S. C. -§§ 2000e-5 (f) and (g) (1970 ed., Supp. II). Courts retain these broad remedial powers despite a Commission finding of no reasonable cause to believe that the Act has been violated. Mc Donnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, supra, at 798-799. Taken together, these provisions make plain that federal courts have been assigned plenary powers to secure compliance with Title VII.
In addition to reposing ultimate authority in federal courts, Congress gave private individuals a significant role in the enforcement process of Title VII. Individual grievants usually initiate the Commission’s investigatory and conciliatory procedures. And' although the 1972 amendment to Title VII empowers the Commission to bring its own actions, the private right of action remains an essential means of obtaining judicial enforcement of Title VII. 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (f) (1) (1970 ed., Supp. II). In such cases, the private litigant not only redresses his own injury but also vindicates the important congressional policy against discriminatory employment practices. Hutchings v. United States Industries, 428 F. 2d 303, 310 (CA5 1970); Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 416 F. 2d 711, 715 (CA7 1969); Jenkins v. United Gas Corp., 400 F. 2d 28, 33 (CA5 1968). See also Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, 390 U. S. 400, 402 (1968).
Pursuant to this statutory scheme, petitioner initiated the present action for judicial consideration of his rights under Title VII. The District Court and the Court of Appeals held, however, that petitioner was bound by the prior arbitral decision and had no right to sue under Title VII. Both courts evidently thought that this result was dictated by notions of election of remedies and waiver and by the federal policy favoring arbitration of labor disputes, as enunciated by this Court in Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U. S. 448 (1957), and the Steelworkers trilogy. See also Boys Markets v. Retail Clerks Union, 398 U. S. 235 (1970); Gateway Coal Co. v. United Mine Workers of America, 414 U. S. 368 (1974). We disagree.
Ill
Title VII does not speak expressly to the relationship between federal courts and the grievance-arbitration machinery of collective-bargaining agreements. It does, however, vest federal courts with plenary powers to enforce the statutory requirements; and it specifies with precision the jurisdictional prerequisites that an individual must satisfy before he is entitled to institute a lawsuit. In the present case, these prerequisites were met when petitioner (1) filed timely a charge of employment discrimination with the Commission, and (2) received and acted upon the Commission’s statutory notice of the right to sue. 42 U. S. C. § § 2000e-5 (b), (e), and (f). See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, supra, at 798. There is no suggestion in the statutory scheme that a prior arbitral decision either forecloses an individual’s right to sue or divests federal courts of jurisdiction.
In addition, legislative enactments in this area have long evinced a general intent to accord parallel or overlapping remedies against discrimination. In the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U. S. C. § 2000a et seq., Congress indicated that it considered the policy against discrimination to be of the “highest priority.” Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, supra, at 402. Consistent with this view, Title VII provides for consideration of employment-discrimination claims in several forums. See 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (b) (1970 ed., Supp. II) (EEOC); 42 U. S C. § 2000e-5 (c) (1970 ed., Supp. II) (state and local agencies); 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (f) (1970 ed., Supp. II) (federal courts). And, in general, submission of a claim to one forum does not preclude a later submission to another. Moreover, the legislative history of Title VII manifests a congressional intent to allow an individual to pursue independently his rights under both Title VII and other applicable state and federal statutes. The clear inference is that Title VII was designed to supplement, rather than supplant, existing laws and institutions relating to employment discrimination. In sum, Title VII's purpose and procedures strongly suggest that an individual does not forfeit his private cause of action if he first pursues his grievance to final arbitration under the nondiscrimination clause of a collective-bargaining agreement.
In reaching the opposite conclusion, the District Court relied in part on the doctrine of election of remedies. That doctrine, which refers to situations where an individual pursues remedies that are legally or factually inconsistent, has no application in the present context. In submitting his grievance to arbitration, an employee seeks to vindicate his contractual right under a collective-bargaining agreement. By contrast, in filing a lawsuit under Title VII, an employee asserts independent statutory rights accorded by Congress. The distinctly separate nature of these contractual and statutory rights is not vitiated merely because both were violated as a result of the same factual occurrence. And certainly no inconsistency results from permitting both rights to be enforced in their respectively appropriate forums. The resulting scheme is somewhat analogous to the procedure under the National Labor Relations Act, as amended, where disputed transactions may implicate both contractual and statutory rights. Where the statutory right underlying a particular claim may not be abridged by contractual agreement, the Court has recognized that consideration of the claim by the arbitrator as a contractual dispute under the collective-bargaining agreement does not preclude subsequent consideration of the claim by the National Labor Relations Board as an unfair labor practice charge or as a petition for clarification of the union’s representation certificate under the Act. Carey v. Westinghouse Corp., 375 U. S. 261 (1964). Cf. Smith v. Evening News Assn., 371 U. S. 195 (1962). There, as here, the relationship between the forums is complementary since consideration of the claim by both forums may promote the policies underlying each.. Thus, the rationale behind the election-of-remedies doctrine cannot support the decision below.
We are also unable to accept the proposition that petitioner waived his cause of action under Title VII. To begin, we think it clear that there can be no prospective waiver of an employee’s rights under Title VII. It is true, of course, that a union may waive certain statutory rights related to collective activity, such as the right to strike. Mastro Plastics Corp. v. NLRB, 350 U. S. 270 (1956); Boys Markets v. Retail Clerks Union, 398 U. S. 235 (1970). These rights are conferred on employees collectively to foster the processes of bargaining and properly may be exercised or relinquished by the union as collective-bargaining agent to obtain economic benefits for union members. Title VII, on the other hand, stands on plainly different ground; it concerns not majoritarian processes, but an individual’s right to equal employment opportunities. Title VII’s strictures are absolute and represent a congressional command that each employee be free from discriminatory practices. Of necessity, the rights conferred can form no part of the collective-bargaining process since waiver of these rights would defeat the paramount congressional purpose behind Title VII. In these circumstances, an employee’s rights under Title VII are not susceptible of prospective waiver. See Wilko v. Swan, 346 U. S. 427 (1953).
The actual submission of petitioner’s grievance to arbitration in the present case does not alter the situation. Although presumably an employee may waive his cause of action under Title VII as part of a voluntary settlement, mere resort to the arbitral forum to. enforce contractual rights constitutes no such waiver. Since an employee’s rights under Title VII may not be waived prospectively, existing contractual rights and remedies against discrimination must result from other concessions already made by the union as part of the economic bargain struck with the employer. It is settled law that no additional concession may be exacted from any employee as the price for enforcing those rights. J. I. Case Co. v. NLRB, 321 U. S. 332, 338-339 (1944).
Moreover, a contractual right to submit a claim to arbitration is not displaced simply because Congress also has provided a statutory right against discrimination. Both rights have legally independent origins and are equally available to the aggrieved employee. This point becomes apparent through consideration of the role of the arbitrator in the system of industrial self-government. As the proctor of the bargain, the arbitrator’s task is to effectuate the intent of the parties. His source of authority is the collective-bargaining agreement, and he must interpret and apply that agreement in accordance with the “industrial common law of the shop” and the various needs and desires of the parties. The arbitrator, however, has no general authority to invoke public laws that conflict with the bargain between the parties:
“[A]n arbitrator is confined to interpretation and application of the collective bargaining agreement; he does not sit to dispense his own brand of industrial justice. He may of course look for guidance from many sources, yet his award is legitimate only so long as it draws its essence from the collective bargaining agreement. When the arbitrator’s words manifest an infidelity to this obligation, courts have no choice but to refuse enforcement of the award.” United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U. S. 593, 597 (1960).
If an arbitral decision is based “solely upon the arbitrator’s view of the requirements of enacted legislation,” rather than on an interpretation of the collective-bargaining agreement,- the arbitrator has “exceeded the scope of the submission,” and the award will not be enforced. Ibid. Thus the arbitrator has authority to resolve only questions of contractual rights, and this authority remains regardless of whether certain contractual rights are similar to, or duplicative of, the substantive rights secured by Title VII.
IV
The District Court and the Court of Appeals reasoned that to permit an employee to have his claim considered in both the arbitral and judicial forums would be unfair since this woiild mean that the employer, but not the employee, was bound by the arbitral award. In the District Court’s words, it could not “accept a philosophy which gives the employee two strings to his bow when the employer has only one.” 346 F. Supp., at 1019. This argument mistakes the effect of Title VII. Under the Steelworkers trilogy, an arbitral decision is final and binding on the employer and employee, and judicial review is limited as to both. But in instituting an action under Title VII, the employee is not seeking review of the arbitrator’s decision. Rather, he is asserting a statutory right independent of the arbitration process. An employer does not have “two strings to his bow” with respect to an arbitral decision for the simple reason that Title VII does not provide employers with a cause of action against employees. An employer cannot be the victim of discriminatory employment practices. Oubichon v. North American Rockwell Corp., 482 F. 2d 569, 573 (CA9 1973).
The District Court and the Court of Appeals also thought that to permit a later resort to the judicial forum would undermine substantially the employer’s incentive to arbitrate and would “sound the death knell for arbitration clauses in labor contracts.” 346 F. Supp., at 1019. Again, we disagree. The primary incentive for an employer to enter into an arbitration agreement is the union’s reciprocal promise not to strike. As the Court stated in Boys Markets v. Retail Clerks Union, 398 U. S., at 248, “a no-strike obligation, express or implied, is the quid pro quo for an undertaking by the employer to submit grievance disputes to the process of arbitration.” It is not unreasonable to assume that most employers will regard the benefits derived from a no-strike pledge as outweighing whatever costs may result from according employees an arbitral remedy • against discrimination in addition to their judicial remedy under Title VII. Indeed, the severe consequences of a strike may make an arbitration clause almost essential from both the employees’ and the employer’s perspective. Moreover, the grievance-arbitration machinery of the collective-bargaining agreement remains a relatively inexpensive and expeditious means for resolving a wide range of disputes, including claims of discriminatory employment practices. Where the collective-bargaining agreement contains a nondiscrimination clause similar to Title VII, and where arbitral procedures are fair and regular, arbitration may well produce a settlement satisfactory to both employer and employee. An employer thus has an incentive to make available the conciliatory and therapeutic processes of arbitration which may satisfy an employee’s perceived need to resort to the judicial forum, thus saving the employer the expense and aggravation associated with a lawsuit. For similar reasons, the employee also has a strong incentive to arbitrate grievances, and arbitration may often eliminate those misunderstandings or discriminatory practices that might otherwise precipitate resort to the judicial forum.
y
Respondent contends that even if a preclusion rule is not adopted, federal courts should defer to arbitral decisions on discrimination claims where: (i) the claim was before the arbitrator; (ii) the collective-bargaining agreement prohibited the form of discrimination charged in the suit under Title VII; and (iii) the arbitrator has authority to rule on the claim and to fashion a remedy. Under respondent’s proposed rule, a court would grant summary judgment and dismiss the employee’s action if the above conditions were met. The rule’s obvious consequence in the present case would be to deprive the petitioner of his statutory right to attempt to establish his claim in a federal court.
At the outset, it is apparent that a deferral rule would be subject to many of the objections applicable to a preclusion rule. The purpose and procedures of Title VII indicate that Congress intended federal courts to exercise final responsibility for enforcement of Title VII; deferral to arbitral decisions would be inconsistent with that goal. Furthermore, we have long recognized that “the choice of forums inevitably affects the scope of the substantive right to be vindicated.” U. S. Bulk Carriers v. Arguelles, 400 U. S. 351, 359-360 (1971) (Harlan, J., concurring). Respondent’s deferral rule is necessarily premised on the assumption that arbitral processes are commensurate with judicial processes and that Congress impliedly intended federal courts to defer to arbitral decisions on Title VII issues. We deem this supposition unlikely.
Arbitral procedures, while well suited to the resolution of contractual disputes, make arbitration a comparatively inappropriate forum for the final resolution of rights created by Title VII. This conclusion rests first on the special role of the arbitrator, whose task is to effectuate the intent of the parties rather than the requirements of enacted legislation. Where the collective-bargaining agreement conflicts with Title VII, the arbitrator must follow the agreement. To be sure, the tension between contractual and statutory objectives may be mitigated where a collective-bargaining agreement contains provisions facially similar to those of Title VII. But other facts may still render arbitral processes comparatively inferior to judicial processes in the protection of Title VII rights. Among these is the fact that the specialized competence of arbitrators pertains primarily to the law of the shop, not the law of the land. United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U. S. 574, 581-583 (1960). Parties usually choose an arbitrator because they trust his knowledge and judgment concerning the demands and norms of industrial relations. On the other hand, the resolution of statutory or constitutional issues is a primary responsibility of courts, and judicial construction has proved especially necessary with respect to Title VII, whose broad language frequently can be given meaning only by reference to public law concepts.
Moreover, the factfinding process in arbitration usually is not equivalent to judicial factfinding. The record of the arbitration proceedings is not as complete; the usual rules of evidence do not apply; and rights and procedures common to civil trials, such as discovery, compulsory process, cross-examination, and testimony under oath, are often severely limited or unavailable. See Bernhardt v. Polygraphic Co., 350 U. S. 198, 203 (1956); Wilko v. Swan, 346 U. S., at 435-437. And as this Court has recognized, “[arbitrators have no obligation to the court to give their reasons for an award.” United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U. S., at 598. Indeed, it is the informality of arbitral procedure that enables it to function as an efficient, inexpensive, and expeditious means for dispute resolution. This same characteristic, however, makes arbitration a less appropriate forum for final resolution of Title VII issues than the federal courts.
It is evident that respondent's proposed rule would not allay these concerns. Nor are we convinced that the solution lies in applying a more demanding deferral standard, such as that adopted by the Fifth Circuit in Rios v. Reynolds Metals Co., 467 F. 2d 54 (1972). As respondent points out, a standard that adequately insured effectuation of Title VII rights in the arbitral forum would tend to make arbitration a procedurally complex, expensive, and time-consuming process. And judicial enforcement of such a standard would almost require courts to make de novo determinations of the employees' claims. It is uncertain whether any minimal savings in judicial time and expense would justify the risk to vindication of Title VII rights.
A deferral rule also might adversely affect the arbitration system as well as the enforcement scheme of Title VII. Fearing that the arbitral forum cannot adequately protect their rights under Title VII, some employees may elect to bypass arbitration and institute a lawsuit. The possibility of voluntary compliance or settlement of Title VII claims would thus be reduced, and the result could well be more litigation, not less.
We think, therefore, that the federal policy favoring arbitration of labor disputes and the federal policy against discriminatory employment practices can best be accommodated by permitting an employee to pursue fully both his remedy under the grievance-arbitration clause of a collective-bargaining agreement and his cause of action under Title VII. The federal court should consider the employee’s claim de novo. The arbitral decision may be admitted as evidence and accorded such weight as the court deems appropriate.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is
Reversed.
Article 4 of the agreement provided:
“MANAGEMENT
“The Union recognizes that all rights to manage the Plant, to determine the products to be manufactured, the methods of manufacturing or assembling, the scheduling of production, the control of raw materials, and to direct the working forces, including the right to hire, suspend or discharge for proper cause, and the right to relieve employees from duty because of lack of work or other legitimate reasons, and the right to maintain order and efficiency are vested exclusively in the Company.
“It is understood by the parties that all rights recognized in this Article are subject to the terms of this Agreement.”
Article 5 of the agreement provided:
“MUTUAL RESPONSIBILITY
“Section 1. The parties agree that during the term of this Agreement there shall be no strike, slow-down or other interruption of production, and that for the same period there shall be no lockout, subject to the provisions of Article 26, Term of Agreement.
“Section 2. The Company and the Union agree that there shall be no discrimination against any employee on account of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, or ancestry. The Company further states and the Union approves that no such discrimination shall be practiced against any applicant for employment.”
Article 23, containing the grievance-arbitration procedures of the agreement, provided in relevant part :
“Section 5. Should differences arise between the Company and the Union as to the meaning and application of the provisions of this Agreement, or should any trouble arise in the plant, there shall be no suspension of work, but an earnest effort shall be made by both the Company and the Union to settle such differences promptly. Grievances must be presented within five (5) working days after the date of the occurrence giving rise to the grievance or they shall be considered waived. Grievances shall be taken up in the following manner; except that any grievance filed by the Local Union shall be submitted in writing at Step 3 of the grievance procedure as set forth herein:
“Step 1. An attempt shall first be made by the employee with or without his assistant grievance committeeman (at the employee’s option), and the employee’s foreman to settle the grievance. The foreman shall submit his answer within one (1) working day and if the grievance is not settled, it shall be reduced to writing, signed by the employee and his assistant grievance committeeman, and the foreman shall submit his signed answer of such grievance.
“Step 2. If the grievance is not settled in Step 1, it shall be presented to the Superintendent, or his representative, within two (2) working days after the Union has received the Foreman’s answer in Step 1. The Superintendent or his representative shall submit his signed answer two (2) working days after receiving the grievance.
“Step S. If the grievance is not settled in Step 2, it shall be presented to the manager of Manufacturing or his representative within five (5) working days after the Union has received the Superintendent’s answer in Step 2. The Manager of Manufacturing or his representative shall meet with the representatives of the Union to attempt to resolve the grievance within five (5) working days following the presentation of the grievance. The Manager of Manufacturing or his representative shall submit his signed answer within three (3) working days after the date of such meeting.
“Step 4- If the grievance is not settled in Step 3, it shall be referred to the Personnel Manager, and/or his representatives, and the International representative and chairman of the grievance committee within five (5) working days after the Union has received the Step 3 answer. Within ten (10) working days after the grievance has been referred to Step 4, the above mentioned parties shall meet for the purpose of discussing such grievance. Within five (5) working days following the meeting, the Company representatives shall submit their signed answer to the Union. The Union representatives shall signify their concurrence or non-concurrence and affix their signatures to the grievance.
“Step 5. Grievances which have not been settled under the foregoing procedure may be referred to arbitration by notice in writing within ten (10) calendar days after the date of the Company’s final answer in Step 4. Within five (5) days after receipt of referral to arbitration the parties shall select an impartial arbitrator.
“Should the parties be unable to agree upon an arbitrator, the selection shall be made by the Senior Judge of the U. S. Circuit Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit. The decision of the arbitrator shall be final and binding upon the Company, the Union, and any employee or employees involved. The expenses and fee of the arbitrator shall be divided equally between the Company and the Union. The arbitrator shall not amend, take away, add to, or change any of the provisions of this Agreement, and the arbitrator’s decision must be based solely upon an interpretation of the of this Agreement.
“Section 6. (a) No employee will be discharged, suspended or given a written warning notice except for just cause.
“(g) Should it be determined that the employee has been unjustly suspended or discharged the Company shall reinstate the employee and pay full compensation at the employee’s basic hourly rate or earned rate, whichever is the higher, for the time lost.”
In reaching this conclusion, the District Court relied on petitioner's deposition acknowledging that he had raised the racial discrimination claim during the arbitration hearing. 346 F. Supp., at 1014.
The District Court recognized that a conflict of authorities existed on this issue but chose to rely on Dewey v. Reynolds Metals Co., 429 F. 2d 324, 332 (CA6 1970), affirmed by an equally divided Court, 402 U. S. 689 (1971). There, the Sixth Circuit held that prior submission of an employee’s claim to arbitration under a collective-bargaining agreement precluded a later suit under Title VII. The Sixth Circuit appears to have since retreated in part from Dewey by suggesting that there is no preclusion where both arbitration and “court or agency processes” are pursued simultaneously. See Spann v. Kaywood Division, Joanna Western Mills Co., 446 F. 2d 120, 122 (1971). The Fifth, Seventh, and Ninth Circuits have squarely rejected a preclusion rule. See Hutchings v. United States Industries, 428 F. 2d 303 (CA5 1970); Bowe v. Colgate-Palmolive Co., 416 F. 2d 711 (CA7 1969); Oubichon v. North American Rockwell Corp., 482 F. 2d 569 (CA9 1973).
United Steelworkers of America v. American Mfg. Co., 363 U. S. 564 (1960); United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., 363 U. S. 574 (1960); United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., 363 U. S. 593 (1960). In Textile Workers Union v. Lincoln Mills, 353 U. S. 448 (1957), this Court held that a grievance-arbitration provision of a collective-bargaining agreement could be enforced against unions and employers under § 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, 1947, 61 Stat. 156, 29 U. S. C. § 185. The Court noted that the congressional policy, as embodied in §203 (d) of the LMRA, 61 Stat. 154, 29 U. S. C. § 173 (d), was to promote industrial peace and that the grievance-arbitration provision of a collective agreement was a major factor in achieving this goal. 353 U. S., at 455. In the Steelworkers trilogy, the Court further advanced this policy by declaring that an order to arbitrate will not be denied “unless it may be said with positive assurance that the arbitration clause is not susceptible of an interpretation that covers the asserted dispute.” United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior & Gulf Navigation Co., supra, at 582-583. The Court also stated that “so far as the arbitrator’s decision concerns construction of the contract, the courts have no business overruling him because their interpretation of the contract is different from his.” United Steelworkers of America v. Enterprise Wheel & Car Corp., supra, at 599. And in Republic Steel Corp. v. Maddox, 379 U. S. 650 (1965), the Court held that grievance-arbitration procedures of a collective-bargaining agreement must be exhausted before an employee may file suit to enforce contractual rights.
For the reasons stated in Parts III, IV, and V of this opinion, we hold that the federal policy favoring arbitration does not establish that an arbitrator’s resolution of a contractual claim is dispositive of a statutory claim under Title VII.
See, e. g., 42 U. S. C. §1981 (Civil Rights Act of 1866); 42 U. S. C. § 1983 (Civil Rights Act of 1871).
For example, Commission action is not barred by “findings and orders” of state or local agencies. See 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (b) (1970 ed., Supp. II). Similarly, an individual’s cause of action is not barred by a Commission finding of no reasonable cause to believe that the Act has been violated. See 42 U. S. C. § 2000e-5 (f) (1970 ed., Supp. II); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U. S. 792 (1973).
For example, Senator Joseph Clark, one of the sponsors of the bill, introduced an interpretive memorandum which stated: “Nothing in title VII or anywhere else in this bill affects rights and obligations under the NLRA and the Railway Labor
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
Because Preap and Khoury created a split with four other Courts of Appeals, we granted certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit's ruling that criminal aliens who are not arrested immediately upon release are thereby exempt from mandatory detention under § 1226(c). 583 U.S. ----, 138 S.Ct. 1279, 200 L.Ed.2d 468 (2018). We now reverse.
II
Before addressing the merits of the Court of Appeals' interpretation, we resolve four questions regarding our jurisdiction to hear these cases.
The first potential hurdle concerns § 1226(e), which states:
"The [Secretary's] discretionary judgment regarding the application of [ § 1226 ] shall not be subject to review. No court may set aside any action or decision by the [Secretary] under this section regarding the detention or release of any alien or the grant, revocation, or denial of bond or parole." (Emphasis added.)
As we have held, this limitation applies only to "discretionary" decisions about the "application" of § 1226 to particular cases. It does not block lawsuits over "the extent of the Government's detention authority under the'statutory framework' as a whole." Jenningsv. Rodriguez, 583 U.S. ----, ---- - ----, 138 S.Ct. 830, 841, 200 L.Ed.2d 122 (2018) (quoting Demore, 538 U.S. at 517, 123 S.Ct. 1708 ). And the general extent of the Government's authority under § 1226(c) is precisely the issue here. Respondents' argument is not that the Government exercised its statutory authority in an unreasonable fashion. Instead, they dispute the extent of the statutory authority that the Government claims. Because this claim of authority does not constitute a mere "discretionary" "application" of the relevant statute, our review is not barred by § 1226(e).
Nor are we stripped of jurisdiction by § 1252(b)(9), which provides:
"Judicial review of all questions of law and fact, including interpretation and application of constitutional and statutory provisions, arising from any action taken or proceeding brought to remove an alien from the United States under this subchapter [including §§ 1225 and 1226 ] shall be available only in judicial review of a final order under this section." (Emphasis added.)
As in Jennings, respondents here "are not asking for review of an order of removal; they are not challenging the decision to detain them in the first place or to seek removal [as opposed to the decision to deny them bond hearings]; and they are not even challenging any part of the process by which their removability will be determined. Under these circumstances," we held in Jennings, see 583 U.S., at ---- - ----, 138 S.Ct., at 841, " § 1252(b)(9) does not present a jurisdictional bar."
The Government raised a third concern before the District Court in Preap : that under 8 U.S.C. § 1252(f)(1), that court lacked jurisdiction to enter the requested injunction. As § 1252(f)(1) cautions:
"Regardless of the nature of the action or claim or of the identity of the party or parties bringing the action, no court (other than the Supreme Court) shall have jurisdiction or authority to enjoin or restrain the operation of [§§ 1221-1232] other than with respect to the application of such provisions to an individual alien against whom proceedings under such part have been initiated."
Did the Preap court overstep this limit by granting injunctive relief for a class of aliens that includes some who have not yet faced-but merely "will face"-mandatory detention? The District Court said no, but we need not decide. Whether the Preap court had jurisdiction to enter such an injunction is irrelevant because the District Court had jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief, and for independent reasons given below, we are ordering the dissolution of the injunction that the District Court ordered.
Finally, and again before the Preap District Court, the Government raised a fourth potential snag: mootness. Class actions are "[n]ormally... moot if no named class representative with an unexpired claim remain[s] at the time of class certification." United States v. Sanchez-Gomez, 584 U.S. ----, ----, 138 S.Ct. 1532, 1538, 200 L.Ed.2d 792 (2018). But that general norm is no hurdle here.
The suggestion of mootness in these cases was based on the fact that by the time of class certification the named plaintiffs had obtained either cancellation of removal or bond hearings. See 831 F.3d at 1197-1198 ; Khoury v. Asher, 3 F.Supp.3d 877, 879-880 (W.D. Wash. 2014). But those developments did not make the cases moot because at least one named plaintiff in both cases had obtained release on bond, as opposed to cancellation of removal, and that release had been granted following a preliminary injunction in a separate case. Unless that preliminary injunction was made permanent and was not disturbed on appeal, these individuals faced the threat of re-arrest and mandatory detention. And indeed, we later ordered that that injunction be dissolved. See Jennings, 583 U.S., at ----, 138 S.Ct., at 852. Thus, in both cases, there was at least one named plaintiff with a live claim when the class was certified.
Even if that had not been so, these cases would not be moot because the fact that a class "was not certified until after the named plaintiffs' claims had become moot does not deprive us of jurisdiction" when, as in these cases, the harms alleged are transitory enough to elude review. County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44, 52, 111 S.Ct. 1661, 114 L.Ed.2d 49 (1991) (affirming jurisdiction over a class action challenging a county's failure to provide "prompt" determinations of probable cause for those subjected to warrantless arrest and detention). Respondents claim that they would be harmed by detention without a hearing pending a decision on their removal. Because this type of injury ends as soon as the decision on removal is made, it is transitory. So the fact that the named plaintiffs obtained some relief before class certification does not moot their claims.
III
Having assured ourselves of our jurisdiction, we turn to the merits. Respondents contend that they are not properly subject to § 1226(c)'s mandatory-detention scheme, but instead are entitled to the bond hearings available to those held under the general arrest and release authority provided in § 1226(a). Respondents' primary textual argument turns on the interaction of paragraphs (1) and (2) of § 1226(c). Recall that those paragraphs govern, respectively, the "[c]ustody" and "[r]elease" of criminal aliens guilty of a predicate offense. Paragraph (1) directs the Secretary to arrest any such alien "when the alien is released," and paragraph (2) forbids the Secretary to release any "alien described in paragraph (1)" pending a determination on removal (with one exception not relevant here). Because the parties' arguments about the meaning of § 1226(c) require close attention to the statute's terms and structure, we reproduce the provision in full below. But only the portions of the statute that we have highlighted are directly relevant to respondents' argument. Section 1226(c) provides:
"(c) Detention of criminal aliens
"(1) Custody
"The [Secretary] shall take into custody any alien who-
"(A) is inadmissible by reason of having committed any offense covered in section 1182(a)(2) of this title,
"(B) is deportable by reason of having committed any offense covered in section 1227(a)(2)(A)(ii), (A)(iii), (B), (C), or (D) of this title,
"(C) is deportable under section 1227(a)(2)(A)(i) of this title on the basis of an offense for which the alien has been sentence[d] to a term of imprisonment of at least 1 year, or
"(D) is inadmissible under section 1182(a)(3)(B) of this title or deportable under section 1227(a)(4)(B) of this title, "when the alien is released, without regard to whether the alien is released on parole, supervised release, or probation, and without regard to whether the alien may be arrested or imprisoned again for the same offense.
"(2) Release
"The [Secretary] may release an alien described in paragraph (1) only if the [Secretary] decides pursuant to section 3521 of title 18 that release of the alien from custody is necessary to provide protection to a witness, a potential witness, a person cooperating with an investigation into major criminal activity, or an immediate family member or close associate of a witness, potential witness, or person cooperating with such an investigation, and the alien satisfies the [Secretary] that the alien will not pose a danger to the safety of other persons or of property and is likely to appear for any scheduled proceeding. A decision relating to such release shall take place in accordance with a procedure that considers the severity of the offense committed by the alien." (Emphasis added.)
Respondents argue that they are not subject to mandatory detention because they are not "described in" § 1226(c)(1), even though they (and all the other members of the classes they represent) fall into at least one of the categories of aliens covered by subparagraphs (A)-(D) of that provision. An alien covered by these subparagraphs is not "described in" § 1226(c)(1), respondents contend, unless the alien was also arrested "when [he or she was] released" from criminal custody. Indeed, respondents insist that the alien must have been arrested immediately after release. Since they and the other class members were not arrested immediately, respondents conclude, they are not "described in" § 1226(c)(1). So to detain them, the Government must rely not on § 1226(c) but on the general provisions of § 1226(a). And thus, like others detained under § 1226(a), they are owed bond hearings in which they can earn their release by proving that they pose no flight risk and no danger to others-or so they claim. But neither the statute's text nor its structure supports this argument. In fact, both cut the other way.
A
First, respondents' position runs aground on the plain text of § 1226(c). Respondents are right that only an alien "described in paragraph (1)" faces mandatory detention, but they are wrong about which aliens are "described in" paragraph (1).
Paragraph (1) provides that the Secretary "shall take" into custody any "alien" having certain characteristics and that the Secretary must do this "when the alien is released" from criminal custody. The critical parts of the provision consist of a verb ("shall take"), an adverbial clause ("when... released"), a noun ("alien"), and a series of adjectival clauses ("who... is inadmissible," "who... is deportable," etc.). As an initial matter, no one can deny that the adjectival clauses modify (and in that sense "describ[e]") the noun "alien" or that the adverbial clause "when... released" modifies the verb "shall take." And since an adverb cannot modify a noun, the "when released" clause cannot modify "alien." Again, what modifies (and in that sense "describe[s]") the noun "alien" are the adjectival clauses that appear in subparagraphs (A)-(D).
Respondents and the dissent contend that this grammatical point is not the end of the matter-that an adverb can "describe" a person even though it cannot modify the noun used to denote that person. See post, at 978 - 979 (opinion of BREYER, J.). But our interpretation is not dependent on a rule of grammar. The preliminary point about grammar merely complements what is critical, and indeed conclusive in these cases: the particular meaning of the term "described" as it appears in § 1226(c)(2). As we noted in Luna Torres v. Lynch, 578 U.S. ----, ----, 136 S.Ct. 1619, 1625, 194 L.Ed.2d 737 (2016), the term " 'describe' takes on different meanings in different contexts." A leading definition of the term is "to communicate verbally... an account of salient identifying features," Webster's Third New International Dictionary 610 (1976), and that is clearly the meaning of the term used in the phrase "an alien described in paragraph (1)." (Emphasis added.) This is clear from the fact that the indisputable job of the "descri[ption] in paragraph (1)" is to "identif[y]" for the Secretary-to list the "salient... features" by which she can pick out-which aliens she must arrest immediately "when [they are] released."
And here is the crucial point: The "when... released" clause could not possibly describe aliens in that sense; it plays no role in identifying for the Secretary which aliens she must immediately arrest. If it did, the directive in § 1226(c)(1) would be nonsense. It would be ridiculous to read paragraph (1) as saying: "The Secretary must arrest, upon their release from jail, a particular subset of criminal aliens. Which ones? Only those who are arrested upon their release from jail." Since it is the Secretary's action that determines who is arrested upon release, "being arrested upon release" cannot be one of her criteria in figuring out whom to arrest. So it cannot "describe"-it cannot give the Secretary an "identifying featur[e]" of-the relevant class of aliens. On any other reading of paragraph (1), the command that paragraph (1) gives the Secretary would be downright incoherent.
Our reading is confirmed by Congress's use of the definite article in "when the alien is released." Because "[w]ords are to be given the meaning that proper grammar and usage would assign them," A. Scalia & B. Garner, Reading Law: The Interpretation of Legal Texts 140 (2012), the "rules of grammar govern" statutory interpretation "unless they contradict legislative intent or purpose," ibid. (citing Costello v. INS, 376 U.S. 120, 122-126, 84 S.Ct. 580, 11 L.Ed.2d 559 (1964) ). Here grammar and usage establish that "the" is "a function word... indicat[ing] that a following noun or noun equivalent is definite or has been previously specified by context." Merriam-Webster's Collegiate Dictionary 1294 (11th ed. 2005). See also Work v. United States ex rel. McAlester-Edwards Co., 262 U.S. 200, 208, 43 S.Ct. 580, 67 L.Ed. 949 (1923) (Congress's "use of the definite article [in a reference to "the appraisement"] means an appraisement specifically provided for"). For "the alien"-in the clause "when the alien is released"-to have been previously specified, its scope must have been settled by the time the "when... released" clause appears at the tail end of paragraph (1).
For these reasons, we hold that the scope of "the alien" is fixed by the predicate offenses identified in subparagraphs (A)-(D). And since only those subparagraphs settle who is "described in paragraph (1)," anyone who fits their description falls under paragraph (2)'s detention mandate-even if (as with respondents) the Secretary did not arrest them immediately "when" they were "released."
B
In reaching the contrary conclusion, the Ninth Circuit thought that the very structure of § 1226 favors respondents' reading. In particular, the Ninth Circuit reasoned, each subsection's arrest and release provisions must work together. Thus, aliens must be arrested under the general arrest authority in subsection (a) in order to get a bond hearing under subsection (a)'s release provision. And in order to face mandatory detention under subsection (c), criminal aliens must have been arrested under subsection (c). But since subsection (c) authorizes only immediate arrest, the argument continues, those arrested later fall under subsection (a), not (c). Accordingly, the court concluded, those arrested well after release escape subsection (c)'s detention mandate. See 831 F.3d at 1201-1203. But this argument misreads the structure of § 1226 ; and in any event, the Ninth Circuit's conclusion would not follow even if we granted all its premises about statutory structure.
1
Although the Ninth Circuit viewed subsections (a) and (c) as establishing separate sources of arrest and release authority, in fact subsection (c) is simply a limit on the authority conferred by subsection (a).
Recall that subsection (a) has two sentences that provide the Secretary with general discretion over the arrest and release of aliens, respectively. We read each of subsection (c)'s two provisions-paragraph (1) on arrest, and paragraph (2) on release-as modifying its counterpart sentence in subsection (a). In particular, subsection (a) creates authority for anyone's arrest or release under § 1226-and it gives the Secretary broad discretion as to both actions-while subsection (c)'s job is to subtract some of that discretion when it comes to the arrest and release of criminal aliens. Thus, subsection (c)(1) limits subsection (a)'s first sentence by curbing the discretion to arrest: The Secretary must arrest those aliens guilty of a predicate offense. And subsection (c)(2) limits subsection (a)'s second sentence by cutting back the Secretary's discretion over the decision to release: The Secretary may not release aliens "described in" subsection (c)(1)-that is, those guilty of a predicate offense. Accordingly, all the relevant detainees will have been arrested by authority that springs from subsection (a), and so, contrary to the Court of Appeals' view, that fact alone will not spare them from subsection (c)(2)'s prohibition on release. This reading comports with the Government's practice of applying to the arrests of all criminal aliens certain procedural requirements, such as the need for a warrant, that appear only in subsection (a). See Tr. of Oral Arg. 13-14.
The text of § 1226 itself contemplates that aliens arrested under subsection (a) may face mandatory detention under subsection (c). The second sentence in subsection (a)-which generally authorizes the Secretary to release an alien pending removal proceedings-features an exception "as provided in subsection (c)." But if the Court of Appeals were right that subsection (c)(2)'s prohibition on release applies only to those arrested pursuant to subsection (c)(1), there would have been no need to specify that such aliens are exempt from subsection (a)'s release provision. This shows that it is possible for those arrested under subsection (a) to face mandatory detention under subsection (c). We draw a similar inference from the fact that subsection (c)(2), for its part, does not limit mandatory detention to those arrested "pursuant to" subsection (c)(1) or "under authority created by" subsection (c)(1)-but to anyone so much as "described in" subsection (c)(1). This choice of words marks a contrast with Congress's reference-in the immediately preceding subsection-to actions by the Secretary that are "authorized under" subsection (a). See § 1226(b). Cf. 18 U.S.C. § 3262(b) (referring to "a person arrested under subsection (a)" (emphasis added)). These textual cues indicate that even if an alien was not arrested under authority bestowed by subsection (c)(1), he may face mandatory detention under subsection (c)(2).
2
But even if the Court of Appeals were right to reject this reading, the result below would be wrong. To see why, assume with the Court of Appeals that only someone arrested under authority created by § 1226(c)(1) -rather than the more general § 1226(a) -may be detained without a bond hearing. And assume that subsection (c)(1) requires immediate arrest. Even then, the Secretary's failure to abide by this time limit would not cut off her power to arrest under subsection (c)(1). That is so because, as we have held time and again, an official's crucial duties are better carried out late than never. See Sylvain v. Attorney General of U.S., 714 F.3d 150, 158 (CA3 2013) (collecting cases). Or more precisely, a statutory rule that officials "'shall' act within a specified time" does not by itself "preclud[e] action later." Barnhart v. Peabody Coal Co., 537 U.S. 149, 158, 123 S.Ct. 748, 154 L.Ed.2d 653 (2003).
Especially relevant here is our decision in United States v. Montalvo-Murillo, 495 U.S. 711, 110 S.Ct. 2072, 109 L.Ed.2d 720 (1990). There we held that "a provision that a detention hearing'shall be held immediately upon the [detainee's] first appearance before the judicial officer' did not bar detention after a tardy hearing." Barnhart, 537 U.S. at 159, 123 S.Ct. 748 (quoting Montalvo-Murillo, 495 U.S. at 714, 110 S.Ct. 2072 ). In that case, we refused to "bestow upon the defendant a windfall" and "visit upon the Government and the citizens a severe penalty by mandating release of possibly dangerous defendants every time some deviation from the [statutory] strictures... occur[red]." Montalvo-Murillo, 495 U.S. at 720, 110 S.Ct. 2072. Instead, we gave effect to the principle that " 'if a statute does not specify a consequence for noncompliance with statutory timing provisions, the federal courts will not in the ordinary course impose their own coercive sanction.' " Barnhart, 537 U.S. at 159, 123 S.Ct. 748 (quoting United States v. James Daniel Good Real Property, 510 U.S. 43, 63, 114 S.Ct. 492, 126 L.Ed.2d 490 (1993) ).
This principle for interpreting time limits on statutory mandates was a fixture of the legal backdrop when Congress enacted § 1226(c). Cf. Woodford v. Garceau, 538 U.S. 202, 209, 123 S.Ct. 1398, 155 L.Ed.2d 363 (2003) (relying on the "legal backdrop" against which "Congress legislated" to clarify what Congress enacted). Indeed, we have held of a statute enacted just four years before § 1226(c) that because of our case law at the time-never since abrogated-Congress was "presumably aware that we do not readily infer congressional intent to limit an agency's power to get a mandatory job done merely from a specification to act by a certain time." Barnhart, 537 U.S. at 160, 123 S.Ct. 748 (relying on Brock v. Pierce County, 476 U.S. 253, 106 S.Ct. 1834, 90 L.Ed.2d 248 (1986) ). Here this principle entails that even if subsection (c)(1) were the sole source of authority to arrest aliens without granting them hearings, that authority would not evaporate just because officials had transgressed subsection (c)(1)'s command to arrest aliens immediately "when... released."
Respondents object that the rule invoked in Montalvo-Murillo and related cases does not apply here. In those cases, respondents argue, the governmental authority at issue would have disappeared entirely if time limits were enforced-whereas here the Secretary could still arrest aliens well after their release under the general language in § 1226(a).
But the whole premise of respondents' argument is that if the Secretary could no longer act under § 1226(c), she would lose a specific power-the power to arrest and detain criminal aliens without a bond hearing. If that is so, then as in other cases, accepting respondents' deadline-based argument would be inconsistent with "the design and function of the statute." Montalvo-Murillo, 495 U.S. at 719, 110 S.Ct. 2072. From Congress's perspective, after all, it is irrelevant that the Secretary could go on detaining criminal aliens subject to a bond hearing. Congress enacted mandatory detention precisely out of concern that such individualized hearings could not be trusted to reveal which "deportable criminal aliens who are not detained" might "continue to engage in crime [or] fail to appear for their removal hearings." Demore, 538 U.S. at 513, 123 S.Ct. 1708. And having thus required the Secretary to impose mandatory detention without bond hearings immediately, for safety's sake, Congress could not have meant for judges to "enforce" this duty in case of delay by-of all things-forbidding its execution. Cf. Montalvo-Murillo, 495 U.S. at 720, 110 S.Ct. 2072 ("The end of exacting compliance with the letter" of the Bail Reform Act's requirement that a defendant receive a hearing immediately upon his first appearance before a judicial officer "cannot justify the means of exposing the public to an increased likelihood of violent crimes by persons on bail, an evil the statute aims to prevent").
Especially hard to swallow is respondents' insistence that for an alien to be subject to mandatory detention under § 1226(c), the alien must be arrested on the day he walks out of jail (though respondents allow that it need not be at the jailhouse door-the "parking lot" or "bus stop" would do). Tr. of Oral Arg. 44. "Assessing the situation in realistic and practical terms, it is inevitable that" respondents' unsparing deadline will often be missed for reasons beyond the Federal Government's control. Montalvo-Murillo, 495 U.S. at 720, 110 S.Ct. 2072. Cf. Regions Hospital v. Shalala, 522 U.S. 448, 459, n. 3, 118 S.Ct. 909, 139 L.Ed.2d 895 (1998) ("The Secretary's failure to meet the deadline, a not uncommon occurrence when heavy loads are thrust on administrators, does not mean that [she] lacked power to act beyond it"). To give just one example, state and local officials sometimes rebuff the Government's request that they give notice when a criminal alien will be released. Indeed, over a span of less than three years (from January 2014 to September 2016), the Government recorded "a total of 21,205 declined [requests] in 567 counties in 48 states including the District of Columbia." ICE, Fiscal Year 2016 ICE Enf. and Removal Operations Rep. 9. Nor was such local resistance unheard of when Congress enacted the language of § 1226(c) in 1996. See S. Rep. No. 104-48, p. 28 (1995). Under these circumstances, it is hard to believe that Congress made the Secretary's mandatory-detention authority vanish at the stroke of midnight after an alien's release.
In short, the import of our case law is clear: Even if subsection (c) were the only font of authority to detain aliens without bond hearings, we could not read its "when... released" clause to defeat officials' duty to impose such mandatory detention when it comes to aliens who are arrested well after their release.
IV
Respondents protest that reading § 1226(c) in the manner set forth here would render key language superfluous, lead to anomalies, and violate the canon of constitutional avoidance. We answer these objections in turn.
A
According to respondents, the Government's reading of § 1226(c) flouts the interpretive canon against surplusage-the idea that "every word and every provision is to be given effect [and that n]one should needlessly be given an interpretation that causes it to duplicate another provision or to have no consequence." Scalia, Reading Law, at 174. See Kungys v. United States, 485 U.S. 759, 778, 108 S.Ct. 1537, 99 L.Ed.2d 839 (1988) (plurality opinion of Scalia, J.) (citing the "cardinal rule of statutory interpretation that no provision should be construed to be entirely redundant"). Respondents' surplusage argument has two focal points.
First, respondents claim that if they face mandatory detention even though they were arrested well after their release, then "when... released" adds nothing to paragraph (1). In fact, however, it still has work to do. For one thing, it clarifies when the duty to arrest is triggered: upon release from criminal custody, not before such release or after the completion of noncustodial portions of a criminal sentence (such as a term of "parole, supervised release, or probation," as the paragraph goes on to emphasize). Thus, paragraph (1) does not permit the Secretary to cut short an alien's state prison sentence in order to usher him more easily right into immigration detention-much as another provision prevents officials from actually removing an alien from the country "until the alien is released from imprisonment." 8 U.S.C. § 1231(a)(4)(A). And from the other end, as paragraph (1)'s language makes clear, the Secretary need not wait for the sentencing court's supervision over the alien to expire.
The "when... released" clause also serves another purpose: exhorting the Secretary to act quickly. And this point answers respondents' second surplusage claim: that the "Transition Period Custody Rules" enacted along with § 1226(c) would have been superfluous if § 1226(c) did not call for immediate arrests, since those rules authorized delays in § 1226(c)'s implementation while the Government expanded its capacities. See Matter of Garvin-Noble, 21 I. & N. Dec. 672, 675 (BIA 1997). This argument again confuses what the Secretary is obligated to do with the consequences that follow if the Secretary fails (for whatever reason) to fulfill that obligation. The transition rules delayed the onset of the Secretary's obligation to begin making arrests as soon as covered aliens were released from criminal custody, and in that sense they were not superfluous.
This is so even though, had the transition rules not been adopted, the Secretary's failure to make an arrest immediately upon a covered alien's release would not have exempted the alien from mandatory detention under § 1226(c).
B
The Court of Appeals objected that the Government's reading of § 1226(c) would have the bizarre result that some aliens whom the Secretary need not arrest at all must nonetheless be detained without a hearing if they are arrested. 831 F.3d at 1201-1203. This rather complicated argument, as we understand it, proceeds as follows. Paragraph (2) requires the detention of aliens "described in paragraph (1)." While most of the aliens described there have been convicted of a criminal offense, this need not be true of aliens captured by subparagraph (D) in particular-which covers, for example, aliens who are close relatives of terrorists and those who are believed likely to commit a terrorist act. See § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(IX). But if, as the Government maintains, any alien who falls under subparagraphs (A)-(D) is thereby ineligible for release from immigration custody, then the Secretary would be forbidden to release even these aliens who were never convicted or perhaps even charged with a crime, once she arrested them. Yet she would be free not to arrest them to begin with (or so the Court of Appeals assumed), since she is obligated to arrest aliens "when... released," and there was no prior custody for these aliens to be "released" from. Therefore, the court concluded, the Government's position has the absurd implication that aliens who were never charged with a crime need not be arrested pending a removal determination, but if they are arrested, they must be detained and cannot be released on bond or parole.
We agree that it would be very strange for Congress to forbid the release of aliens who need not be arrested in the first place, but the fact is that the Government's reading (and ours) does not have that incongruous result. The real anomalies here would flow instead from the Court of Appeals' interpretation.
To begin with the latter point: Under the Court of Appeals' reading, the mandatory-detention scheme would be gentler on terrorists than it is on garden-variety offenders. To see why, recall first that subparagraphs (A)-(C) cover aliens who are inadmissible or deportable based on the commission of certain criminal offenses, and there is no dispute that the statute authorizes their mandatory detention when they are released from criminal custody. And the crimes covered by these subparagraphs include, for example, any drug offense by an adult punishable by more than one year of imprisonment, see §§ 1182(a)(2), 1226(c)(1)(A), as well as a variety of tax offenses, see §§ 1226(c)(1)(B), 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii) ; Kawashima v. Holder, 565 U.S. 478, 132 S.Ct. 1166, 182 L.Ed.2d 1 (2012). But notice that aliens who fall within subparagraph (D), by contrast, may never have been arrested on criminal charges-which according to the court below would exempt them from mandatory detention. Yet this subparagraph covers the very sort of aliens for which Congress was most likely to have wanted to require mandatory detention-including those who are representatives of a terrorist group and those whom the Government has reasonable grounds to believe are likely to engage in terrorist activities. See §§ 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(III), (IV), 1226(c)(1)(D). Thus, by the Court of Appeals' logic, Congress chose to spare terrorist aliens from the rigors of mandatory detention-a mercy withheld from almost all drug offenders and tax cheats. See Brief for National Immigrant Justice Center as Amicus Curiae 7-8. That result would be incongruous.
Along similar lines, note that one § 1226(c)(1) predicate reaches aliens who necessarily escape conviction: those "for whom immunity from criminal jurisdiction was exercised." § 1182(a)(2)(E)(ii). See § 1226(c)(1)(A). And other predicates sweep in aliens whom there is no reason to expect police (as opposed to immigration officials) will have reason to arrest: e.g., the "spouse or child of an alien" who recently engaged in terrorist activity. § 1182(a)(3)(B)(i)(IX) ; see § 1226(c)(1)(D). It would be pointless for Congress to have covered such aliens in subsections (c)(1)(A)-(D) if subsection (c)'s mandates applied only to those emerging from jail.
Thus, contrary to the Court of Appeals' interpretation of the "when released" clause as limiting the class of aliens subject to mandatory detention, we read subsection (c)(1) to specify the timing of arrest ("when the alien is released") only for the vast majority of cases: those involving criminal aliens who were once in criminal custody. The paragraph simply does not speak to the timeline for arresting the few who had no stint in jail. (And why should it? Presumably they-unlike those serving time
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
B
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice O’Connor
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure conditions federal appellate jurisdiction on the filing of a timely notice of appeal. In this case, we hold that a document intended to serve as an appellate brief may qualify as the notice of appeal required by Rule 3.
I
While an inmate at the Maryland State Penitentiary, petitioner William Smith filed a pro se action against two prison administrators, seven corrections officers, two state psychologists, and named respondent Dr. Wayne Barry, a private physician. Suing under 42 U. S. C. § 1983, Smith alleged that he suffered from a psychogenic pain disorder and that the defendants’ refusal to provide him with a wheelchair constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. Smith further alleged that the officers used excessive force against him, also in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
The District Court dismissed Dr. Barry as a defendant on the ground that he did not act under color of state law when treating Smith and therefore was not subject to suit under § 1983. App. 5-6. The case proceeded to trial in 1988, following appointment of counsel. After Smith presented his case in chief, the District Court directed a verdict for the prison administrators and officers on Smith’s wheelchair claim, and for the administrators and three officers on his excessive force claim. The jury ultimately rejected Smith’s excessive force claim against the four remaining officers. However, it found that the staff psychologists were deliberately indifferent to Smith’s medical needs and awarded $15,000 in damages.
The two psychologists filed a timely motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict (J. N. O. V.). Without consulting his attorney, and while the motion for J. N. O. V. was pending, Smith filed a notice of appeal. Smith’s trial counsel learned of the notice of appeal after the District Court denied the psychologists’ motion. In a letter dated April 21, 1988, he wrote Smith:
“I am certain from the circumstances that [the notice of appeal] is premature and thus void.
“... The Order denying the Motion for J. N. O. V. was entered April 13, 1988. This would give you up until May 13, 1988 before you must file an appeal. I would urge you to take by [sic] advice and not file an appeal, or at least seek a second legal opinion on the matter.” App. 17.
Smith’s notice of appeal was in fact invalid under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a)(4), which provides that a notice of appeal filed before the disposition of a timely J. N. O. V. motion is without effect. Although the Fourth Circuit’s jurisdiction had not been properly invoked, its Clerk responded to the notice of appeal by sending all of the parties copies of the “informal brief” the court uses in pro se appeals and an order explaining the court’s procedures. The briefing forms asked the parties to answer six questions about their legal positions. Under its Rules, the Fourth Circuit reviews these responses and the record to determine whether appointment of counsel and/or oral argument are warranted. See CA4 Rule 34(b). Smith returned his informal brief to the Court of Appeals on May 4,1988, within the deadline for filing a notice of appeal.
After appointment of appellate counsel, the Fourth Circuit dismissed Smith’s appeal for want of jurisdiction. It held that Smith’s notice of appeal was untimely and that his informal brief was not “the ‘functional equivalent’ ” of the notice of appeal Rule 3 requires. Smith v. Galley, 919 F. 2d 893, 895 (1990) (quoting Torres v. Oakland Scavenger Co., 487 U. S. 312, 317 (1988)). The court reasoned that Smith filed the informal brief in response to a briefing order and that the Federal Rules envision that the notice of appeal and the appellate brief will be two separate documents. 919 F. 2d, at 895-896. In a footnote, the court listed specific omissions that might render Smith’s informal brief inadequate as a notice of appeal. Id., at 896, n. 7. Given its conclusion that a brief can never be considered a notice of appeal, however, the Fourth Circuit expressed no opinion on the significance of these omissions. Ibid.
We granted certiorari, 501 U. S. 1249 (1991), to decide whether an appellate brief may serve as the notice of appeal required by Rule 3. This question has divided the Courts of Appeals. Compare Smith v. Galley, supra; United States v. Cooper, 876 F. 2d 1192, 1196 (CA5 1989) (appellate brief cannot substitute for notice of appeal); and Jurgens v. McKasy, 905 F. 2d 382, 385, n. 4 (CA Fed. 1990) (same), with Frace v. Russell, 341 F. 2d 901, 903 (CA3) (treating brief as notice of appeal), cert. denied, 382 U. S. 863 (1965); Allah v. Superior Court of California, 871 F. 2d 887, 889-890 (CA9 1989) (same); and Finch v. Vernon, 845 F. 2d 256, 259-260 (CA11 1988) (same).
II
Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 3(a) provides, in pertinent part, that “[a]n appeal permitted by law as of right from a district court to a court of appeals shall be taken by filing a notice of appeal with the clerk of the district court within the time allowed by Rule 4.” Rule 3(c) governs the content of notices of appeal: Notices “shall specify the party or parties taking the appeal; shall designate the judgment, order or part thereof appealed from; and shall name the court to which the appeal is taken.”
Courts will liberally construe the requirements of Rule 3. See Torres, supra, at 316; Foman v. Davis, 371 U. S. 178, 181-182 (1962). Thus, when papers are “technically at variance with the letter of [Rule 3], a court may nonetheless find that the litigant has complied with the rule if the litigant’s action is the functional equivalent of what the rule requires.” Torres, supra, at 316-317. This principle of liberal construction does not, however, excuse noncompliance with the Rule. Rule 3’s dictates are jurisdictional in nature, and their satisfaction is a prerequisite to appellate review. Torres, supra. Although courts should construe Rule 3 liberally when determining whether it has been complied with, noncompliance is fatal to an appeal.
In this case, the Court of Appeals recognized that it was required to determine whether Smith’s brief was the “functional equivalent” of the formal notice of appeal demanded by Rule 3, 919 F. 2d, at 895, but it erred in applying that standard. The court reasoned that because Smith filed his informal brief in response to a briefing order, “the document was not the result of Smith’s intent to initiate an appeal.” Id., at 895-896. This logic is dubious, since Smith received the briefing form as a result of filing a notice of appeal, albeit a premature one.
More importantly, the court should not have relied on Smith’s reasons for filing the brief. While a notice of appeal must specifically indicate the litigant’s intent to seek appellate review, see Foman, supra, at 181; Torres, 487 U. S., at 317-318, the purpose of this requirement is to ensure that the filing provides sufficient notice to other parties and the courts. See id., at 318. Thus, the notice afforded by a document, not the litigant's motivation in filing it, determines the document’s sufficiency as a notice of appeal. If a document filed within the time specified by Rule 4 gives the notice required by Rule 3, it is effective as a notice of appeal.
The Fourth Circuit’s other ground for dismissing Smith’s appeal is also insufficient. The Federal Rules do envision that the notice of appeal and the appellant’s brief will be two separate filings. Compare Fed. Rule App. Proc. 3(c) (content of notice of appeal) with Fed. Rule App. Proc. 28(a) (content of appellant’s brief). They do not preclude an appellate court from treating a filing styled as a brief as a notice of appeal, however, if the filing is timely under Rule 4 and conveys the information required by Rule 3(c). Such treatment is in fact appropriate under Torres and under Rule 3(c)’s provision that “[a]n appeal shall not be dismissed for informality of form or title of the notice of appeal.”
Having accepted a paper as the notice of appeal required by Rule 3, an appellate court might require timely filing of a second document meeting its standards for a brief or, if the paper meets those standards, take such other action as it deems appropriate to ensure that the filing sequence contemplated by the Rules is not disturbed. See, e. g., Fed. Rule App. Proc. 10(b) (time for ordering transcripts for inclusion in the record on appeal); Fed. Rule App. Proc. 31(a) (briefing schedule). Proper briefing is not, however, a jurisdictional requirement under the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. See Fed. Rule App. Proc. 3(a) (“Failure of an appellant to take any step other than the timely filing of a notice of appeal does not affect the validity of the appeal. . .”).
Respondents make the point that Smith filed his brief with the Court of Appeals, whereas Rule 3(a) directs litigants to file their notices of appeal with district courts. The Rules themselves answer this argument. Rule 4(a)(1) sets out a transmittal procedure to be followed when the notice of appeal is mistakenly filed with an appellate court, and provides that a misfiled notice “shall be deemed filed in the district court” on the day it was received by the court of appeals.
Finally, respondents argue that Smith’s brief is not an adequate notice of appeal because it lacks information required by Rule 3(c). Having held that an informal brief can never substitute for a formal notice of appeal, the Court of Appeals declined to reach this question. 919 F. 2d, at 896, n. 7. On remand, it should undertake the appropriate analysis. See, e. g., Foman, supra; Torres, supra.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Harlan
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue in this case arises out of a condemnation proceeding in which the' United States acquired an easement pursuant to its power of eminent domain. The principal question presented is whether the claim to “just compensation” vested in the owners of the land at the time the United States entered into possession of the easement pursuant to court order in 1943 or whether such claim vested in the respondent, Dow, who acquired the land in 1945, at the time the United States filed a declaration of taking in 1946, under the Declaration of Taking Act of February 26, 1931, 46 Stat. 1421, 40 U. S. C. §§ 258a-258e.
In March 1943 the United States instituted a condemnation proceeding in the District Court for the Southern District of Texas to acquire a right-of-way for a pipe line over certain lands in Harris County, Texas, owned by the estate and heirs of John F. Garrett and James Bute. Among the lands condemned was Parcel 1, a narrow strip of some 2.7 acres out of a 617-acre tract, the property involved in the present suit. The Government proceeded under various statutes, including the Act of August 1, 1888, 25 Stat. 357, 40 U. S. C. § 257, and Title II of the Second War Powers Act of March 27, 1942, 56 Stat. 176, 177. As requested in the petition, the District Court ordered the United States into the “immediate possession” of this strip. Within the next ten days the United States entered into physical possession and began laying the pipe line through the tract. The line was completed in 1943 and has been iñ continuous use since that time.
In November 1945 the 617-acre tract was conveyed to Dow by a general warranty deed which specifically excepted the pipe-line right-of-way as being subject to the condemnation proceedings. In May 1946 the Government filed a declaration of taking, under the Declaration of Taking Act, covering this pipe-line strip. Estimated compensation was deposited in court and judgment on the declaration of taking was entered. A few months later the Government amended its petition to name additional parties, including Dow, who were alleged to be asserting an interest in the land. The question of compensation was referred to commissioners under the Texas practice, which at that time was applicable to federal condemnation proceedings. See United States v. Miller, 317 U. S. 369, 379-380. After a hearing, at which Dow appeared, the commissioners, in 1948, awarded $4,450 for imposition of the pipe-line easement.
After a lengthy unexplained delay in the proceedings, the Government in May 1955 filed a motion for summary judgment against Dow. In March 1956 the District Court granted this motion and dismissed Dow as a party. The District Court found as a fact that Dow’s grantors had intended to convey to him “all their right, title and interest in the said Parcel No. 1 or in the award to be made for the same.” It then went on to rule that under the Assignment of Claims Act, 31 U. S. C. § 203, this was a prohibited assignment of a claim against the United States, and that the deed was therefore ineffective to convey to Dow the compensation award. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that no assignment was involved because no claim to compensation against the United States “arose and vested” until the filing of the declaration of taking in 1946, and that, because Dow by that time had become owner of the land, he was entitled to the award. 238 F. 2d 898. Because the question presented bears importantly on rights resulting from federal condemnation proceedings, we granted the Government’s petition for certiorari. 353 U. S. 972.
It is well established, as the Court of Appeals recognized, that the Assignment of Claims Act prohibits the voluntary assignment of a compensation claim against the Government for the taking of property. United States v. Shannon, 342 U. S. 288. In view of the express finding of the District Court that Dow’s grantors intended to convey to him their right to the condemnation award, we think that the transfer of the claim in this case must be considered to have been such a voluntary assignment, rather than, as Dow argues, an assignment taking effect by operation of law, and thus not within the Act’s prohibition. Cf. United States v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., 338 U. S. 366, 373-376; see 23 Tracts of Land v. United States, 177 F. 2d 967, 970. We would not be justified in relaxing the rigor of the Act, especially in view of the fact that under its very terms the way was left open for the parties to accomplish a transfer of the award by valid means. Accordingly, Dow can prevail only if the “taking” occurred while he was the owner. For it is undisputed that “[since] compensation is due at the time of taking, the owner at that time, not the owner at an earlier or later date, receives the payment.” Danforth v. United States, 308 U. S. 271, 284; cf. United States v. Dickinson, 331 U. S. 745. We hold, contrary to the Court of Appeals, that the “taking” did not occur in 1946 when the Government filed its declaration of taking, but rather when the United States entered into possession of the land in 1943. It follows that the landowners in 1943 were entitled to receive the compensation award and that Dow is not entitled to recover in this action.
Broadly speaking, the United States may take property pursuant to its power of eminent domain in one of two ways: it can enter into physical possession of property without authority of a court order; or it can institute condemnation proceedings under various Acts of Congress providing authority for such takings. Under the first method — physical seizure — no condemnation proceedings are instituted, and the property owner is provided a remedy under the Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. §§ 1346 (a) (2) and 1491, to recover just compensation. See Hurley v. Kincaid, 285 U. S. 95, 104. Under the second procedure the Government may either employ statutes which require it to pay over the judicially determined compensation before it can enter upon the land, Act of August 1, 1888, 25 Stat. 357, 40 U. S. C. § 257; Act of August 18, 1890, 26 Stat. 316, 50 U. S. C. § 171, or proceed under other statutes which enable it to take immediate possession upon order of court before the amount of just compensation has been ascertained. Act of July 18, 1918, 40 Stat. 904, 911, 33 U. S. C. § 594; Title II of the Second War Powers Act of March 27, 1942, 56 Stat. 176, 177 (employed by the Government in the present case).
Although in both classes of “taking” cases — condemnation and physical seizure — -title to the property passes to the Government only when the owner receives compensation, see Albert Hanson Lumber Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 581, 587, or when the compensation is deposited into court pursuant to the Taking Act, see infra, the passage of title does not necessarily determine the date of “taking.” The usual rule is that if the United States has entered into possession of the property prior to the acquisition of title, it is the former event which constitutes the act of taking. It is that event which gives rise to the claim for compensation and fixes the date as of which the land is to be valued and the Government’s obligation to pay interest accrues. See United States v. Lynah, 188 U. S. 445, 470-471; United States v. Rogers, 255 U. S. 163; Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. United States, 261 U. S. 299. The owner at the time the Government takes possession “rather than the owner at an earlier or later date, is the one who has the claim and is to receive payment.” 23 Tracts of Land v. United States, supra, at 970.
Had the Government not subsequently filed a declaration of taking in this case, there is no reason to believe that these ordinary rules would not have been applicable ; the owners of the parcel when the Government entered into possession in 1943 would then have been entitled to compensation. No suggestion to the contrary has been made by Dow. Instead, Dow contends that although there was an entry into possession in 1943 which was an appropriation of the property sufficient to amount to a “taking,” the subsequent filing of a declaration of taking vitiated the effect of the earlier entry, and rendered the filing date the time of the taking. We think that this contention is founded on a mistaken view of the Declaration of Taking Act and must be rejected.
Section 1 of the Declaration of Taking Act provides: “Upon the filing said declaration of taking [prior to judgment in a condemnation proceeding] and of the deposit in the court ... of the estimated compensation . . . title . . . shall vest in the United States . . . and said lands shall be deemed to be condemned and taken for the use of the United States, and the right to just compensation . . . shall vest in the persons entitled thereto . . . .” Although it has been recognized that the “exact effect of these provisions is not entirely clear,” Catlin v. United States, 324 U. S. 229, 240, past cases in this Court have established certain unchallenged principles pertinent to the present controversy. The Taking Act does not bestow independent authority to condemn lands for public use. On the contrary, it provides a proceeding “ancillary or incidental to suits brought under other statutes,” Catlin v. United States, supra, at 240. Such a proceeding can be instituted either at the commencement of the condemnation suit under the “other statutes” or, as in this case, after such a suit has been commenced and either before or after the Government has taken possession. In both situations the Taking Act enables the United States to acquire title simply by depositing funds “for or on account” of the just compensation to be awarded the owners, rather than by making payment pursuant to a court order. In those cases where the Government has not yet entered into possession, the filing of the declaration enables it to enter immediately and relieves it of the burden of interest from the time of filing to the date of judgment in the eminent domain proceedings. See United States v. Miller, supra, at 380-381.
The scheme of the Taking Act makes it plain that when the Government files a declaration before it has entered into possession of the property the filing constitutes the “taking.” But neither the language nor the history of the Act provides a reliable indication as to the intention of Congress in cases, such as the one before us, where a declaration is filed after the Government has taken possession. Nevertheless, a number of considerations have led us to the view that in such cases the date of “taking” is the date on which the Government entered and appropriated the property to public use.
In the first place, to adopt the solution urged by Dow would be to undermine policies determining the other incidents of the Government’s obligation to provide just compensation. As already noted, in cases where there has been an entry into possession before the filing of a declaration of taking, such entry has been considered the time of “taking” for purposes of valuing the property and fixing the date on which the Government’s obligation to pay interest begins to run. To rule that the date of “taking” is the time of filing would confront us with a Hobson’s choice. On the one hand, it would certainly be bizarre to hold that there were two different “takings” of the same property, with some incidents of the taking determined as of one date and some as of the other. On the other hand, to rule that for all purposes the time of taking is the time of filing would open the door to anomalous results. For example, if the value of the property changed between the time the Government took possession and the time of filing, payment as of the latter date would not be an accurate reflection of the value of what the property owner gave up and the Government acquired. In the graphic language of Chief Justice Shaw: “If a pie-powder court could be called on the instant and on the spot, the true rule of justice for the public would be, to pay the compensation with one hand, whilst they apply the axe with the other.” Parks v. Boston, 15 Pick. (Mass.) 198, 208. See also Anderson v. United States, 179 F. 2d 281. Similarly, because interest for delay in payment would not begin to accrue until payment of compensation is due, the Government would be absolved of interest until it chose to file a declaration of taking, even though it had already been in possession, to the exclusion of the property owner, for some time. Cf. Seaboard Air Line R. Co. v. United States, supra.
There is another reason why we cannot regard the time of filing as the time of the "taking” in cases where the Government has already entered into possession. Because of the uncertainty when, if ever, a declaration would be filed after the Government’s entry, manipulations might be encouraged which could operate to the disadvantage of either the landowner or the United States. The Government tells us that the declaration of taking procedure may be invoked “solely in the discretion of the administrative officer.” It would thus lie within the power of such an officer to reduce the “just” compensation due the property owner by staying his hand until a market situation favorable to the Government had developed. Conversely, landowners might be in a position to increase unduly the Government’s liability. For instance, if a single tract of land were worth more than the sum of its component parcels, cf. United States v. Runner, 174 F. 2d 651, owners of adjacent condemned properties could consolidate their holdings after the Government’s entry solely for the purpose of-obtaining a larger award.
We cannot attribute to Congress the intention to promulgate a rule which would open the door to such obvious incongruities and undesirable possibilities.
We are not persuaded by any of the countervailing considerations put forward by Dow. It is claimed that much needed certainty would ensue in condemnation matters were the Court to hold that the Government’s filing under the Taking Act invariably established the date of the “taking” of this property. But certainty is not lacking under the rule advocated by the Government, which fixes the “taking” at the time of the entry into physical possession — a fact readily ascertainable whether or not the Government makes use of condemnation proceedings, and whether or not it ever files a declaration of taking.
It is also argued that a property owner might be prejudiced under the Government’s view because the project could be abandoned and the condemnation proceedings discontinued before title passed to the Government. But the possibility of such an abandonment exists whenever the Government enters into possession of property without filing a declaration of taking and without otherwise providing compensation for acquisition of the title. In any event, such an abandonment does not prejudice the property owner. It merely results in an alteration in the property interest taken — from full ownership to one of temporary use and occupation. O’Connor v. United States, 155 F. 2d 425; Moody v. Wickard, 78 U. S. App. D. C. 80, 136 F. 2d 801; cf. Cherokee Nation v. Southern Kansas R. Co., 135 U. S. 641, 660. In such cases compensation would be measured by the principles normally governing the taking of a right to use property temporarily. See Kimball Laundry Co. v. United States, 338 U. S. 1; United States v. Petty Motor Co., 327 U. S. 372; United States v. General Motors Corp., 323 U. S. 373.
Nor can we accept the suggestion that in cases like the present one the total compensation should be divided between the first and second owners of the property, the former taking that portion of the award attributable to the Government’s use of the property until the passage of title, and the latter receiving the balance. Cf. United States v. 40,379 Square Feet of Land, 58 F. Supp. 246. To require the Government to deal with more than one party, particularly when division of the condemnation award would entail a complex apportionment, might severely impede the orderly progress of condemnation proceedings and would conflict with the policies underlying the Anti-Assignment Act. See Hobbs v. McLean, 117 U. S. 567, 576; United States v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co., supra.
Dow relies on Danforth v. United States, supra, and United States v. Dickinson, supra, but neither case is in point on the issue before us. In Danforth the Court rejected the landowner’s claim for interest on the ground, inter alia, that the construction of a set-back levee near his land did not amount to a “taking” because the Government by such action had not yet appropriated the property to its use. The expressly limited holding in Dickinson was that the statute of limitations did not bar an action under the Tucker Act for a taking by flooding when it was uncertain at what stage in the flooding operation the land had become appropriated to public use. In the present case there is no dispute over the fact that the United States appropriated Parcel 1 on the date that it entered into physical possession under order of the District Court.
Finally, we see no merit in the suggestion that it is inequitable to deny Dow recovery in this action. Dow took his deed with full notice of the condemnation proceeding brought by the United States. There were readily available contractual means by which he could have protected himself vis-á-vis his grantors against the contingency that his claim against the United States would be subsequently invalidated by the Anti-Assignment Act. And whatever may be the equities between the former owners and Dow, or between the Government and the former owners, whose claim to compensation Dow asserts may be barred by the statute of limitations, such equities cannot serve to prevent the application of the correct rule of law as between the Government and Dow in this case. Cf. McKenzie v. Irving Trust Co., 323 U. S. 365, 369.
Reversed.
The Assignment of Claims Act provides that assignments of claims which it would otherwise nullify are nevertheless valid if “they are freely made and executed in the presence of at least two attesting witnesses, after the allowance of such a claim, the ascertainment of the amount due, and the issuing of a warrant for the payment thereof. . . .”
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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. Chief Justice Warren
delivered the opinion of the Court.
We granted certiorari in this case in order to determine whether the Shipping Act, 1916, 39 Stat. 728, as amended, 75 Stat. 762, 46 U. S. C. §§ 801-842 (1964 ed.), precludes the application of the antitrust laws to the shipping industry.
The petitioner in this case is a shipper in foreign commerce that ships substantial quantities of evaporated milk from the West Coast of the United States to the Philippine Islands. The respondent conferences are associations of shipping companies that establish rates for their respective members pursuant to agreements approved by the Federal Maritime Commission. Pacific Westbound Conference is composed of companies operating between the West Coast and the Far East; Far East Conference, of companies operating between the Atlantic and Gulf Coasts and the Far East.
In 1957, Pacific Westbound announced a rate increase of $2.50 per ton for the shipment of evaporated milk to the Philippine Islands. Petitioner attempted to persuade Pacific Westbound to restore the original rate, but Pacific Westbound declined to do so until 1962.
Petitioner filed an antitrust treble-damage action against the respondent conferences and their respective members shortly after the original rate was restored. Petitioner alleged that Pacific Westbound initiated and maintained the rate increase in order to implement certain rate-making agreements between the conferences which have never been approved by the Maritime Commission. Petitioner also alleges that it asked Pacific Westbound to restore the original rate and that Pacific Westbound refused to do so only because Far East would not agree to it. Petitioner claimed that it is entitled to recover treble damages because the implementation of such unapproved agreements is unlawful per se under the antitrust laws.
Respondents moved to dismiss, claiming that the Shipping Act, 1916 repealed all antitrust regulation of the rate-making activities of the shipping industry. The District Court granted the motion. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of the action on the ground that such an action cannot be maintained until the Commission has passed upon the agreements, 336 F. 2d 650. We granted certiorari, 380 U. S. 905, and hold that the implementation of rate-making agreements which have not been approved by the Federal Maritime Commission is subject to the antitrust laws.
The Shipping Act contains an explicit provision exempting activities which are lawful under § 15 of the Act from the Sherman and Clayton Acts. This express provision covers approved agreements, which are lawful under § 15, but does not apply to the implementation of unapproved agreements, which is specifically prohibited by § 15. The creation of an antitrust exemption for rate-making activities which are lawful under the Shipping Act implies that unlawful rate-making activities are not exempt. This Court so interpreted an analogous provision of the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, 50 Stat. 246, 7 U. S. C. § 601 et seq. (1964 ed.), exempting marketing agreements approved by the Secretary of Agriculture from the antitrust laws. The Court there declared that the “explicit provisions requiring official participation and authorizations show beyond question how far Congress intended that the Agricultural Act should operate to render the Sherman Act inapplicable. If Congress had desired to grant any further immunity, Congress doubtless would have said so.” United States v. Borden Co., 308 U. S. 188, 201.
Respondents contend, nevertheless, that the § 15 exemption does not reflect the true intent of the Congress which enacted it. They insist that the structure of the Act and its legislative history demonstrate an unstated legislative purpose to free the shipping industry from the antitrust laws.
We do not believe that the remaining provisions of the Shipping Act can reasonably be construed as an implied repeal of all antitrust regulation of the shipping industry’s rate-making activities. We recently said: “Repeals of the antitrust laws by implication from a regulatory statute are strongly disfavored, and have only been found in cases of plain repugnancy between the antitrust and regulatory provisions.” United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, 374 U. S. 321, 350-351. We have long recognized that the antitrust laws represent a fundamental national economic policy and have therefore concluded that we cannot lightly assume that the enactment of a special regulatory scheme for particular aspects of an industry was intended to render the more general provisions of the antitrust laws wholly inapplicable to that industry. We have, therefore, declined to construe special industry regulations as an implied repeal of the antitrust laws even when the regulatory statute did not contain an accommodation provision such as the exemption provisions of the Shipping and Agricultural Acts. See, e. g., United States v. Philadelphia National Bank, supra.
The historical background of the Shipping Act does not indicate that a different rule of construction should be applied in interpreting that Act. The Congress which enacted the Shipping Act was not hostile to antitrust regulation. On the contrary, the Shipping Act was the end product of an extensive investigation of the shipping industry that was conducted by the Congress which enacted the Clayton Act.
Respondents claim, nonetheless, that the Committee which conducted the investigation must have been hostile to .antitrust regulation of the shipping industry because it concluded that the abolition of the conference system, which the Sherman Act probably required, would not be in the public interest. But the Committee also concluded that the conference system had produced substantial evils and that it should not be permitted to continue without governmental supervision.
The Committee said: “While admitting their many advantages, the Committee is not disposed to recognize steamship agreements and conferences, unless the same are brought under some form of effective government supervision. To permit such agreements without government supervision would mean giving the parties thereto unrestricted right of action. Abuses exist, and the numerous complaints received by the Committee show that they must be recognized.” H. R. Doc. No. 805, 63d Cong., 2d Sess., pp. 417-418.
Therefore, it seems likely that the Committee really only wanted to give the shipping industry a limited antitrust exemption. We do not believe that its purpose would be frustrated by the application of the antitrust laws to the implementation of conference agreements which have not been subjected to public scrutiny and examination by a governmental agency.
But even if the Committee considered the possibility of a complete antitrust exemption at the time of the 1914 Report, the § 15 exemption clearly demonstrates that those who drafted the Shipping Act during the next Congress decided not to give the industry complete antitrust immunity. Since the problem of the application of the antitrust laws to the shipping industry was one of the focal points of the entire inquiry, the exemption provision could not have been a casual afterthought. The language of that provision must have been selected as a matter of deliberate choice in order to indicate the extent to which the industry’s rate-making activities remain subject to the antitrust laws as well as the extent to which those activities are exempted from antitrust regulation.
This Court’s decisions in United States Navigation Co. v. Cunard Steamship Co., 284 U. S. 474, and Far East Conference v. United States, 342 U. S. 570, do not conflict with our interpretation of the Shipping Act. Those cases merely hold that courts must refrain from imposing antitrust sanctions for activities of debatable legality under the Shipping Act in order to avoid the possibility of conflict between the courts and the Commission.
The plaintiffs in the Cunará and Far East cases were seeking to enjoin activities which allegedly implemented unapproved agreements even though the Commission had never determined whether those alleged activities constituted the implementation of unapproved agreements. There was a real risk that the District Court might find that the defendants had implemented unapproved agreements while the Commission might find in some later proceeding that the same activities constituted the implementation of approved agreements. This Court decided that the danger of such a conflict could best be avoided by holding that one tribunal or the other has the exclusive right to make the initial factual determination. Since the Commission has specialized knowledge of the industry, the Court concluded that such primary jurisdiction should be vested in the Commission and accordingly instructed the District Court to refrain from acting until the Commission had ascertained and interpreted the circumstances underlying the legal issues.
The relief requested in the Cunará and Far East cases also created another source of possible conflict. Even if the Commission found that the defendants in those cases had implemented unapproved agreements, the Commission might decide to approve the prospective implementation of those agreements. The Commission would obviously be hampered in the exercise of that power if a court had previously issued an unconditional injunction prohibiting the implementation of the agreements in question. Therefore, the Court concluded that the District Court should not be permitted to issue an unconditional injunction in the absence of a Commission determination disapproving future operations under those agreements.
The considerations which led to our decisions in the Far East and Cunará cases do not require that the shipping industry be totally immunized from antitrust regulation. The Far East and Cunará principles permit courts to subject activities which are clearly unlawful under the Shipping Act to antitrust sanctions so long as the courts refrain from taking action which might interfere with the Commission’s exercise of its lawful powers. The Far East opinion explicitly recognized that this is the case. The Court observed that the Government could reinstate its injunction suit if and when the Commission found that the defendants’ activities were not lawful under the Shipping Act and would not be approved prospectively.
The award of treble damages for past and completed conduct which clearly violated the Shipping Act would certainly not interfere with any future action of the Commission. Although the Commission can approve prospective operations under agreements which have been implemented without approval, respondents concede that the Commission has no power to validate pre-approval implementation of such agreements. Therefore, the Far East and Cunará principles only preclude courts from awarding treble damages when the defendants’ conduct is arguably lawful under the Shipping Act.
The Court of Appeals thought that respondents’ activities were arguably lawful under the Shipping Act. It concluded that respondents’ activities conceivably constituted the implementation of a 1952 agreement between the respondents which had been approved by the Commission. Therefore, the Court of Appeals affirmed the District Court’s order dismissing the action.
We believe that the Court of Appeals erred in dismissing the action. The Court of Appeals apparently thought that this was the proper course because this Court dismissed the action in Far East. However, the Far East opinion indicates that the Court only chose to dismiss that action rather than to stay the proceedings pending Commission action because it found that dismissal would not prejudice the plaintiff’s right to obtain antitrust relief at the appropriate time. That plaintiff was seeking injunctive relief from continuing conduct. Such a suit could easily be reinstituted if and when the Commission determined that the activities in question violated the Shipping Act. But a treble-damage action for past conduct cannot be easily reinstituted at a later time. Such claims are subject to the Statute of Limitations and are likely to be barred by the time the Commission acts. Therefore, we believe that the Court of Appeals should have stayed the action instead of dismissing it.
The Commission completed its own investigation of respondents' activities after certiorari was granted and concluded that its approval of respondents’ 1952 agreement did not cover the implementation of the subsequent agreements which are the basis of petitioner’s treble-damage complaint. An appeal from the Commission’s decision is now pending.
Petitioner’s treble-damage action is based upon the theory that those same subsequent rate-making agreements are unlawful per se under the antitrust laws.
Petitioner participated in the proceedings before the Commission, but petitioner did not ask for reparations under the Shipping Act and, therefore, could not be accorded any. Petitioner’s failure to seek Shipping Act reparations does not affect its rights under the antitrust laws. The rights which petitioner claims under the antitrust laws are entirely collateral to those which petitioner might have sought under the Shipping Act. This does not suggest that petitioner might have sought recovery under both, but petitioner did have its choice.
Therefore, we reverse the order dismissing this action and remand the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California with instructions to stay the action pending the final outcome of the Shipping Act proceedings and then to proceed in a manner consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Section 15, as set forth in 46 U. S. C. § 814, provides in part:
“Any agreement and any modification or cancellation of any agreement not approved, or disapproved, by the Commission shall be unlawful, and agreements, modifications, and cancellations shall be lawful only when and as long as approved by the Commission; before approval or after disapproval it shall be unlawful to carry out in whole or in part, directly or indirectly, any such agreement, modification, or cancellation; except that tariff rates, fares, and charges, and classifications, rules, and regulations explanatory thereof (including changes in special rates and charges covered by section 813a of this title which do not involve a change in the spread between such rates and charges and the rates and charges applicable to non-contract shippers) agreed upon by approved conferences, and changes and amendments thereto, if otherwise in accordance with law, shall be permitted to take effect without prior approval upon compliance with the publication and filing requirements of section 817 (b) of this title and with the provisions of any regulations the Commission may adopt.
“Every agreement, modification, or cancellation lawful under this section, or permitted under section 813a of this title, shall be excepted from the provisions of sections 1-11 and 15 of Title 15, and amendments and Acts supplementary thereto.
“Whoever violates any provision of this section or of section 813a of this title shall be liable to a penalty of not more than $1,000 for each day such violation continues, to be recovered by the United States in a civil action. . . .”
The Shipping Act, 1916 was passed following an exhaustive investigation into shipping combinations undertaken by the House Committee on Merchant Marine and Fisheries under the chairmanship of Congressman Alexander. That Committee issued its Report on Steamship Agreements and Affiliations in the American Foreign and Domestic Trade, H. R. Doc. No. 805, 63d Cong., 2d Sess. (“Alexander Report”) in 1914.
Respondents contend that treble-damage actions will frustrate one of the Committee’s purposes. The Committee found, however, that the conferences had discriminated among shippers and concluded that such discrimination should be eliminated. Respondents assert that treble-damage awards for shippers are equivalent to rebates and that shippers will receive unequal “rebates” because different courts and juries will inevitably apply different measures of damages. Therefore, they conclude that treble-damage actions will frustrate the Shipping Act policy of equality of treatment for shippers.
We believe that Congress was concerned with assuring equality of treatment by the conferences, not with equality of treatment by juries in collateral proceedings. There is no reason to believe that Congress would want to deprive all shippers of their right to treble damages merely to assure that some shippers do not obtain more generous awards than others.
The Court said:
“Having concluded that initial submission to the Federal Maritime Board is required, we may either order the case retained on the District Court docket pending the Board’s action ... or order dismissal of the proceeding brought in the District Court. . . . We believe that no purpose will here be served to hold the present action in abeyance in the District Court while the proceeding before the Board and subsequent judicial review or enforcement of its order are being pursued. A similar suit is easily initiated later, if appropriate.” 342 U. S. 570, 576-577.
If the Far East decision had held that the activities in question could never be subjected to the antitrust laws under any circumstances, there would obviously have been no reason to consider whether the proceedings should be stayed or dismissed. Thus, the Far East opinion effectively determined that the implementation of unapproved rate-making agreements is subject to antitrust regulation.
See note 4, supra.
The Federal Maritime Commission commenced an investigation in 1959 to determine whether the 1952 agreement between respondents constituted the full agreement between the parties. This investigation culminated in the issuance of the Commission's Report on Joint Agreement Between Member Lines of the Far East Con-jerence and the Member Lines of the Pacific Westbound Conference, Federal Maritime Commission Docket No. 872, July 28, 1965, rehearing denied, November 1, 1965.
The Commission found that the respondents had entered into and implemented a number of joint rate-making agreements after the Commission approved the 1952 agreement for consultation and that none of the subsequent agreements had been filed for approval. The Commission concluded that its approval of the 1952 agreement did not cover any of the subsequent agreements and, therefore, that respondents had violated the Shipping Act by implementing those subsequent agreements.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 ALITO delivered the opinion of the Court.
We return to a subject that we addressed in Petrella v. Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, Inc., 572 U.S. ----, 134 S.Ct. 1962, 188 L.Ed.2d 979 (2014) : the relationship between the equitable defense of laches and claims for damages that are brought within the time allowed by a statute of limitations. In Petrella, we held that laches cannot preclude a claim for damages incurred within the Copyright Act's 3-year limitations period. Id ., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1967. "[L]aches," we explained, "cannot be invoked to bar legal relief" "[i]n the face of a statute of limitations enacted by Congress." Id ., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1974. The question in this case is whether Petrella 's reasoning applies to a similar provision of the Patent Act, 35 U.S.C. § 286. We hold that it does.
I
Petitioners SCA Hygiene Products Aktiebolag and SCA Personal Care, Inc. (collectively, SCA), manufacture and sell adult incontinence products. In October 2003, SCA sent a letter to respondents (collectively, First Quality), alleging that First Quality was making and selling products that infringed SCA's rights under U.S. Patent No. 6,375,646 B1 ('646 patent). App. 54a. First Quality responded that one of its patents- U.S. Patent No. 5,415,649 (Watanabe patent) -antedated the '646 patent and revealed "the same diaper construction." Id., at 53a. As a result, First Quality maintained, the '646 patent was invalid and could not support an infringement claim. Ibid. SCA sent First Quality no further correspondence regarding the '646 patent, and First Quality proceeded to develop and market its products.
In July 2004, without notifying First Quality, SCA asked the Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to initiate a reexamination proceeding to determine whether the '646 patent was valid in light of the Watanabe patent. Id ., at 49a-51a. Three years later, in March 2007, the PTO issued a certificate confirming the validity of the '646 patent.
In August 2010, SCA filed this patent infringement action against First Quality. First Quality moved for summary judgment based on laches and equitable estoppel, and the District Court granted that motion on both grounds. 2013 WL 3776173, *12 (W.D.Ky., July 16, 2013).
SCA appealed to the Federal Circuit, but before the Federal Circuit panel issued its decision, this Court decided Petrella. The panel nevertheless held, based on a Federal Circuit precedent, A.C. Aukerman Co. v. R.L. Chaides Constr. Co., 960 F.2d 1020 (1992) (en banc), that SCA's claims were barred by laches.
The Federal Circuit then reheard the case en banc in order to reconsider Aukerman in light of Petrella . But in a 6-to-5 decision, the en banc court reaffirmed Aukerman 's holding that laches can be asserted to defeat a claim for damages incurred within the 6-year period set out in the Patent Act. As it had in Aukerman, the en banc court concluded that Congress, in enacting the Patent Act, had "codified a laches defense" that "barred recovery of legal remedies." 807 F.3d 1311, 1323-1329 (2015). Judge Hughes, joined by four other judges, dissented. Id., at 1337-1342 (opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part). We granted certiorari. 578 U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 1824, 194 L.Ed.2d 829 (2016).
II
Laches is "a defense developed by courts of equity" to protect defendants against "unreasonable, prejudicial delay in commencing suit." Petrella, supra, at ----, ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1967, 1973. See also 1 D. Dobbs, Law of Remedies § 2.3(5), p. 89 (2d ed. 1993) (Dobbs) ("The equitable doctrine of laches bars the plaintiff whose unreasonable delay in prosecuting a claim or protecting a right has worked a prejudice to the defendant"). Before the separate systems of law and equity were merged in 1938, the ordinary rule was that laches was available only in equity courts. See County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of N. Y., 470 U.S. 226, 244, n. 16, 105 S.Ct. 1245, 84 L.Ed.2d 169 (1985). This case turns on the application of the defense to a claim for damages, a quintessential legal remedy. We discussed this subject at length in Petrella .
Petrella arose out of a copyright dispute relating to the film Raging Bull. 572 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1971. The Copyright Act's statute of limitations requires a copyright holder claiming infringement to file suit "within three years after the claim accrued." 17 U.S.C. § 507(b). In Petrella, the plaintiff sought relief for alleged acts of infringement that accrued within that 3-year period, but the lower courts nevertheless held that laches barred her claims. See 695 F.3d 946 (C.A.9 2012). We reversed, holding that laches cannot defeat a damages claim brought within the period prescribed by the Copyright Act's statute of limitations. Petrella, 572 U.S., at ---- - ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1972-1975. And in so holding, we spoke in broad terms. See id ., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1974 ("[I]n the face of a statute of limitations enacted by Congress, laches cannot be invoked to bar legal relief").
Petrella 's holding rested on both separation-of-powers principles and the traditional role of laches in equity. Laches provides a shield against untimely claims, id., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1977, and statutes of limitations serve a similar function. When Congress enacts a statute of limitations, it speaks directly to the issue of timeliness and provides a rule for determining whether a claim is timely enough to permit relief. Id., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1972-1973. The enactment of a statute of limitations necessarily reflects a congressional decision that the timeliness of covered claims is better judged on the basis of a generally hard and fast rule rather than the sort of case-specific judicial determination that occurs when a laches defense is asserted. Therefore, applying laches within a limitations period specified by Congress would give judges a "legislation-overriding" role that is beyond the Judiciary's power. Id., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1974. As we stressed in Petrella, "courts are not at liberty to jettison Congress' judgment on the timeliness of suit." Id., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1967.
Applying laches within the limitations period would also clash with the purpose for which the defense developed in the equity courts. As Petrella recounted, the "principal application" of laches "was, and remains, to claims of an equitable cast for which the Legislature has provided no fixed time limitation." Id., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1973 ; see also R. Weaver, E. Shoben, & M. Kelly, Principles of Remedies Law 21 (2d ed. 2011); 1 Dobbs § 2.4(4), at 104; 1 J. Story, Commentaries on Equity Jurisprudence § 55(a ), p. 73 (2d ed. 1839). Laches is a gap-filling doctrine, and where there is a statute of limitations, there is no gap to fill. Petrella, supra, at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1974-1975 ; see also 1 Dobbs § 2.4(4), at 108 ("[I]f the plaintiff has done only what she is permitted to do by statute, and has not misled the defendant [so as to trigger equitable estoppel], the basis for barring the plaintiff seems to have disappeared").
With Petrella 's principles in mind, we turn to the present dispute.
III
A
Although the relevant statutory provisions in Petrella and this case are worded differently, Petrella 's reasoning easily fits the provision at issue here. As noted, the statute in Petrella precludes a civil action for copyright infringement "unless it is commenced within three years after the claim accrued." 17 U.S.C. § 507(b). We saw in this language a congressional judgment that a claim filed within three years of accrual cannot be dismissed on timeliness grounds. 572 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1972-1973 ; see also id., at ---- - ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1974-1975.
The same reasoning applies in this case. Section 286 of the Patent Act provides: "Except as otherwise provided by law, no recovery shall be had for any infringement committed more than six years prior to the filing of the complaint or counterclaim for infringement in the action." By the logic of Petrella, we infer that this provision represents a judgment by Congress that a patentee may recover damages for any infringement committed within six years of the filing of the claim.
B
First Quality contends that this case differs from Petrella because § 286 of the Patent Act is not a true statute of limitations. A true statute of limitations, we are told, "runs forward from the date a cause of action accrues," but § 286"runs backward from the time of suit." Brief for Respondents 41.
Petrella cannot reasonably be distinguished on this ground. First Quality thinks it critical that § 286"runs backward from the time of suit," Brief for Respondents 41, but Petrella described the Copyright Act's statute of limitations in almost identical terms. We said that this provision "allows plaintiffs ... to gain retrospective relief running only three years back from the date the complaint was filed ."
572 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1970 (emphasis added). See also id ., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1973 ("[A] successful plaintiff can gain retrospective relief only three years back from the time of suit"). And we described the Copyright Act's statute of limitations as "a three-year look-back limitations period." Id., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1968.
First Quality contends that the application of a true statute of limitations, like the defense of laches (but unlike § 286 ), takes into account the fairness of permitting the adjudication of a particular plaintiff's claim. First Quality argues as follows: "When Congress enacts [a true statute of limitations], it can be viewed as having made a considered judgment about how much delay may occur after a plaintiff knows of a cause of action (i.e., after accrual) before the plaintiff must bring suit-thus potentially leaving no room for judges to evaluate the reasonableness of a plaintiff's delay on a case-by-case basis under laches." Brief for Respondents 42. According to First Quality, § 286 of the Patent Act is different because it "turns only on when the infringer is sued, regardless of when the patentee learned of the infringement." Ibid .
This argument misunderstands the way in which statutes of limitations generally work. First Quality says that the accrual of a claim, the event that triggers the running of a statute of limitations, occurs when "a plaintiff knows of a cause of action," ibid., but that is not ordinarily true. As we wrote in Petrella, "[a] claim ordinarily accrues 'when [a] plaintiff has a complete and present cause of action.' " 572 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1969 ; see Graham County Soil & Water Conservation Dist. v. United States ex rel. Wilson, 545 U.S. 409, 418-419, 125 S.Ct. 2444, 162 L.Ed.2d 390 (2005). While some claims are subject to a "discovery rule" under which the limitations period begins when the plaintiff discovers or should have discovered the injury giving rise to the claim, that is not a universal feature of statutes of limitations. See, e.g.,ibid. (limitations period in 31 U.S.C. § 3731(b)(1) begins to run when the cause of action accrues); TRW Inc. v. Andrews, 534 U.S. 19, 28, 122 S.Ct. 441, 151 L.Ed.2d 339 (2001) (same with regard to 15 U.S.C. § 1681p ). And in Petrella, we specifically noted that "we have not passed on the question" whether the Copyright Act's statute of limitations is governed by such a rule. 572 U.S., at ----, n. 4, 134 S.Ct., at 1969, n. 4.
For these reasons, Petrella cannot be dismissed as applicable only to what First Quality regards as true statutes of limitations. At least for present purposes, nothing depends on this debatable taxonomy. Compare Automobile Workers v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp., 383 U.S. 696, 704, 86 S.Ct. 1107, 16 L.Ed.2d 192 (1966) (describing § 286 as "enacting a uniform period of limitations"); 1 Dobbs § 2.4(4), at 107, and n. 33 (same), with A. Stucki Co. v. Buckeye Steel Castings Co., 963 F.2d 360, 363, n. 3 (C.A.Fed.1992) ( Section 286"is not, strictly speaking, a statute of limitations"); Standard Oil Co. v. Nippon Shokubai Kagaku Co., Ltd., 754 F.2d 345, 348 (C.A.Fed.1985) ("[ Section] 286 cannot properly be called a 'statute of limitations' in the sense that it defeats the right to bring suit").
C
The Federal Circuit based its decision on a different footing. Section 286 of the Patent Act begins with the phrase "[e]xcept as otherwise provided by law," and according to the Federal Circuit, § 282 of the Act is a provision that provides otherwise. In its view, § 282 creates an exception to § 286 by codifying laches as a defense to all patent infringement claims, including claims for damages suffered within § 286's 6-year period.
807 F.3d, at 1329-1330. Section 282(b), which does not specifically mention laches, provides in relevant part as follows:
"The following shall be defenses in any action involving the validity or infringement of a patent and shall be pleaded:
"(1) Noninfringement, absence of liability for infringement or unenforceability."
The en banc majority below never identified which word or phrase in § 282 codifies laches as a defense, but First Quality argues that laches falls within § 282(b)(1) because laches is a defense based on "unenforceability." Brief for Respondents 28-33.
SCA disputes this interpretation of § 282(b)(1), arguing that laches does not make a patent categorically unenforceable. Reply Brief 6-8; see Aukerman, 960 F.2d, at 1030 ("Recognition of laches as a defense ... does not affect the general enforceability of the patent against others"). We need not decide this question. Even if we assume for the sake of argument that § 282(b)(1) incorporates a laches defense of some dimension, it does not necessarily follow that this defense may be invoked to bar a claim for damages incurred within the period set out in § 286. Indeed, it would be exceedingly unusual, if not unprecedented, if Congress chose to include in the Patent Act both a statute of limitations for damages and a laches provision applicable to a damages claim. Neither the Federal Circuit, nor First Quality, nor any of First Quality's amici has identified a single federal statute that provides such dual protection against untimely claims.
D
In holding that Congress codified a damages-limiting laches defense, the Federal Circuit relied on patent cases decided by the lower courts prior to the enactment of the Patent Act. After surveying these cases, the Federal Circuit concluded that by 1952 there was a well-established practice of applying laches to such damages claims and that Congress, in adopting § 282, must have chosen to codify such a defense in § 282(b)(1). 807 F.3d, at 1321-1329. First Quality now presses a similar argument. We have closely examined the cases on which the Federal Circuit and First Quality rely, and we find that they are insufficient to support the suggested interpretation of the Patent Act. The most prominent feature of the relevant legal landscape at the time of enactment of the Patent Act was the well-established general rule, often repeated by this Court, that laches cannot be invoked to bar a claim for damages incurred within a limitations period specified by Congress. See Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 392, 395, 66 S.Ct. 582, 90 L.Ed. 743 (1946) ("If Congress explicitly puts a limit upon the time for enforcing a right which it created, there is an end of the matter"); United States v. Mack, 295 U.S. 480, 489, 55 S.Ct. 813, 79 L.Ed. 1559 (1935) ("Laches within the term of the statute of limitations is no defense at law"); Wehrman v. Conklin, 155 U.S. 314, 326, 15 S.Ct. 129, 39 L.Ed. 167 (1894) ("Though a good defense in equity, laches is no defense at law. If the plaintiff at law has brought his action within the period fixed by the statute of limitations, no court can deprive him of his right to proceed"); Cross v. Allen, 141 U.S. 528, 537, 12 S.Ct. 67, 35 L.Ed. 843 (1891) ("So long as the demands secured were not barred by the statute of limitations, there could be no laches in prosecuting a suit"). Petrella confirmed and restated this long-standing rule. 572 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1973 ("[T]his Court has cautioned against invoking laches to bar legal relief"). If Congress examined the relevant legal landscape when it adopted 35 U.S.C. § 282, it could not have missed our cases endorsing this general rule.
The Federal Circuit and First Quality dismiss the significance of this Court's many reiterations of the general rule because they were not made in patent cases. But as the dissenters below noted, "[p]atent law is governed by the same common-law principles, methods of statutory interpretation, and procedural rules as other areas of civil litigation." 807 F.3d, at 1333 (opinion of Hughes, J.).
In light of the general rule regarding the relationship between laches and statutes of limitations, nothing less than a broad and unambiguous consensus of lower court decisions could support the inference that § 282(b)(1) codifies a very different patent-law-specific rule. No such consensus is to be found.
IV
The pre-1952 cases on which First Quality relies fall into three groups: (1) cases decided by equity courts before 1938; (2) cases decided by law courts before 1938; and (3) cases decided after the merger of equity and law in 1938. We will discuss each group separately.
A
Pre-1938 equity cases
The pre-1938 equity cases are unpersuasive for several, often overlapping reasons. Many do not even reveal whether the plaintiff asked for damages. Indeed, some say nothing at all about the form of relief that was sought, see, e.g., Cummings v. Wilson & Willard Mfg. Co., 4 F.2d 453 (C.A.9 1925), and others state only that the plaintiff wanted an accounting of profits, e.g., Westco-Chippewa Pump Co. v. Delaware Elec. & Supply Co., 64 F.2d 185, 186 (C.A.3 1933) ; Wolf Mineral Process Corp. v. Minerals Separation North Am. Corp., 18 F.2d 483, 484 (C.A.4 1927). The equitable remedy of an accounting, however, was not the same as damages. The remedy of damages seeks to compensate the victim for its loss, whereas the remedy of an accounting, which Congress abolished in the patent context in 1946, sought disgorgement of ill-gotten profits. See Birdsall v. Coolidge, 93 U.S. 64, 68-69, 23 L.Ed. 802 (1876) ; 1 Dobbs § 4.3(5), at 611 ("Accounting holds the defendant liable for his profits, not for damages"); A. Walker, Patent Laws § 573, p. 401 (1886) (distinguishing between the two remedies); G. Curtis, Law of Patents § 341(a ), p. 461 (4th ed. 1873); 2 J. Pomeroy, Treatise on Equitable Remedies § 568, p. 977 (1905).
First Quality argues that courts sometimes used the term "accounting" imprecisely to refer to both an accounting of profits and a calculation of damages, Brief for Respondents 19-20, but even if that is true, this loose usage shows only that a reference to "accounting" might refer to damages. For that reason, the Federal Circuit did not rely on cases seeking only an accounting, 807 F.3d, at 1326, n. 7, and we likewise exclude such cases from our analysis.
Turning to the cases that actually refer to damages, we note that many of the cases merely suggest in dicta that laches might limit recovery of damages. See, e.g., Hartford-Empire Co. v. Swindell Bros., 96 F.2d 227, 233, modified on reh'g, 99 F.2d 61 (C.A.4 1938). Such dicta "settles nothing." Jama v. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, 543 U.S. 335, 351, n. 12, 125 S.Ct. 694, 160 L.Ed.2d 708 (2005). See also Hartford Underwriters Ins. Co. v. Union Planters Bank, N. A., 530 U.S. 1, 9-10, 120 S.Ct. 1942, 147 L.Ed.2d 1 (2000) ; Metropolitan Stevedore Co. v. Rambo, 515 U.S. 291, 300, 115 S.Ct. 2144, 132 L.Ed.2d 226 (1995).
As for the cases in which laches was actually held to bar a claim for damages, e.g., Wolf, Sayer & Heller v. United States Slicing Mach. Co., 261 F. 195, 197-198 (C.A.7 1919) ; A.R. Mosler & Co. v. Lurie, 209 F. 364, 369-370 (C.A.2 1913), these cases are too few to establish a settled, national consensus. See Hartford Underwriters, supra, at 10, 120 S.Ct. 1942.
Moreover, the most that can possibly be gathered from a pre-1938 equity case is that laches could defeat a damages claim in an equity court, not that the defense could entirely prevent a patentee from recovering damages. Before 1870, a patentee wishing to obtain both an injunction against future infringement and damages for past infringement was required to bring two suits, one in an equity court (where injunctive relief but not damages was available), and one in a court of law (where damages but not injunctive relief could be sought). See Beauchamp, The First Patent Litigation Explosion, 125 Yale L.J. 848, 913-914 (2016). To rectify this situation, Congress enacted a law in 1870 authorizing equity courts to award damages in patent-infringement actions. Rev. Stat. § 4921. And although statutes of limitations did not generally apply in equity, Congress in 1897 enacted a statute that, like the current § 286, imposed a 6-year limitations period for damages claims and made that statute applicable in both law and equity. § 6, 29 Stat. 694. Pointing to cases decided between 1897 and 1938 in which an equity court permitted a defendant in an infringement case to invoke the defense of laches, First Quality contends that Congress, aware of these cases, assumed that the 1952 Act would likewise allow a defendant in an infringement case to claim laches with respect to a claim for damages occurring within a limitations period.
This argument overlooks the fact that a patentee, during the period in question, could always sue for damages in law, where the equitable doctrine of laches did not apply, and could thus avoid any possible laches defense. Thus, accepting First Quality's argument would not return patentees to the position they held from 1897 to 1938. Instead, it would go much further and permit laches entirely to defeat claims like SCA's.
B
Pre-1938 claims at law
First Quality cites three Court of Appeals cases in which laches was raised in a proceeding at law and in which, according to First Quality, the defense was held to bar a damages claim. See Universal Coin Lock Co. v. American Sanitary Lock Co., 104 F.2d 781 (C.A.7 1939) ; Banker v. Ford Motor Co., 69 F.2d 665 (C.A.3 1934) ; Ford v. Huff, 296 F. 652 (C.A.5 1924). But even if all of these cases squarely held that laches could be applied to a damages claim at law within the limitations period, they would still constitute only a handful of decisions out of the corpus of pre-1952 patent cases, and that would not be enough to overcome the presumption that Congress legislates against the background of general common-law principles. See H. McClintock, Handbook of the Principles of Equity § 28, p. 75 (2d ed. 1948) ("The majority of the courts which have considered the question have refused to enjoin an action at law on the ground of the laches of the plaintiff at law").
In any event, these cases, like the equity cases, offer minimal support for First Quality's position. Not one of these cases even mentions the statute of limitations. One of the three, Ford, is not even a patent infringement case; it is a breach-of-contract case arising out of a patent dispute, 296 F., at 654, and it is unclear whether the ground for decision was laches or equitable estoppel. See 807 F.3d, at 1340 (opinion of Hughes, J.). Another, Universal Coin, applied laches to a legal damages claim without any analysis of the propriety of doing so. 104 F.2d, at 783.
First Quality protests that the paucity of supporting cases at law should not count against its argument since very few patent-infringement cases were brought at law after 1870. Brief for Respondents 25-26. But the fact remains that it is First Quality's burden to show that Congress departed from the traditional common-law rule highlighted in our cases.
C
Post-merger cases
First Quality claims that courts continued to apply laches to damages claims after the merger of law and equity in 1938, but First Quality's evidence is scant. During this period, two Courts of Appeals stated in dicta that laches could bar legal damages claims. See Chicago Pneumatic Tool Co. v. Hughes Tool Co., 192 F.2d 620, 625 (C.A.10 1951) ; Shaffer v. Rector Well Equip. Co., 155 F.2d 344, 347 (C.A.5 1946). And two others actually held that laches could bar a damages claim. See, e.g., Brennan v. Hawley Prods. Co., 182 F.2d 945, 948 (C.A.7 1950) ; Lukens Steel Co. v. American Locomotive Co., 197 F.2d 939, 941 (C.A.2 1952) (alternative holding). This does not constitute a settled, uniform practice of applying laches to damages claims.
After surveying the pre-1952 case law, we are not convinced that Congress, in enacting § 282 of the Patent Act, departed from the general rule regarding the application of laches to damages suffered within the time for filing suit set out in a statute of limitations.
V
First Quality's additional arguments do not require extended discussion. First Quality points to post-1952 Court of Appeals decisions holding that laches can be invoked as a defense against a damages claim. Noting that Congress has amended § 282 without altering the " 'unenforceability' " language that is said to incorporate a laches defense, First Quality contends that Congress has implicitly ratified these decisions. Brief for Respondents 35-36.
We reject this argument. Nothing that Congress has done since 1952 has altered the meaning of § 282. See Central Bank of Denver, N.A. v. First Interstate Bank of Denver, N. A., 511 U.S. 164, 186, 114 S.Ct. 1439, 128 L.Ed.2d 119 (1994) ; West Virginia Univ. Hospitals, Inc. v. Casey, 499 U.S. 83, 100, 101, and n. 7, 111 S.Ct. 1138, 113 L.Ed.2d 68 (1991).
First Quality and its supporting amici also make various policy arguments, but we cannot overrule Congress's judgment based on our own policy views. We note, however, as we did in Petrella, that the doctrine of equitable estoppel provides protection against some of the problems that First Quality highlights, namely, unscrupulous patentees inducing potential targets of infringement suits to invest in the production of arguably infringing products. 572 U.S., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1972. Indeed, the Federal Circuit held that there are genuine disputes of material fact as to whether equitable estoppel bars First Quality's claims in this very case. See 807 F.3d, at 1333.
* * *
Laches cannot be interposed as a defense against damages where the infringement occurred within the period prescribed by § 286. The judgment of the Court of Appeals is vacated in part, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
The panel reversed the District Court's holding on equitable estoppel, concluding that there are genuine disputes of material fact relating to that defense. 767 F.3d 1339, 1351 (C.A.Fed.2014).
The dissenting judges concurred in the portion of the majority opinion relating to the application of laches to equitable relief. 807 F.3d, at 1333, n. 1 (opinion of Hughes, J.); see also id., at 1331-1333 (majority opinion). We do not address that aspect of the Federal Circuit's judgment. Nor do we address the Federal Circuit's reversal of the District Court's equitable estoppel holding. Id., at 1333 (reinstating original panel holding on equitable estoppel).
"The federal courts always had equity powers as well as law power, but they operated, until the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, by distinctly separating equity cases and even had separate equity rules." 1 Dobbs § 2.6(1), at 148, n. 2; see also Gulfstream Aerospace Corp. v. Mayacamas Corp., 485 U.S. 271, 279, 108 S.Ct. 1133, 99 L.Ed.2d 296 (1988). It is in this sense that we refer in this opinion to federal courts as equity or law courts.
The dissent argues that there is a "gap" in the statutory scheme because the Patent Act's statute of limitations might permit a patentee to wait until an infringing product has become successful before suing for infringement. Post, at 967 - 968 (opinion of BREYER, J.). We rejected a version of this argument in Petrella, 572 U.S., at ---- - ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1975-1976, and we do so here. The dissent's argument implies that, insofar as the lack of a laches defense could produce policy outcomes judges deem undesirable, there is a "gap" for laches to fill, notwithstanding the presence of a statute of limitations. That is precisely the kind of "legislation-overriding" judicial role that Petrella rightly disclaimed. Id., at ----, 134 S.Ct., at 1975.
Because we conclude that First Quality fails to show that there was a special laches rule in the patent context, we need not address whether it is ever reasonable to assume that Congress legislated against the background of a lower court consensus rather than the contrary decisions of this Court. Cf. 807 F.3d, at 1338 (opinion of Hughes, J.) ("For even if there were differing views in the lower [federal] courts, it would be nearly impossible to conclude that there was a uniform understanding of the common law that was inconsistent with Supreme Court precedent. In our judicial system, the Supreme Court's understanding is controlling").
See 60 Stat. 778; see also Aro Mfg. Co. v. Convertible Top Replacement Co., 377 U.S. 476, 505, 84 S.Ct. 1526, 12 L.Ed.2d 457 (1964).
The dissent misunderstands this point and thinks that we dismiss the relevance of the equity cases because they applied laches "to equitable claims without statutes of limitations." Post, at 969. But we are well aware that a statute of limitations applied in equity when these cases arose. See supra, at 965.
For the same reason, the dissent misses the mark when it demands that we cite cases "holding that laches could not bar a patent claim for damages." Post, at 971.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 the issue of the constitutionality, under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, of the cognovit note authorized by Ohio Rev. Code § 2323.13.
The cognovit is the ancient legal device by which the debtor consents in advance to the holder’s obtaining a judgment without notice or hearing, and possibly even with the appearance, on the debtor’s behalf, of an attorney designated by the holder. It was known at least as far back as Blackstone’s time. 3 W. Blackstone, Commentaries *397. In a case applying Ohio law, it was said that the purpose of the cognovit is “to permit the note holder to obtain judgment without a trial of possible defenses which the signers of the notes might assert.” Hadden v. Rumsey Products, Inc., 196 F. 2d 92, 96 (CA2 1952). And long ago the cognovit method was described by the Chief Justice of New Jersey as “the loosest way of binding a man's property that ever was devised in any civilized country.” Alderman v. Diament, 7 N. J. L. 197, 198 (1824). Mr. Dickens noted it with obvious disfavor. Pickwick Papers, c. 47. The cognovit has been the subject of comment, much of it critical.
Statutory treatment varies widely. Some States specifically authorize the cognovit. Others disallow it. Some go so far as to make its employment a misdemeanor. The majority, however, regulate its use and many prohibit the device in small loans and consumer sales.
In Ohio the cognovit has long been recognized by both statute and court decision. 1 Chase’s Statutes, c. 243, §34 (1810); Osborn v. Hawley, 19 Ohio 130 (1850); Marsden v. Soper, 11 Ohio St. 503 (1860); Watson v. Paine, 25 Ohio St. 340 (1874); Clements v. Hull, 35 Ohio St. 141 (1878). The State’s courts, however, give the instrument a strict and limited construction. See Peoples Banking Co. v. Brumfield Hay & Grain Co., 172 Ohio St. 545, 548, 179 N. E. 2d 53, 55 (1961).
This Court apparently has decided only two cases concerning cognovit notes, and both have come here in a full faith and credit context. National Exchange Bank v. Wiley, 195 U. S. 257 (1904); Grover & Baker Sewing Machine Co. v. Radcliffe, 137 U. S. 287 (1890). See American Surety Co. v. Baldwin, 287 U. S. 156 (1932).
I
The argument that a provision of this kind is offensive to current notions of Fourteenth Amendment due process is, at first glance, an appealing one. However, here, as in nearly every case, facts are important. We state them chronologically:
1. Petitioners D. H. Overmyer Co., Inc., of Ohio, and D. H. Overmyer Co., Inc., of Kentucky, are segments of a warehousing enterprise that counsel at one point in the litigation described as having built “in three years . . . 180 warehouses in thirty states.” The corporate structure is complex. Because the identity and individuality of the respective corporate entities are not relevant here, we refer to the enterprise in the aggregate as “Overmyer.”
2. In 1966 a corporation, which then was or at a later date became an Overmyer affiliate, executed a contract with the respondent Frick Co. for the manufacture and installation by Frick, at a cost of $223,000, of an automatic refrigeration system in a warehouse under construction in Toledo, Ohio.
3. Overmyer fell behind in the progress payments due from it under the contract. By the end of September 1966 approximately $120,000 was overdue. Because of this delinquency, Frick stopped its work on October 10. Frick indicated to Overmyer, however, by letter on that date, its willingness to accept an offer from Overmyer to pay $35,000 in cash “provided the balance can be evidenced by interest-bearing judgment notes.”
4. On November 3 Frick filed three mechanic’s liens against the Toledo property for a total of $194,031, the amount of the contract price allegedly unpaid at that time.
5. The parties continued to negotiate. In January 1967 Frick, in accommodation, agreed to complete the work upon an immediate cash payment of 10% ($19,-403.10) and payment of the balance of $174,627.90 in 12 equal monthly installments with 6%% interest per annum. On February 17 Overmyer made the 10% payment and executed an installment note calling for 12 monthly payments of $15,498.23 each beginning March 1, 1967. This note contained no confession-of-judgment provision. It recited that it did not operate as a waiver of the mechanic’s liens, but it also stated that Frick would forgo enforcement of those lien rights so long as there was no default under the note.
6. Frick resumed its work, completed it, and sent Over-myer a notice of completion. On March 17 Overmyer’s vice president acknowledged in writing that the system had been “completed in a satisfactory manner” and that it was “accepted as per the contract conditions.”
7. Subsequently, Overmyer requested additional time to make the installment payments. It also asked that Frick release the mechanic’s liens against the Toledo property. Negotiations between the parties at that time finally resulted in an agreement in June 1967 that (a) Overmyer would execute a new note for the then-outstanding balance of $130,997 and calling for payment of that amount in 21 equal monthly installments of $6,891.85 each, beginning June 1, 1967, and ending in February 1969, two years after Frick’s completion of the work (as contrasted with the $15,498.23 monthly installments ending February 1968 specified by the first note); (b) the interest rate would be 6%< rather than 6%%; (c) Frick would release the three mechanic’s liens; (d) Overmyer would execute second mortgages, with Frick as mortgagee, on property in Tampa and Louisville; and (e) Overmyer’s new note would contain a confession-of-judgment clause. The new note, signed in Ohio by the two petitioners here, was delivered to Frick some months later by letter dated October 2, 1967, accompanied by five checks for the June through October payments. This letter was from Overmyer’s general counsel to Frick’s counsel. The second mortgages were executed and recorded, and the mechanic’s liens were released. The note contained the following judgment clause:
“The undersigned hereby authorize any attorney designated by the Holder hereof to appear in. any court of record in the State of Ohio, and waive this issuance and service of process, and confess a judgment against the undersigned in favor of the Holder of this Note, for the principal of this Note plus interest if the undersigned defaults in any payment of principal and interest and if said default shall continue for the period of fifteen (15) days.”
8. On June 1, 1968, Overmyer ceased making the monthly payments under the new note and, asserting a breach by Frick of the original contract, proceeded to institute a diversity action against Frick in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Overmyer sought damages in excess of $170,000 and a stay of all proceedings by Frick under the note. On July 5' Judge Frankel vacated an ex parte stay he had theretofore granted. On August 7 Judge Mansfield denied Overmyer’s motion for reinstatement of the stay. He concluded, “Plaintiff has failed to show any likelihood that it will prevail upon the merits. On the contrary, extensive documentary evidence furnished by defendant indicates that the plaintiff’s action lacks merit.”
9. On July 12, without prior notice to Overmyer, Frick caused judgment to be entered against Overmyer (specifically against the two petitioners here) in the Common Pleas Court of Lucas County, Ohio. The judgment amount was the balance then remaining on the note, namely, $62,370, plus interest from May 1, 1968, and costs. This judgment was effected through the appearance of an Ohio attorney on behalf of the defendants (petitioners here) in that Ohio action. His appearance was “by virtue of the warrant of attorney” in the second note. The lawyer waived the issuance and service of process and confessed the judgment. This attorney was not known to Overmyer, had not been retained by Over-myer, and had not communicated with the petitioners prior to the entry of the judgment.
10. As required by Ohio Rev. Code § 2323.13 (C), the clerk of the state court, on July 16, mailed notices of the entry of the judgment on the cognovit note to Over-myer at addresses in New York, Ohio, and Kentucky.
11. On July 22 Overmyer, by counsel, filed in the Ohio court motions to stay execution and for a new trial. The latter motion referred to “[ijrregularity in the proceedings of the prevailing party and of the court . . . On August 6, Overmyer filed a motion to vacate judgment and tendered an answer and counterclaim alleging breach of contract by Frick, and damages. A hearing was held. Both sides submitted affidavits. Those submitted by Overmyer asserted lack of notice before judgment and alleged a breach of contract by Frick. A copy of Judge Mansfield’s findings, conclusions, and opinion was placed in the record. On November 16 the court overruled each motion.
12. Overmyer appealed to the Court of Appeals for Lucas County, Ohio, specifically asserting deprivation of due process violative of the Ohio and Federal Constitutions. That court affirmed with a brief journal entry.
13. The Supreme Court of Ohio “sua sponte dis-misse[d] the appeal for the reason that no substantial constitutional question exists herein.”
We granted certiorari. 401 U. S. 992 (1971).
II
This chronology clearly reveals that Overmyer’s situation, of which it now complains, is one brought about largely by its own misfortune and failure or inability to pay. The initial agreement between Overmyer and Frick was a routine construction subcontract. Frick agreed to do the work and Overmyer agreed to pay a designated amount for that work by progress payments at specified times. This contract was not accompanied by any promissory note.
Overmyer then became delinquent in its payments. Frick naturally refrained from further work. This impasse was resolved by the February 1967 post-contract arrangement, pursuant to which Overmyer made an immediate partial payment in cash and issued its installment note for the balance. Although Frick had suggested a confession-of-judgment clause, the note as executed and delivered contained no provision of that kind.
Frick completed its work and Overmyer accepted the work as satisfactory. Thereafter Overmyer again asked for relief. At this time counsel for each side participated in the negotiations. The first note was replaced by the second. The latter contained the confession-of-judgment provision Overmyer now finds so offensive. However, in exchange for that provision and for its execution of the second mortgages, Overmyer received benefit and consideration in the form of (a) Frick’s release of the three mechanic’s liens, (b) reduction in the amount of the monthly payment, (c) further time in which the total amount was to be paid, and (d) reduction of a half point in the interest rate.
Were we concerned here only with the validity of the June 1967 agreement under principles of contract law, that issue would be readily resolved. Obviously and undeniably, Overmyer’s execution and delivery of the second note were for an adequate consideration and were the product of negotiations carried on by corporate parties with the advice of competent counsel.
More than mere contract law, however, is involved here.
Ill
Petitioner Overmyer first asserts that the Ohio judgment is invalid because there was no personal service upon it, no voluntary appearance by it in Ohio, and no genuine appearance by an attorney on its behalf. Thus, it is said, there was no personal jurisdiction over Over-myer in the Ohio proceeding. The petitioner invokes Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U. S. 714, 732 (1878), and other cases decided here and by the Ohio courts enunciating accepted and long-established principles for in personam jurisdiction. McDonald v. Mabee, 243 U. S. 90, 91 (1917); Vanderbilt v. Vanderbilt, 354 U. S. 416, 418 (1957); Sears v. Weimer, 143 Ohio St. 312, 55 N. E. 2d 413 (1944); Railroad Co. v. Goodman, 57 Ohio St. 641, 50 N. E. 1132 (1897); Cleveland Leader Printing Co. v. Green, 52 Ohio St. 487, 491, 40 N. E. 201, 203 (1895).
It is further said that whether a defendant's appearance is voluntary is to be determined at the time of the court proceeding, not at a much earlier date when an agreement was signed; that an unauthorized appearance by an attorney on a defendant’s behalf cannot confer jurisdiction; and that the lawyer who appeared in Ohio was not Overmyer’s attorney in any sense of the word, but was only an agent of Frick.
The argument then proceeds to constitutional grounds. It is said that due process'requires reasonable notice and an opportunity to be heard, citing Boddie v. Connecticut, 401 U. S. 371, 378 (1971). It is acknowledged, however, that the question here is in a context of “contract waiver, before suit has been filed, before any dispute has arisen” and “whereby a party gives up in advance his constitutional right to defend any suit by the other, to notice and an opportunity to be heard, no matter what defenses he may have, and to be represented by counsel of his own choice.” In other words, Overmyer’s position here specifically is that it is “unconstitutional to waive in advance the right to present a defense in an action on the note.” It is conceded that in Ohio a court has the power to open the judgment upon a proper showing. Bellows v. Bowlus, 83 Ohio App. 90, 93, 82 N. E. 2d 429, 432 (1948). But it is claimed that such a move is discretionary and ordinarily will not be disturbed on appeal, and that it may not prevent execution before the debtor has notice, Griffin v. Griffin, 327 U. S. 220, 231-232 (1946). Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U. S. 254 (1970), and Sniadach v. Family Finance Corp., 395 U. S. 337 (1969), are cited.
The due process rights to notice and hearing prior to a civil judgment are subject to waiver. In National Equipment Rental, Ltd. v. Szukhent, 375 U. S. 311 (1964), the Court observed:
“[I]t is settled . . . that parties to a contract may agree in advance to submit to the jurisdiction of a given court, to permit notice to be served by the opposing party, or even to waive notice altogether.” Id., at 315-316.
And in Boddie v. Connecticut, supra, the Court acknowledged that “the hearing required by due process is subject to waiver.” 401 U. S., at 378-379.
This, of course, parallels the recognition of waiver in the criminal context where personal liberty, rather than a property right, is involved. Illinois v. Allen, 397 U. S. 337, 342-343 (1970) (right to be present at trial); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436, 444 (1966) (rights to counsel and against compulsory self-incrimination); Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S. 391, 439 (1963) (habeas corpus); Rogers v. United States, 340 U. S. 367, 371 (1951) (right against compulsory self-in crimination).
Even if, for present purposes, we assume that the standard for waiver in a corporate-property-right case of this kind is the same standard applicable to waiver in a criminal proceeding, that is, that it be voluntary, knowing, and intelligently made, Brady v. United States, 397 U. S. 742, 748 (1970); Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S., at 444, or “an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege,” Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U. S. 458, 464 (1938); Fay v. Noia, 372 U. S., at 439, and even if, as the Court has said in the civil area, “[w]e do not presume acquiescence in the loss of fundamental rights,” Ohio Bell Tel. Co. v. Public Utilities Comm’n, 301 U. S. 292, 307 (1937), that standard was fully satisfied here.
Overmyer is a corporation. Its corporate structure is complicated. Its activities are widespread. As its counsel in the Ohio post-judgment proceeding stated, it has built many warehouses in many States and has been party to “tens of thousands of contracts with many contractors.” This is not a case of unequal bargaining power or overreaching. The Overmyer-Frick agreement, from the start, was not a contract of adhesion. There was no refusal on Frick’s part to deal with Overmyer unless Overmyer agreed to a cognovit. The initial contract between the two corporations contained no confession-of-judgment clause. When, later, the first installment note from Overmyer came into being, it, too, contained no provision of that kind. It was only after Frick’s work was completed and accepted by Overmyer, and when Overmyer again became delinquent in its payments on the matured claim and asked for further relief, that the second note containing the clause was executed.
Overmyer does not contend here that it or its counsel was not aware of the significance of the note and of the cognovit provision. Indeed, it could not do so in the light of the facts. Frick had suggested the provision in October 1966, but the first note, readjusting the progress payments, was executed without it. It appeared in the second note delivered by Overmyer’s own counsel in return for substantial benefits and consideration to Over-myer. Particularly important, it would seem, was the release of Frick’s mechanic’s liens, but there were, in addition, the monetary relief as to amount, time, and interest rate.
Overmyer may not have been able to predict with accuracy just how or when Frick would proceed under the confession clause if further default by Overmyer occurred, as it did, but this inability does not in itself militate against effective waiver. See Brady v. United States, 397 U. S., at 757; McMann v. Richardson, 397 U. S. 759, 772-773 (1970).
We therefore hold that Overmyer, in its execution and delivery to Frick of the second installment note containing the cognovit provision, voluntarily, intelligently, and knowingly waived the rights it otherwise possessed to prejudgment notice and hearing, and that it did so with full awareness of the legal consequences.
Insurance Co. v. Morse, 20 Wall. 445 (1874), affords no comfort to the petitioners. That case concerned the constitutional validity of a state statute that required a foreign insurance company, desiring to qualify in the State, to agree not to remove any suit against it to a federal court. The Court quite naturally struck down the statute, for it thwarted the authority vested by Congress in the federal courts and violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause.
Myers v. Jenkins, 63 Ohio St. 101, 120, 57 N. E. 1089, 1093 (1900), involving an insurance contract that called for adjustment of claims through the company alone and without resort to the courts, is similarly unhelpful.
IV
Some concluding comments are in order:
1. Our holding necessarily means that a cognovit clause is not, per se, violative of Fourteenth Amendment due process. Overmyer could prevail here only if the clause were constitutionally invalid. The facts of this case, as we observed above, are important, and those facts amply demonstrate that a cognovit provision may well serve a proper and useful purpose in the commercial world and at the same time not be vulnerable to constitutional attack.
2. Our holding, of course, is not controlling precedent for other facts of other cases. For example, where the contract is one of adhesion, where there is great disparity in bargaining power, and where the debtor receives nothing for the cognovit provision, other legal consequences may ensue.
3. Overmyer, merely because of its execution of the cognovit note, is not rendered defenseless. It concedes that in Ohio the judgment court may vacate its judgment upon a showing of a valid defense and, indeed, Overmyer had a post-judgment hearing in the Ohio court. If there weré defenses such as prior payment or mistaken identity, those defenses could be asserted. And there is nothing we see that prevented Overmyer from pursuing its breach-of-contract claim against Frick in a proper forum. Here, again, that is precisely what Overmyer has attempted to do, thus far unsuccessfully, in the Southern District of New York.
The judgment is
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Powell and Mr. Justice Rehnquist took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
When the judgment challenged here was entered in 1968 the statute read:
“Sec. 2323.13. (A) An attorney who confesses judgment in a case, at the time of making such confession, must produce the warrant of attorney for making it to the court before which he makes the confession, which shall be in the county where the maker or any one of several makers resides or in the county where the maker or any one of several makers signed the warrant of attorney authorizing confession of judgment, any agreement to the contrary notwithstanding; and the original or a copy of the warrant shall be filed with the clerk.
“(B) The attorney who represents the judgment creditor shall include in the petition a statement setting forth to the best of his knowledge the last known address of the defendant.
“(C) Immediately upon entering any such judgment the court shall notify the defendant of the entry of the judgment by personal service or by registered or certified mail mailed to him at the address set forth in the petition.”
Senate Bill No. 85, 133 Ohio Laws 196-198 (1969-1970), effective Sept. 16, 1970, amended paragraphs (A) and (C), in ways not pertinent here, and added paragraph (D):
“(D) A warrant of attorney to confess judgment contained in any promissory note, bond, security agreement, lease, contract, or other evidence of indebtedness executed on or after January 1, 1971, is invalid and the courts are without authority to render a judgment based upon such a warrant unless there appears on the instrument evidencing the indebtedness, directly above or below the signature of each maker, or other person authorizing the confession, in such type size or distinctive marking that it appears more clearly and conspicuously than anything else on the document:
“ ‘Warning — By signing this paper you give up your right to notice and court trial. If you do not pay on time a court judgment may be taken against you without your prior knowledge and the powers of a court can be used to collect from you or your employer regardless of any claims you may have against the creditor whether for returned goods, faulty goods, failure on his part to comply with the agreement, or any other cause.’ ”
The Iowa Supreme Court succinctly has defined a cognovit as “the written authority of the debtor and his direction ... to enter judgment against him as stated therein.” Blott v. Blott, 227 Iowa 1108, 1111-1112, 290 N. W. 74, 76 (1940).
In Jones v. John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Co., 289 F. Supp. 930, 935 (WD Mich. 1968), aff’d, 416 F. 2d 829 (CA6 1969), Judge Fox, in applying Ohio law, pertinently observed:
“A cognovit note is not an ordinary note. It is indeed an extraordinary note which authorizes an attorney to confess judgment against the person or persons signing it. It is written authority of a debtor and a direction by him for the entry of a judgment against him if the obligation set forth in the note is not paid when due. Such a judgment may be taken by any person or any company holding the note, and it cuts off every defense which the maker of the note may otherwise have. It likewise cuts off all rights of appeal from any judgment taken on it.”
Historical references appear in General Contract Purchase Corp. v. Max Keil Real Estate Co., 35 Del. 531, 532-533, 170 A. 797, 798 (1933), and First Nat. Bk. v. White, 220 Mo. 717, 728-732, 120 S. W. 36, 39-40 (1909).
Recent Cases, Confession of Judgments—Refusal of New York State to Enforce Pennsylvania Cognovit Judgments, 74 Dick. L. Rev. 750 (1970); Note, Enforcement of Sister State’s Cognovit Judgments, 16 Wayne L. Rev. 1181 (1970); H. Goodrich, Conflict of Laws §73, p. 122 (4th ed. 1964); Hopson, Cognovit Judgments: An Ignored Problem of Due Process and Full Faith and Credit, 29 U. Chi. L. Rev. 111 (1961); Hunter, The Warrant of Attorney to Confess Judgment, 8 Ohio St. L. J. 1 (1941); Note, A Clash in Ohio?: Cognovit Notes and the Business Ethic of the UCC, 35 U. Cin. L. Rev. 470 (1966); Comment, The Effect of Full Faith and Credit on Cognovit Judgments, 42 U. Colo. L. Rev. 173 (1970); Comment, Confessions of Judgment: The Due Process Defects, 43 Temp. L. Q. 279 (1970); Comment, Cognovit Judgments and the Full Faith and Credit Clause, 50 B. U. L. Rev. 330 (1970); Comment, Cognovit Judgments: Some Constitutional Considerations, 70 Col. L. Rev. 1118 (1970); Note, Confessions of Judgment, 102 U. Pa. L. Rev. 524 (1954); Note, Foreign Courts May Deny Full Faith and Credit to Cognovit Judgments and Must Do So When Entered Pursuant to an Unlimited Warrant of Attorney, 56 Va. L. Rev. 554 (1970); Note, Should a Cognovit Judgment Validly Entered in One State be Recognized by a Sister State?, 30 Md. L. Rev. 350 (1970).
Ill. Rev. Stat., c. 110, § 50; Mo. Rev. Stat. § 511.100; Ohio Rev. Code § 2323.13; Pa. Stat. Ann., Tit. 12, §§ 738 and 739 and Pa. Rules of Civil Procedure 2950-2976; S. D. Comp. Laws §21-26-1.
See, for example, Ala. Code, Tit. 20, § 16, and Tit. 62, §248; Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 6-629 and 44-143; Mass. Gen. Laws Ann., c. 231, § 13A.
Ind. Ann. Stat. §§ 2-2904 and 2-2906; N. M. Stat. Ann. §§ 21-9-16 and 21-9-18; R. I. Gen. Laws Ann. §§ 19-25-24 and 19-25-36.
See, for example, Conn. Gen. Stat. Rev. §§ 42-88 and 36-236; Mich. Comp. Laws §§ 600.2906 and 493.12, Mich. Stat. Ann. §§27A-2906 and 23.667 (12); Minn. Stat. §§548.22, 168.71, and 56.12; N. J. Stat. Ann. § 2A: 16-9.
Brief for Petitioners 16.
Tr. of Oral Arg. 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:
|
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.
The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), 66 Stat. 163, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., provides that a noncitizen who has been convicted of an " aggravated felony" may be deported from this country. The INA also prohibits the Attorney General from granting discretionary relief from removal to an aggravated felon, no matter how compelling his case. Among the crimes that are classified as aggravated felonies, and thus lead to these harsh consequences, are illicit drug trafficking offenses. We must decide whether this category includes a state criminal statute that extends to the social sharing of a small amount of marijuana. We hold it does not.
I
A
The INA allows the Government to deport various classes of noncitizens, such as those who overstay their visas, and those who are convicted of certain crimes while in the United States, including drug offenses. § 1227. Ordinarily, when a noncitizen is found to be deportable on one of these grounds, he may ask the Attorney General for certain forms of discretionary relief from removal, like asylum (if he has a well-founded fear of persecution in his home country) and cancellation of removal (if, among other things, he has been lawfully present in the United States for a number of years). §§ 1158, 1229b. But if a noncitizen has been convicted of one of a narrower set of crimes classified as "aggravated felonies," then he is not only deportable, § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), but also ineligible for these discretionary forms of relief. See §§ 1158(b)(2)(A)(ii), (B)(i); §§ 1229b(a)(3), (b)(1)(C).
The INA defines "aggravated felony" to include a host of offenses. § 1101(a)(43). Among them is "illicit trafficking in a controlled substance." § 1101(a)(43)(B). This general term is not defined, but the INA states that it "includ[es] a drug trafficking crime (as defined in section 924(c) of title 18 )." Ibid. In turn, 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2) defines "drug trafficking crime" to mean "any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act," or two other statutes not relevant here. The chain of definitions ends with § 3559(a)(5), which provides that a "felony" is an offense for which the "maximum term of imprisonment authorized" is "more than one year." The upshot is that a noncitizen's conviction of an offense that the Controlled Substances Act (CSA) makes punishable by more than one year's imprisonment will be counted as an "aggravated felony" for immigration purposes. A conviction under either state or federal law may qualify, but a "state offense constitutes a 'felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act' only if it proscribes conduct punishable as a felony under that federal law." Lopez v. Gonzales, 549 U.S. 47, 60, 127 S.Ct. 625, 166 L.Ed.2d 462 (2006).
B
Petitioner Adrian Moncrieffe is a Jamaican citizen who came to the United States legally in 1984, when he was three. During a 2007 traffic stop, police found 1.3 grams of marijuana in his car. This is the equivalent of about two or three marijuana cigarettes. Moncrieffe pleaded guilty to possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, a violation of Ga.Code Ann. § 16-13-30(j)(1) (2007). Under a Georgia statute providing more lenient treatment to first-time offenders, § 42-8-60(a) (1997), the trial court withheld entering a judgment of conviction or imposing any term of imprisonment, and instead required that Moncrieffe complete five years of probation, after which his charge will be expunged altogether. App. to Brief for Petitioner 11-15.
Alleging that this Georgia conviction constituted an aggravated felony, the Federal Government sought to deport Moncrieffe. The Government reasoned that possession of marijuana with intent to distribute is an offense under the CSA, 21 U.S.C. § 841(a), punishable by up to five years' imprisonment, § 841(b)(1)(D), and thus an aggravated felony. An Immigration Judge agreed and ordered Moncrieffe removed. App. to Pet. for Cert. 14a-18a. The Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA) affirmed that conclusion on appeal. Id., at 10a-13a.
The Court of Appeals denied Moncrieffe's petition for review. The court rejected Moncrieffe's reliance upon § 841(b)(4), a provision that, in effect, makes marijuana distribution punishable only as a misdemeanor if the offense involves a small amount of marijuana for no remuneration. It held that in a federal criminal prosecution, "the default sentencing range for a marijuana distribution offense is the CSA's felony provision, § 841(b)(1)(D), rather than the misdemeanor provision."
662 F.3d 387, 392 (C.A.5 2011). Because Moncrieffe's Georgia offense penalized possession of marijuana with intent to distribute, the court concluded that it was "equivalent to a federal felony." Ibid.
We granted certiorari, 566 U.S. ----, 132 S.Ct. 1857, 182 L.Ed.2d 642 (2012), to resolve a conflict among the Courts of Appeals with respect to whether a conviction under a statute that criminalizes conduct described by both § 841's felony provision and its misdemeanor provision, such as a statute that punishes all marijuana distribution without regard to the amount or remuneration, is a conviction for an offense that "proscribes conduct punishable as a felony under" the CSA. Lopez, 549 U.S., at 60, 127 S.Ct. 625. We now reverse.
II
A
When the Government alleges that a state conviction qualifies as an "aggravated felony" under the INA, we generally employ a "categorical approach" to determine whether the state offense is comparable to an offense listed in the INA. See, e.g., Nijhawan v. Holder, 557 U.S. 29, 33-38, 129 S.Ct. 2294, 174 L.Ed.2d 22 (2009) ; Gonzales v. Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S. 183, 185-187, 127 S.Ct. 815, 166 L.Ed.2d 683 (2007). Under this approach we look "not to the facts of the particular prior case," but instead to whether "the state statute defining the crime of conviction" categorically fits within the "generic" federal definition of a corresponding aggravated felony. Id., at 186, 127 S.Ct. 815 (citing Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575, 599-600, 110 S.Ct. 2143, 109 L.Ed.2d 607 (1990) ). By "generic," we mean the offenses must be viewed in the abstract, to see whether the state statute shares the nature of the federal offense that serves as a point of comparison. Accordingly, a state offense is a categorical match with a generic federal offense only if a conviction of the state offense " 'necessarily' involved... facts equating to [the] generic [federal offense]." Shepard v. United States, 544 U.S. 13, 24, 125 S.Ct. 1254, 161 L.Ed.2d 205 (2005) (plurality opinion). Whether the noncitizen's actual conduct involved such facts "is quite irrelevant." United States ex rel. Guarino v. Uhl, 107 F.2d 399, 400 (C.A.2 1939) (L. Hand, J.).
Because we examine what the state conviction necessarily involved, not the facts underlying the case, we must presume that the conviction " rested upon [nothing] more than the least of th[e] acts" criminalized, and then determine whether even those acts are encompassed by the generic federal offense. Johnson v. United States, 559 U.S. 133, 137, 130 S.Ct. 1265, 176 L.Ed.2d 1 (2010) ; see Guarino, 107 F.2d, at 400. But this rule is not without qualification. First, our cases have addressed state statutes that contain several different crimes, each described separately, and we have held that a court may determine which particular offense the noncitizen was convicted of by examining the charging document and jury instructions, or in the case of a guilty plea, the plea agreement, plea colloquy, or "'some comparable judicial record' of the factual basis for the plea." Nijhawan, 557 U.S., at 35, 129 S.Ct. 2294 (quoting Shepard, 544 U.S., at 26, 125 S.Ct. 1254). Second, our focus on the minimum conduct criminalized by the state statute is not an invitation to apply "legal imagination" to the state offense; there must be "a realistic probability, not a theoretical possibility, that the State would apply its statute to conduct that falls outside the generic definition of a crime." Duenas-Alvarez, 549 U.S., at 193, 127 S.Ct. 815.
This categorical approach has a long pedigree in our Nation's immigration law. See Das, The Immigration Penalties of Criminal Convictions: Resurrecting Categorical Analysis in Immigration Law, 86 N.Y.U.L.Rev. 1669, 1688-1702, 1749-1752 (2011) (tracing judicial decisions back to 1913). The reason is that the INA asks what offense the noncitizen was "convicted" of, 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), not what acts he committed. "[C]onviction" is "the relevant statutory hook." Carachuri-Rosendo v. Holder, 560 U.S. ----, ----, 130 S.Ct. 2577, 2588, 177 L.Ed.2d 68 (2010); see United States ex rel. Mylius v. Uhl, 210 F. 860, 862 (C.A.2 1914).
B
The aggravated felony at issue here, "illicit trafficking in a controlled substance," is a "generic crim[e]." Nijhawan, 557 U.S., at 37, 129 S.Ct. 2294. So the categorical approach applies. Ibid. As we have explained, supra, at 1682 - 1683, this aggravated felony encompasses all state offenses that "proscrib[e] conduct punishable as a felony under [the CSA]." Lopez, 549 U.S., at 60, 127 S.Ct. 625. In other words, to satisfy the categorical approach, a state drug offense must meet two conditions: It must "necessarily" proscribe conduct that is an offense under the CSA, and the CSA must "necessarily" prescribe felony punishment for that conduct.
Moncrieffe was convicted under a Georgia statute that makes it a crime to "possess, have under [one's] control, manufacture, deliver, distribute, dispense, administer, purchase, sell, or possess with intent to distribute marijuana." Ga.Code Ann. § 16-13-30(j)(1). We know from his plea agreement that Moncrieffe was convicted of the last of these offenses. App. to Brief for Petitioner 11; Shepard, 544 U.S., at 26, 125 S.Ct. 1254. We therefore must determine whether possession of marijuana with intent to distribute is "necessarily" conduct punishable as a felony under the CSA.
We begin with the relevant conduct criminalized by the CSA. There is no question that it is a federal crime to "possess with intent to... distribute... a controlled substance," 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), one of which is marijuana, § 812(c). So far, the state and federal provisions correspond. But this is not enough, because the generically defined federal crime is "any felony punishable under the Controlled Substances Act," 18 U.S.C. § 924(c)(2), not just any "offense under the CSA." Thus we must look to what punishment the CSA imposes for this offense.
Section 841 is divided into two subsections that are relevant here: (a), titled "Unlawful acts," which includes the offense just described, and (b), titled "Penalties." Subsection (b) tells us how "any person who violates subsection (a)" shall be punished, depending on the circumstances of his crime (e.g., the type and quantity of controlled substance involved, whether it is a repeat offense). Subsection (b)(1)(D) provides that if a person commits a violation of subsection (a) involving "less than 50 kilograms of marihuana," then "such person shall, except as provided in paragraphs (4) and (5) of this subsection, be sentenced to a term of imprisonment of not more than 5 years," i.e., as a felon. But one of the exceptions is important here. Paragraph (4) provides, "Notwithstanding paragraph (1)(D) of this subsection, any person who violates subsection (a) of this section by distributing a small amount of marihuana for no remuneration shall be treated as" a simple drug possessor, 21 U.S.C. § 844, which for our purposes means as a misdemeanant. These dovetailing provisions create two mutually exclusive categories of punishment for CSA marijuana distribution offenses: one a felony, and one not. The only way to know whether a marijuana distribution offense is "punishable as a felony" under the CSA, Lopez, 549 U.S., at 60, 127 S.Ct. 625, is to know whether the conditions described in paragraph (4) are present or absent.
A conviction under the same Georgia statute for "sell[ing]" marijuana, for example, would seem to establish remuneration. The presence of remuneration would mean that paragraph (4) is not implicated, and thus that the conviction is necessarily for conduct punishable as a felony under the CSA (under paragraph (1)(D)). In contrast, the fact of a conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana, standing alone, does not reveal whether either remuneration or more than a small amount of marijuana was involved. It is possible neither was; we know that Georgia prosecutes this offense when a defendant possesses only a small amount of marijuana, see, e.g., Taylor v. State, 260 Ga.App. 890, 581 S.E.2d 386, 388 (2003) (6.6 grams), and that "distribution" does not require remuneration, see, e.g., Hadden v. State, 181 Ga.App. 628, 628-629, 353 S.E.2d 532, 533-534 (1987). So Moncrieffe's conviction could correspond to either the CSA felony or the CSA misdemeanor. Ambiguity on this point means that the conviction did not "necessarily" involve facts that correspond to an offense punishable as a felony under the CSA. Under the categorical approach, then, Moncrieffe was not convicted of an aggravated felony.
III
A
The Government advances a different approach that leads to a different result. In its view, § 841(b)(4)'s misdemeanor provision is irrelevant to the categorical analysis because paragraph (4) is merely a "mitigating exception," to the CSA offense, not one of the "elements" of the offense. Brief for Respondent 12. And because possession with intent to distribute marijuana is "presumptive[ly]" a felony under the CSA, the Government asserts, any state offense with the same elements is presumptively an aggravated felony. Id., at 37. These two contentions are related, and we reject both of them.
First, the Government reads our cases to hold that the categorical approach is concerned only with the "elements" of an offense, so § 841(b)(4)"is not relevant" to the categorical analysis. Id., at 20. It is enough to satisfy the categorical inquiry, the Government suggests, that the "elements" of Moncrieffe's Georgia offense are the same as those of the CSA offense: (1) possession (2) of marijuana (a controlled substance), (3) with intent to distribute it. But that understanding is inconsistent with Carachuri-Rosendo, our only decision to address both "elements" and "sentencing factors." There we recognized that when Congress has chosen to define the generic federal offense by reference to punishment, it may be necessary to take account of federal sentencing factors too. See 560 U.S., at ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2581-2582. In that case the relevant CSA offense was simple possession, which "becomes a 'felony punishable under the [CSA]' only because the sentencing factor of recidivism authorizes additional punishment beyond one year, the criterion for a felony." Id., at ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2590 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment). We therefore called the generic federal offense "recidivist simple possession," even though such a crime is not actually "a separate offense" under the CSA, but rather an " 'amalgam' " of offense elements and sentencing factors. Id., at ----, and n. 3, ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2581-2582, and n. 3, 2583-2584 (majority opinion).
In other words, not only must the state offense of conviction meet the "elements" of the generic federal offense defined by the INA, but the CSA must punish that offense as a felony. Here, the facts giving rise to the CSA offense establish a crime that may be either a felony or a misdemeanor, depending upon the presence or absence of certain factors that are not themselves elements of the crime. And so to qualify as an aggravated felony, a conviction for the predicate offense must necessarily establish those factors as well.
The Government attempts to distinguish Carachuri-Rosendo on the ground that the sentencing factor there was a "narrow" aggravating exception that turned a misdemeanor into a felony, whereas here § 841(b)(4) is a narrow mitigation exception that turns a felony into a misdemeanor. Brief for Respondent 40-43. This argument hinges upon the Government's second assertion: that any marijuana distribution conviction is "presumptively" a felony. But that is simply incorrect, and the Government's argument collapses as a result. Marijuana distribution is neither a felony nor a misdemeanor until we know whether the conditions in paragraph (4)
attach: Section 841(b)(1)(D) makes the crime punishable by five years' imprisonment "except as provided" in paragraph (4), and § 841(b)(4) makes it punishable as a misdemeanor "[n]otwithstanding paragraph (1)(D)" when only "a small amount of marihuana for no remuneration" is involved. (Emphasis added.) The CSA's text makes neither provision the default. Rather, each is drafted to be exclusive of the other.
Like the BIA and the Fifth Circuit, the Government believes the felony provision to be the default because, in practice, that is how federal criminal prosecutions for marijuana distribution operate. See 662 F.3d, at 391-392; Matter of Aruna, 24 I. & N. Dec. 452, 456-457 (2008) ; Brief for Respondent 18-23. It is true that every Court of Appeals to have considered the question has held that a defendant is eligible for a 5-year sentence under § 841(b)(1)(D) if the Government proves he possessed marijuana with the intent to distribute it, and that the Government need not negate the § 841(b)(4) factors in each case. See, e.g., United States v. Outen, 286 F.3d 622, 636-639 (C.A.2 2002) (describing § 841(b)(4) as a "mitigating exception"); United States v. Hamlin, 319 F.3d 666, 670-671 (C.A.4 2003) (collecting cases). Instead, the burden is on the defendant to show that he qualifies for the lesser sentence under § 841(b) (4). Cf. id., at 671.
We cannot discount § 841's text, however, which creates no default punishment, in favor of the procedural overlay or burdens of proof that would apply in a hypothetical federal criminal prosecution. In Carachuri-Rosendo, we rejected the Fifth Circuit's " 'hypothetical approach,' " which examined whether conduct " 'could have been punished as a felony' 'had [it] been prosecuted in federal court.' " 560 U.S., at ----, ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2584, 2585-2586. The outcome in a hypothetical prosecution is not the relevant inquiry. Rather, our "more focused, categorical inquiry" is whether the record of conviction of the predicate offense necessarily establishes conduct that the CSA, on its own terms, makes punishable as a felony. Id., at ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2588-2589.
The analogy to a federal prosecution is misplaced for another reason. The Court of Appeals cases the Government cites distinguished between elements and sentencing factors to determine which facts must be proved to a jury, in light of the Sixth Amendment concerns addressed in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000). The courts considered which "provision... states a complete crime upon the fewest facts, " Outen, 286 F.3d, at 638, which was significant after Apprendi to identify what a jury had to find before a defendant could receive § 841(b)(1)(D)'s maximum 5-year sentence. But those concerns do not apply in this context. Here we consider a "generic"
federal offense in the abstract, not an actual federal offense being prosecuted before a jury. Our concern is only which facts the CSA relies upon to distinguish between felonies and misdemeanors, not which facts must be found by a jury as opposed to a judge, nor who has the burden of proving which facts in a federal prosecution.
Because of these differences, we made clear in Carachuri-Rosendo that, for purposes of the INA, a generic federal offense may be defined by reference to both " 'elements' in the traditional sense" and sentencing factors. 560 U.S., at ----, n. 3, ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2581-2582, and n. 3, 2583-2584; see also id., at ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2581-2582 (SCALIA, J., concurring in judgment) (describing the generic federal offense there as "the Controlled Substances Act felony of possession-plus-recidivism"). Indeed, the distinction between "elements" and "sentencing factors" did not exist when Congress added illicit drug trafficking to the list of aggravated felonies, Anti-Drug Abuse Act of 1988, 102 Stat. 4469-4470, and most courts at the time understood both § 841(b)(1)(D) and § 841(b)(4) to contain sentencing factors that draw the line between a felony and a misdemeanor. See, e.g., United States v. Campuzano, 905 F.2d 677, 679 (C.A.2 1990). Carachuri-Rosendo controls here.
Finally, there is a more fundamental flaw in the Government's approach: It would render even an undisputed misdemeanor an aggravated felony. This is "just what the English language tells us not to expect," and that leaves us "very wary of the Government's position." Lopez, 549 U.S., at 54, 127 S.Ct. 625. Consider a conviction under a New York statute that provides, "A person is guilty of criminal sale of marihuana in the fifth degree when he knowingly and unlawfully sells, without consideration, [marihuana] of an aggregate weight of two grams or less ; or one cigarette containing marihuana." N.Y. Penal Law Ann. § 221.35 (West 2008) (emphasis added). This statute criminalizes only the distribution of a small amount of marijuana for no remuneration, and so all convictions under the statute would fit within the CSA misdemeanor provision, § 841(b)(4). But the Government would categorically deem a conviction under this statute to be an aggravated felony, because the statute contains the corresponding "elements" of (1) distributing (2) marijuana, and the Government believes all marijuana distribution offenses are punishable as felonies.
The same anomaly would result in the case of a noncitizen convicted of a misdemeanor in federal court under § 841(a) and (b)(4) directly. Even in that case, under the Government's logic, we would need to treat the federal misdemeanor conviction as an aggravated felony, because the conviction establishes elements of an offense that is presumptively a felony. This cannot be. "We cannot imagine that Congress took the trouble to incorporate its own statutory scheme of felonies and misdemeanors," only to have courts presume felony treatment and ignore the very factors that distinguish felonies from misdemeanors. Lopez, 549 U.S., at 58, 127 S.Ct. 625.
B
Recognizing that its approach leads to consequences Congress could not have intended, the Government hedges its argument by proposing a remedy: Noncitizens should be given an opportunity during immigration proceedings to demonstrate that their predicate marijuana distribution convictions involved only a small amount of marijuana and no remuneration, just as a federal criminal defendant could do at sentencing. Brief for Respondent 35-39. This is the procedure adopted by the BIA in Matter of Castro Rodriguez, 25 I. & N. Dec. 698, 702 (2012), and endorsed by Justice ALITO's dissent, post, at 1701 - 1702.
This solution is entirely inconsistent with both the INA's text and the categorical approach. As noted, the relevant INA provisions ask what the noncitizen was "convicted of," not what he did, and the inquiry in immigration proceedings is limited accordingly. 8 U.S.C. §§ 1227(a)(2)(A)(iii), 1229b(a)(3) ; see Carachuri-Rosendo, 560 U.S., at ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2585-2586. The Government cites no statutory authority for such case-specific factfinding in immigration court, and none is apparent in the INA. Indeed, the Government's main categorical argument would seem to preclude this inquiry: If the Government were correct that "the fact of a marijuana-distribution conviction alone constitutes a CSA felony," Brief for Respondent 37, then all marijuana distribution convictions would categorically be convictions of the drug trafficking aggravated felony, mandatory deportation would follow under the statute, and there would be no room for the Government's follow-on factfinding procedure. The Government cannot have it both ways.
Moreover, the procedure the Government envisions would require precisely the sort of post hoc investigation into the facts of predicate offenses that we have long deemed undesirable. The categorical approach serves "practical" purposes: It promotes judicial and administrative efficiency by precluding the relitigation of past convictions in minitrials conducted long after the fact. Chambers v. United States, 555 U.S. 122, 125, 129 S.Ct. 687, 172 L.Ed.2d 484 (2009) ; see also Mylius, 210 F., at 862-863. Yet the Government's approach would have our Nation's overburdened immigration courts entertain and weigh testimony from, for example, the friend of a noncitizen who may have shared a marijuana cigarette with him at a party, or the local police officer who recalls to the contrary that cash traded hands. And, as a result, two noncitizens, each "convicted of" the same offense, might obtain different aggravated felony determinations depending on what evidence remains available or how it is perceived by an individual immigration judge. The categorical approach was designed to avoid this "potential unfairness." Taylor, 495 U.S., at 601, 110 S.Ct. 2143; see also Mylius, 210 F., at 863.
Furthermore, the minitrials the Government proposes would be possible only if the noncitizen could locate witnesses years after the fact, notwithstanding that during removal proceedings noncitizens are not guaranteed legal representation and are often subject to mandatory detention, § 1226(c)(1)(B), where they have little ability to collect evidence. See Katzmann, The Legal Profession and the Unmet Needs of the Immigrant Poor, 21 Geo. J. Legal Ethics 3, 5-10 (2008) ; Brief for National Immigrant Justice Center et al. as Amici Curiae 5-18; Brief for Immigration Law Professors as Amici Curiae 27-32. A noncitizen in removal proceedings is not at all similarly situated to a defendant in a federal criminal prosecution. The Government's suggestion that the CSA's procedures could readily be replicated in immigration proceedings is therefore misplaced. Cf. Carachuri-Rosendo, 560 U.S., at ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2587-2588 (rejecting the Government's argument that procedures governing determination of the recidivism sentencing factor could "be satisfied during the immigration proceeding").
The Government defends its proposed immigration court proceedings as "a subsequent step outside the categorical approach in light of Section 841(b)(4)'s 'circumstance-specific'
nature." Brief for Respondent 37. This argument rests upon Nijhawan, in which we considered another aggravated felony, "an offense that... involves fraud or deceit in which the loss to the victim or victims exceeds $10,000." 8 U.S.C. § 1101(a)(43)(M) (i). We held that the $10,000 threshold was not to be applied categorically as a required component of a generic offense, but instead called for a " circumstance-specific approach" that allows for an examination, in immigration court, of the "particular circumstances in which an offender committed the crime on a particular occasion." Nijhawan, 557 U.S., at 38-40, 129 S.Ct. 2294. The Government suggests the § 841(b)(4) factors are like the monetary threshold, and thus similarly amenable to a circumstance-specific inquiry.
We explained in Nijhawan, however, that unlike the provision there, "illicit trafficking in a controlled substance" is a "generic crim[e]" to which the categorical approach applies, not a circumstance-specific provision. Id., at 37, 129 S.Ct. 2294; see also Carachuri-Rosendo, 560 U.S., at ----, n. 11, 130 S.Ct., at 2586-2587 n. 11. That distinction is evident in the structure of the INA. The monetary threshold is a limitation, written into the INA itself, on the scope of the aggravated felony for fraud. And the monetary threshold is set off by the words "in which," which calls for a circumstance-specific examination of "the conduct involved 'in'the commission of the offense of conviction." Nijhawan, 557 U.S., at 39, 129 S.Ct. 2294. Locating this exception in the INA proper suggests an intent to have the relevant facts found in immigration proceedings. But where, as here, the INA incorporates other criminal statutes wholesale, we have held it "must refer to generic crimes," to which the categorical approach applies. Id., at 37, 129 S.Ct. 2294.
Finally, the Government suggests that the immigration court's task would not be so daunting in some cases, such as those in which a noncitizen was convicted under the New York statute previously discussed or convicted directly under § 841(b)(4). True, in those cases, the record of conviction might reveal on its face that the predicate offense was punishable only as a misdemeanor. But most States do not have stand-alone offenses for the social sharing of marijuana, so minitrials concerning convictions from the other States, such as Georgia, would be inevitable. The Government suggests that even in these other States, the record of conviction may often address the § 841(b)(4) factors, because noncitizens "will be advised of the immigration consequences of a conviction," as defense counsel is required to do under Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356, 130 S.Ct. 1473, 176 L.Ed.2d 284 (2010), and as a result counsel can build an appropriate record when the facts are fresh. Brief for Respondent 38. Even assuming defense counsel "will" do something simply because it is required of effective counsel (an assumption experience does not always bear out), this argument is unavailing because there is no reason to believe that state courts will regularly or uniformly admit evidence going to facts, such as remuneration, that are irrelevant to the offense charged.
In short, to avoid the absurd consequences that would flow from the Government's narrow understanding of the categorical approach, the Government proposes a solution that largely undermines the categorical approach. That the only cure is worse than the disease suggests the Government is simply wrong.
C
The Government fears the consequences of our decision, but its concerns are exaggerated. The Government observes that, like Georgia, about half the States criminalize marijuana distribution through statutes that do not require remuneration or any minimum quantity of marijuana. Id., at 26-28. As a result, the Government contends, noncitizens convicted of marijuana distribution offenses in those States will avoid "aggravated felony" determinations, purely because their convictions do not resolve whether their offenses involved federal felony conduct or misdemeanor conduct, even though many (if not most) prosecutions involve either remuneration or larger amounts of marijuana (or both).
Escaping aggravated felony treatment does not mean escaping deportation, though. It means only avoiding mandatory removal. See Carachuri-Rosendo, 560 U.S., at ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2589. Any marijuana distribution offense, even a misdemeanor, will still render a noncitizen deportable as a controlled substances offender. 8 U.S.C. § 1227(a)(2)(B)(i). At that point, having been found not to be an aggravated felon, the noncitizen may seek relief from removal such as asylum or cancellation of removal, assuming he satisfies the other eligibility criteria. §§ 1158(b), 1229b(a)(1)-(2). But those forms of relief are discretionary. The Attorney General may, in his discretion, deny relief if he finds that the noncitizen is actually a member of one "of the world's most dangerous drug cartels," post, at 1696 (opinion of ALITO, J.), just as he may deny relief if he concludes the negative equities outweigh the positive equities of the noncitizen's case for other reasons. As a result, "to the extent that our rejection of the Government's broad understanding of the scope of 'aggravated felony' may have any practical effect on policing our Nation's borders, it is a limited one." Carachuri-Rosendo, 560 U.S., at ----, 130 S.Ct., at 2589.
In any event, serious drug traffickers may be adjudicated aggravated felons regardless, because they will likely
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Powell
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case concerns the federal taxes imposed upon employers by the Federal Insurance Contributions Act (FICA), 26 U. S. C. § 3101 et seq., and the Federal Unemployment Tax Act (FUTA), 26 U. S. C. § 3301 et seq. The question is whether petitioner should have included in the computation of “wages,” which is the base for taxation under FICA and FUTA, the value of meals and lodging provided for its own convenience to employees working on offshore oil rigs.
I
During the tax years in question, 1967-1969, petitioner Rowan Companies, Inc., owned and operated rigs for drilling oil and gas wells, both on land and offshore. Some of petitioner’s offshore rigs were located as many as 60 miles from land. It cost petitioner less and was more convenient to provide meals and lodging to employees at these rigs than to transport the employees to and from the rigs for each work shift. Employees worked at these rigs for 10-day tours of duty, and petitioner then transported them back to land for 5-day periods of leave. All employees at a rig received the same meals and lodging facilities, regardless of employment status or pay. Employees did not receive any cash allowance if they chose not to eat a meal. Petitioner did not provide meals or lodging to employees during their leave; nor did it provide meals or lodging to employees working on land-based rigs.
Petitioner did not include the value of the meals and lodging in computing its employees’ “wages” for the purpose of paying taxes under FICA or FUTA. Nor did petitioner include this value in computing “wages” for the purpose of withholding its employees’ federal income tax under 26 U. S. C. § 3402 (a), Its uniform practice appeared to be consistent with the statutory language, as Congress defined “wages” in substantially identical language for each of these three obligations upon employers. Upon audit, however, the Internal Revenue Service included the fair value of the meals and lodging in the employees’ “wages” for the purpose of FICA and FUTA, but not for the purpose of income-tax withholding under §3402 (a). The Service acted consistently with the present Treasury Regulations that interpret the definition of “wages” in FICA and FUTA to include the value of these meals and lodging, whereas the substantially identical definition of “wages” in § 3401 (a) is interpreted by Treasury Regulations to exclude this value. Compare Treas. Reg. §§ 31.3121 (a)-l (e), (f) (FICA), 26 CFR §§ 31.3121 (a)-1(e), (f) (1980); Treas. Reg. §§ 31.3306 (b)-l (e), (f) (FUTA), 26 CFR §§ 31.3306 (b)-l (e), (f) (1980); with Treas. Reg. §§31.3401 (a)-l (b)(9), (10) (income-tax withholding), 26 CFR §§31.3401 (a)-l (b)(9), (10) (1980). Petitioner paid the additional assessment and brought this suit for a refund under 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (a)(1).
The District Court for the Southern District of Texas granted the Government’s motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit affirmed, expressing the view that the different interpretations of the definition of “wages” are justified by the different purposes of FICA and FUTA, on the one hand, and income-tax withholding, on the other. 624 F. 2d 701, 707 (1980). We granted a writ of certiorari, 449 U. S. 1109 (1981), because the Court of Appeals’ decision conflicts with the decisions of other Courts of Appeals. We now reverse.
II
The Government acknowledges that petitioner properly excluded the value of the meals and lodging in computing the “wages” from which it withheld employees’ income tax under § 3402 (a). Under the Treasury Regulation interpreting the definition of “wages” for income-tax withholding, the employer excludes the value of meals or lodging from “wages” if the employee excludes the value from his gross income. Treas. Reg. § 31.3401 (a) — 1 (b)(9), 26 CFR § 31.3401 (a)-1 (b)(9) (1980). Under the convenience-of-the-employer rule, an employee may exclude from gross income the value of meals and lodging furnished to him by his employer if the employer furnished both the meals and lodging for its own convenience, furnished the meals on its business premises, and required the employee to accept the lodging on the business premises as a condition of employment. 26 U. S. C. § 119 (1976 ed., Supp. III). Petitioner’s provision of meals and lodging to employees on its offshore rigs satisfied each of these § 119 requirements. The value of the meals and lodging therefore was excludable by the employer from “wages” under Treas. Reg. § 31.3401 (a)-l (b)(9), 26 CFR § 31.3401 (a)-l (b) (9) (1980). See generally Commissioner v. Kowalski, 434 U. S. 77 (1977).
Notwithstanding this acknowledgment, the Government contends that petitioner should have included the value of the meals and lodging in “wages” for purposes of FICA and FUTA. It relies on Treas. Reg. §§ 31.3121 (a)-l (f) (FICA) and 31.3306 (b)-l (f) (FUTA), 26 CFR §§31.3121 (a)-l (f) and 31.3306 (b)-l (f) (1980), that provide:
“Ordinarily, facilities or privileges (such as entertainment, medical services, or so-called ‘courtesy’ discounts on purchases), furnished or offered by an employer to his employees generally, are not considered as remuneration for employment if such facilities or privileges are of relatively small value and are offered or furnished by the employer merely as a means of promoting the health, good will, contentment, or efficiency of his employees. The term ‘facilities or privileges,’ however, does not ordinarily include the value of meals or lodging furnished, for example, to restaurant or hotel employees, or to seamen or other employees aboard vessels, since generally these items constitute an appreciable part of the total remuneration of such employees.”
If valid, these regulations dictate that the value of the meals and lodging provided by petitioner to its employees on offshore rigs was includable in “wages” as defined in FICA and FUTA, even though excludable from “wages” under the substantially identical definition in § 3401 (a) for income-tax withholding.
We consider Treasury Regulations valid if they “implement the congressional mandate in some reasonable manner.” United States v. Correll, 389 U. S. 299, 307 (1967); accord, Commissioner v. Portland Cement Co. of Utah, 450 U. S. 156, 169 (1981). In National Muffler Dealers Assn. v. United States, 440 U. S. 472, 477 (1979), we stated: “In determining whether a particular regulation carries out the congressional mandate in a proper manner, we look to see whether the regulation harmonizes with the plain language of the statute, its origin, and its purpose.” Harmony between statutory language and regulation is particularly significant in this case. Congress itself defined the word at issue — “wages”—and the Commissioner interpreted Congress’ definition only under his general authority to “prescribe all needful rules.” 26 U. S. C. § 7805 (a). Because we therefore can measure the Commissioner’s interpretation against a specific provision in the Code, we owe the interpretation less deference than a regulation issued under a specific grant of authority to define a statutory term or prescribe a method of executing a statutory provision. Compare Commissioner v. Portland Cement Co. of Utah, supra, at 165; Fulman v. United States, 434 U. S. 528, 533 (1978); Batterton v. Francis, 432 U. S. 416, 424-425, and nn. 8-9 (1977). Where the Commissioner acts under specific authority, our primary inquiry is whether the interpretation or method is within the delegation of authority.
Among other considerations relevant to the validity of Treasury Regulations, we inquire whether the regulation “is a substantially contemporaneous construction of the statute by those presumed to have been aware of congressional intent,” National Muffler Dealers Assn. v. United States, 440 U. S., at 477; and “[i]f the regulation dates from a later period, the manner in which it evolved merits inquiry.” Ibid. We also consider, if pertinent, “the consistency of the Commissioner’s interpretation, and the degree of scrutiny Congress has devoted to the regulation during subsequent re-enactments of the statute.” Ibid. In this case, we hold that Treas. Reg. §§ 31.3121 (a)-l (f) and 31.3306 (b)-l (f) are invalid, for they fail to implement the congressional mandate in a consistent and reasonable manner.
A
Congress chose “wages” as the base for measuring employers’ obligations under FICA, FUTA, and income-tax withholding. In Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. United States, 435 U. S. 21 (1978), we considered Congress’ use of the concepts of “income” and “wages” for the purpose of income-tax withholding. The question was whether an employer should have included in “wages” for income-tax withholding the reimbursements it had given employees for lunch expenses on company travel that had. not required overnight stays. We held that the employer was not required to include the reimbursements in “wages,” even though the reimbursements constituted “income” to the employees. This holding relied on the recognition that “[t]he two concepts — income and wages — obviously are not necessarily the same. Wages usually are income, but many items qualify as income and yet clearly are not wages.” Id., at 25 (footnote omitted). In short, “wages” is a narrower concept than “income,” see ibid., and the fact that the reimbursements were “income” to the employees did not necessarily mean that the employer had to include them in “wages” for income-tax withholding.
Petitioner contends that its position in this case follows from our reasoning in Central Illinois. Because “wages” is a narrower concept than “income” for the purposes of income-tax withholding, it is argued that the value of the meals and lodging in this case — which the Government acknowledges is not “income” — therefore cannot be “wages” under FICA and FUTA. Petitioner’s argument rests on the assumption that Congress intended the term “wages” to have the same meaning for purposes of FICA, FUTA, and income-tax withholding. We now consider whether petitioner’s assumption is correct.
B
Congress enacted the predecessor provisions of FICA and FUTA as Titles VIII and IX of the Social Security Act of 1935, ch. 531, 49 Stat. 636, 639. It chose “wages” as the base for taxation of employers, § 804, 49 Stat. 637; § 901, 49 Stat. 639, and it defined “wages.” §811 (a), 49 Stat. 639; §907 (b), 49 Stat. 642. Congress originated the present income-tax withholding system in § 172 of the Revenue Act of 1942, 56 Stat. 884. See Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. United States, supra, at 26-27. It again chose “wages” as the base, 56 Stat. 888, and defined “wages” in substantially the same language that it used in FICA and FUTA, id., at 887. When Congress revised the withholding system by replacing § 172 with the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943, 57 Stat. 126, it retained the definition of “wages.” Ibid. In view of this sequence of consistency, the plain language of the statutes is strong evidence that Congress intended “wages” to mean the same thing under FICA, FUTA, and income-tax withholding.
The legislative histories of the Acts establishing income-tax withholding support the conclusion to be drawn from the plain language. These histories reveal a congressional concern for “the interest of simplicity and ease of administration.” S. Rep. No. 1631, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 165 (1942) (Revenue Act of 1942). See Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. United States, supra, at 31. They also reveal that one of the means Congress chose in order to promote simplicity was to base withholding upon the same measure— “wages” — as taxation under FICA and FUTA. Thus, whereas the withholding system proposed by the House provided for withholding upon dividends and bond interest in addition to wages, H. R. Rep. No. 2333, 77th Cong., 2d Sess., 125 (1942), the system proposed by the Senate and enacted in § 172 limited withholding to wages. S. Rep. No. 1631, supra, at 165. “This was a standard that was intentionally narrow and precise.” Central Illinois Public Service Co. v. United States, supra, at 31. Section 172 also specified that remuneration for certain services was excepted from “wages.” According to the Senate Report, “[t]hese exceptions [for income-tax withholding] are identical with the exceptions extended to such services for Social Security tax purposes and are intended to receive the same construction and have the same scope.” S. Rep. No. 1631, supra, at 166.
When Congress replaced § 172, the House devoted much attention to the specified exceptions from “wages,” H. R. Rep. No. 268, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, p. 14 (1943); H. R. Rep. No. 401, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., pt. 1, pp. 22-23 (1943), but it left the essential definition of “wages” unchanged. H. R. Rep. No. 268, supra, at 14. The Senate modified the bill proposed by the House, and reported: “[T]he methods of collection, payment, and administration of the withholding tax have been coordinated generally with those applicable to the Social Security tax imposed on employees under section 1400 of the code. This proposal has been made in order to facilitate the work of both the Government and the employer in administering the withholding system.” S. Rep. No. 221, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., 17 (1943); see also H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 510, 78th Cong., 1st Sess., 28 (1943).
In sum, Congress intended in both the Revenue Act of 1942 and the Current Tax Payment Act of 1943 to coordinate the income-tax withholding system with FICA and FUTA. In both instances, Congress did so to promote simplicity and ease of administration. Contradictory interpretations of substantially identical definitions do not serve that interest. It would be extraordinary for a Congress pursuing this interest to intend, without ever saying so, for identical definitions to be interpreted differently.
Despite the plain language of Congress’ definition of “wages” and this legislative history, the Government contends that FICA and FUTA compose a distinct system of taxation to which the rules of income taxation, such as the exclusion of the value of meals and lodging from “income” under the convenience-of-the-employer rule in § 119, do not apply. In support, the Government recites congressional Committee Reports indicating that Congress enacted the Social Security Act to “relieve the existing distress and... to reduce destitution and dependency in the future,” H. R. Rep. No. 615, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1935). See also S. Rep. No. 628, 74th Cong., 1st Sess., 2 (1935). These Reports also state that “[w]ages include not only the cash payments made to the employee for work done, but also compensation for services in any other form, such as room, board, etc.” H. R. Rep. No. 615, supra, at 32 (Title VIII (FICA)); accord, id., at 36 (Title IX (FUTA)); S. Rep. No. 628, supra, at 44 (FICA), 49 (FUTA). The Government concludes that Congress intended to impose the taxes under FICA and FUTA upon a broad range of remuneration in order to accomplish the Act’s purposes.
We are not persuaded by this contention. The reference by Congress to “room, board, etc.” as examples of “wages” under Titles VIII and IX is ambiguous. It does not n'eces-sarily mean that Congress intended to tax remuneration in kind without regard to principles developed under income taxation, such as the convenience-of-the-employer rule. This rule first appeared in 1919, O. D. 265, 1 Cum. Bull. 71, and was well established by 1935. See Commissioner v. Kowalski, 434 U. S., at 8A-87. There is no evidence in the Committee Reports cited by the Government that Congress intended to exclude this established rule from determinations under Titles VIII and IX or to create a different rule to govern “room, board, etc.” We therefore think that the reference in the Committee Reports to “room, board, etc.” lends no support to the validity of the Treasury Regulations on which the Government relies.
The Government further contends, however, that a line of Treasury Regulations and rulings unbroken since 1940 refutes petitioner’s view that Congress intended a consistent interpretation of the term “wages.” It also contends that we may infer congressional endorsement of these Treasury Regulations and rulings from Congress’ re-enactment of FICA, FUTA, and the income-tax withholding provisions in the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. We now address these contentions.
C
The history of the Treasury Regulations and rulings interpreting Congress’ definition of “wages” in FICA and FUTA is far from consistent. The Commissioner’s contemporaneous construction of Titles VIII (FICA) and IX (FUTA) of the Social Security Act of 1935 was that the convenience-of-the-employer rule applied to the computation of “wages.” Treas. Regs. 90, Art. 207 (1936) (Title IX); Treas. Regs. 91, Art. 14 (1936) (Title VIII)/ Pursuant to Treas. Regs. 90, Art. 207, the Service ruled in 1937 that “supper money” paid to employees working overtime for the convenience of the employer was excludable from “wages” under both Titles. S. S. T. 110, 1937-1 Cum. Bull. 441. Again in 1938, the Service ruled in S. S. T. 302, 1938-1 Cum. Bull. 457, that free lunches provided by an employer for its own convenience were excludable from “wages” under Title IX. See also S. S. T. 383, 1940-1 Cum. Bull. 210-211.
The position taken in the Treasury Regulations and rulings subsequently changed, but without explanation. In 1939, Congress passed the Social Security Act Amendments of 1939, ch. 666, 53 Stat. 1360, that amended some of the specified exclusions from “wages” under FICA and FUTA but left unchanged the definition of “wages.” Compare §§ 603, 614, 53 Stat. 1382, 1392, with §§ 1426 (a), 1607 (b), Internal Revenue Code of 1939, 26 U. S. C. §§ 1426 (a), 1607 (b) (1952 ed.). In 1940, however, the Commissioner issued Treas. Regs. 106, §402.227 (FICA), and Treas. Regs. 107, § 403.227 (FUTA). These Regulations, which were virtually identical to the present Treasury Regulations at issue in this case, excluded the convenience-of-the-employer rule from the computation of “wages” under FICA and FUTA. No reasons were stated for this change. Pursuant to the new Regulations, the Service ruled in 1940 that the value of meals and lodging furnished to the crew operating a steamship was includable in “wages” under FICA and FUTA. S. S. T. 386, 1940-1 Cum. Bull. 211-212. In 1944, the Commissioner stated in Mim. 5657, 1944 Cum. Bull. 551, that the value of meals and lodging furnished by an employer was includable in “wages,” and the Commissioner added without explanation that “ [i]t is immaterial, for the purposes of such taxes, whether the quarters or meals are furnished for the convenience of the employer.”
The Government contends that the 1940 Regulations and the rulings issued pursuant to them acquired “the effect of law” when Congress re-enacted FICA and FUTA without substantial change in the Internal Revenue Code of 1954. United States v. Correll, 389 U. S., at 305; Cammarano v. United States, 358 U. S. 498, 510-511 (1959). In its view, the 1936 Treasury Regulations and the rulings under them were short-lived and therefore are inconsequential. See National Muffler Dealers Assn. v. United States, 440 U. S., at 485-486.
We are unconvinced. Despite Treas. Regs. 106 and 107 and the rulings issued under them, the rule of S. S. T. 302 issued in 1938 — that the value of meals provided for the convenience of the employer is excludable from “wages” — remained in effect until after 1954. In 1957, the Service ruled that S. S. T. 302 did not apply to the provision of meals to restaurant employees, but it also stated that S. S. T. 302 was otherwise “still in full force and effect.” Rev. Rui. 57-471, 1957-2 Cum. Bull. 632. The Service did not explain why it took this position as to S. S. T. 302. It is thus clear that as late as 1957 — 17 years after Treas. Regs. 106 and 107 were adopted — the Service itself was inconsistent in construing the term “wages.” Indeed, it was not until 1962 that the Commissioner finally disavowed S. S. T. 302 in Rev. Rui. 62-150, 1962-2 Cum. Bull. 213. It therefore assumes a great deal to argue that in 1954, when FICA and FUTA were re-enacted, Congress implicitly approved these Treasury Regulations. The Commissioner himself had offered no explanation by 1954 as to why the contemporaneous regulations of 1936 were changed in 1940 or why inconsistent rulings still were being issued. Indeed, the Government in this case has not yet offered an explanation.
The history of the Treasury Regulations and rulings interpreting Congress’ definition of “wages” in FICA and FUTA therefore lends only the most ambiguous support to the view that Congress intended to approve different interpretations of “wages” when it re-enacted the Internal Revenue Code in 1954. The differing interpretations were not substantially contemporaneous constructions of the statutes, and nothing in the manner in which the interpretations changed is probative of congressional endorsement. Nor is there evidence of any particular consideration of these regulations by Congress during re-enactment.
III
We conclude that Treas. Reg. §§ 31.3121 (a)-l (f) and 31.3306 (b)-l (f) fail to implement the statutory definition of “wages” in a consistent or reasonable manner. The plain language and legislative histories of the relevant Acts indicate that Congress intended its definition to be interpreted in the same manner for FICA and FUTA as for income-tax withholding. The Treasury Regulations on which the Government relies fail to do so, and their inconsistent and unexplained application undermine the contention that Congress nonetheless endorsed them. As Congress did intend a consistent interpretation of its definition, these Treasury Regulations also are inconsistent with the Court’s reasoning in Central Illinois.
We therefore hold that the Regulations are invalid, and that the Service erred in relying upon them to include in the computation of “wages” the value of the meals and lodging that petitioner provided for its own convenience to its employees on offshore oil rigs. The judgment of the Court of' Appeals is reversed.
It is so ordered.
It cost petitioner about $6 per day, per man to engage a caterer who provided meals and maintained living quarters on a vessel moored alongside the drilling rig. It would have cost petitioner about $25 per man to have transported the crews to and from land for each work shift.
FICA imposes “on every employer an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in his employ, equal to [specified] percentages of the wages... paid by him with respect to employment.” 26 U. S. C. § 3111. FICA also imposes a tax upon employees, based upon “wages.” § 3101 (a). These taxes fund the Social Security programs. FUTA imposes upon certain employers “an excise tax, with respect to having individuals in [their] employ, equal to [specified percentages] of the total wages... paid by [them] during the calendar year with respect to employment.” §3301 (1970 ed.). This tax funds the federal component of a cooperative federal-state program of unemployment insurance.
Section 3402 (a) provides that “every employer making payment of wages shall deduct and withhold upon such wages a tax determined in accordance with tables prescribed by the Secretary.”
Congress defined “wages” identically in FICA and FUTA, as “all remuneration for employment, including the cash value of all remuneration paid in any medium other than cash.” §§ 3121 (a) (FICA), 3306 (b) (FUTA). For the purpose of income-tax withholding, Congress defined “wages” as “all remuneration (other than fees paid to a public official) for services performed by an employee for his employer, including the cash value of all remuneration paid in any medium other than cash.” §3401 (a).
See n. 9, infra.
The additional assessment totaled $35,198.46, plus interest.
See Oscar Mayer & Co. v. United States, 623 F. 2d 1223 (CA7 1980); Hotel Conquistador, Inc. v. United States, 220 Ct. Cl. 20, 597 F. 2d 1348 (1979), cert. denied, 444 U. S. 1032 (1980).
Section 119 reads, in pertinent part:
“(a) Meals and lodging furnished to employee, his spouse, and his dependents, pursuant to employment.
“There shall be excluded from gross income of an employee the value of any meals or lodging furnished to him, his spouse, or any of his dependents by or on behalf of his employer for the convenience of the employer, but only if—
“(1) in the case of meals, the meals are furnished on the business premises of the employer, or
“(2) in the case of lodging, the employee is required to accept such lodging on the business premises of his employer as a condition of his employment.”
The Court of Appeals assumed, without explicitly holding, that the meals and lodging provided by petitioner fall within Treas. Reg. §§ 31.3121 (a)-l (f) and 31.3306 (b)-l (f), 26 CFR §§31.3121 (a)-l (f) and 31.3306 (b)-l (f) (1980), if those regulations are valid. Petitioner did not question this assumption in its petition for writ of certiorari, although its reply brief on the merits disputed the Government’s assertion that these regulations govern this case if valid. Reply Brief for Petitioner 3, n. 6. We accept the Government’s assertion for the purposes of this opinion.
The convenience-of-the-employer rule was not implicated in determining whether these reimbursements constituted “income” because the requirements of that rule were not present. See n. 8, supra. The treatment of the reimbursements for income taxation was governed by § 162 (a)(2), 26 U. S. C. §162 (a)(2), which allows a deduction for certain traveling expenses.
The Current Tax Payment Act of 1943 moved the income-tax withholding provisions into the same chapter of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 as contained FICA and FUTA. The Social Security Act Amendments of 1939, 53 Stat. 1360, had incorporated Titles VIII and IX of the Social Security Act of 1935, as amended, into Chapter 9 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1939 as FICA and FUTA. The old-age and disability tax provisions of Title VIII became FICA in Subchapter A of Chapter 9, and the unemployment compensation tax provision of Title IX became FUTA in Subehapter C. Section 172 of the Revenue Act of 1942 had added the income-tax withholding system to Chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code as §§ 450-476. The Current Tax Payment Act moved this system into Chapter 9 of the Code as §§ 1621-1632.
The inclusion of “room, board, etc.” in “wages” under FICA and FUTA is not inconsistent with the application of the convenience-of-the-employer rule in determining “wages.” Under the rule, room and board constitute “wages” unless they are provided for the employer’s convenience.
It is true that Congress codified the convenience-of-the-employer rule in § 119 of the income-tax provisions of the Code in 1954. But that does not mean that Congress implicitly foreclosed the applicability of the rule to other provisions of the Code. To the contrary, Congress in 1954 retained — and since has left unchanged — the substantially identical definitions of “wages” for all three obligations upon employers; and the rule expressly applies to “wages” under the income-tax withholding provisions. Treas. Reg. § 31.3401 (a)-l (b) (9), 26 CFR § 31.3401 (a)-l (b) (9) (1980).
Treasury Regulations 90, Art. 207, provided that “facilities or privileges (such as entertainment, cafeterias, restaurants, medical services, or so-called ‘courtesy’ discounts on purchases), furnished or offered by an employer to his employees generally, are not considered as remuneration for services if such facilities or privileges are offered or furnished by the employer merely as a convenience to the employer or as a means of promoting the health, good will, contentment, or efficiency of his employees.” Treasury Regulations 91, Art-. 14, differed slightly, in that it did not contain the phrase “as a convenience to the employer,” but the Service interpreted it in the same way that it interpreted Treas. Regs. 90, Art. 207. See S. S. T. 302, 1938-1 Cum. Bull. 457.
The Government also relies on Pacific American Fisheries, Inc. v. United States, 138 F. 2d 464 (CA9 1943), in contending that we should infer congressional endorsement of the 1940 Treasury Regulations. The court in that case held that “what might not be taxable income for income tax purposes might constitute wages under the provisions of the Social Security Act.” Id., at 465. But the Government cites nothing to suggest that this Court of Appeals’ decision was brought to Congress’ attention when it re-enacted the Code in 1954.
Revenue Ruling 62-150 noted that S. S. T. 302 had been issued under Treasury Regulations 90, Art. 207, which incorporated the convenience-of-the-employer rule for determining “wages,” and that the regulations had omitted that rule since 1940. But it did not explain why the Commissioner had changed the regulations in the first place, or why S. S. T. 302 remained in effect for years after the regulations were changed.
A series of private rulings from 1954 to 1965 further reveals that S. S. T. 302 remained a source of inquiry and confusion for the Service and employers well after the re-enactment of the Internal Revenue Code in 1954. Although these rulings have no precedential force, see 26 U. S. C. § 6110 (j) (3); Treas. Reg. § 301.6110-7 (b), 26 CFR § 301.6110-7 (b) (1980), they are evidence that S. S. T. 302 did not merely lie dormant on the books after the Commissioner issued Treas. Regs. 106, § 402.227 (FICA), and 107, §403.227 (FUTA), in 1940.
In the first of this series, a school inquired whether it had to include the value of meals served to teachers for the school’s convenience in the teachers’ “wages” under FICA. The Service replied in January 1954 that the school need not, for “S. S. T. 302 is applicable to the instant case.” Private Ruling 5401062910A. In the second ruling, an employer inquired whether to include in “wages” under FICA the value of meals and lodging provided pursuant to an employment contract. The Service replied in March 1954 that the employer should include this value because of the employment contract. It stated that S. S. T. 302 was “based on the premises that the lunches were of relatively small value and were furnished merely as a means of promoting the health, good will, contentment, or efficiency of the employees.” Private Ruling 5403042970A. In the third, a restaurant inquired whether to include in “wages” for FICA and FUTA the value of meals provided to employees. The Service replied in January 1955 that the restaurant need not include this value, for “S. S. T. 302 is equally applicable in the instant case.” Private Ruling 5501244180A. This ruling was flatly inconsistent with the Treasury Regulations that included in “wages” the value of meals provided to employees by restaurants. Treas. Regs. 106, §402.227 (FICA); Treas. Regs. 107, §403.227 (FUTA).
The Service had changed its view of S. S. T. 302 by the time it issued the fourth in this series. In 1957, another restaurant inquired whether 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:
|
L
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
These cases require us to address two questions under the Clean Water Act (CWA or Act). The first is whether the Act gives authority to the United States Army Corps of Engineers, or instead to the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA or Agency), to issue a permit for the discharge of mining waste, called slurry. The Corps of Engineers (or Corps) has issued a permit to petitioner Coeur Alaska, Inc. (Coeur Alaska), for a discharge of slurry into a lake in southeast Alaska. The second question is whether, when the Corps issued that permit, the agency acted in accordance with law. We conclude that the Corps was the appropriate agency to issue the permit and that the permit is lawful.
With regard to the first question, § 404(a) of the CWA grants the Corps the power to “issue permits... for the discharge of... fill material.” 86 Stat. 884, 33 U. S. C. § 1344(a). But the EPA also has authority to issue permits for the discharge of pollutants. Section 402 of the Act grants the EPA authority to “issue a permit for the discharge of any pollutant,” “[e]xcept as provided in” §404. 33 U. S. C. § 1342(a). We conclude that because the slurry Coeur Alaska wishes to discharge is defined by regulation as “fill material,” 40 CFR §232.2 (2008), Coeur Alaska properly obtained its permit from the Corps of Engineers, under § 404, rather than from the EPA, under § 402.
The second question is whether the Corps permit is lawful. Three environmental groups, respondents here, sued the Corps under the Administrative Procedure Act, arguing that the issuance of the permit by the Corps was “not in accordance with law.” 5 U. S. C. §706(2)(A). The environmental groups are Southeast Alaska Conservation Council, Sierra Club, and Lynn Canal Conservation (collectively, SEACC). The State of Alaska and Coeur Alaska are petitioners here.
SEACC argues that the permit from the Corps is unlawful because the discharge of slurry would violate an EPA regulation promulgated under § 306(b) of the CWA, 33 U. S. C. § 1316(b). The EPA regulation, which is called a “new source performance standard,” forbids mines like Coeur Alaska’s from discharging “process wastewater” into the navigable waters. 40 CFR § 440.104(b)(1). Coeur Alaska, the State of Alaska, and the federal agencies maintain that the Corps permit is lawful nonetheless because the EPA’s performance standard does not apply to discharges of fill material.
Reversing the judgment of the District Court, the Court of Appeals held that the EPA’s performance standard applies to this discharge so that the permit from the Corps is unlawful.
I
A
Petitioner Coeur Alaska plans to reopen the Kensington Gold Mine, located some 45 miles north of Juneau, Alaska. The mine has been closed since 1928, but Coeur Alaska seeks to make it profitable once more by using a technique known as “froth flotation.” Coeur Alaska will churn the mine’s crushed rock in tanks of frothing water. Chemicals in the water will cause gold-bearing minerals to float to the surface, where they will be skimmed off.
At issue is Coeur Alaska’s plan to dispose of the mixture of crushed rock and water left behind in the tanks. This mixture is called slurry. Some 30 percent of the slurry’s volume is crushed rock, resembling wet sand, which is called tailings. The rest is water.
The standard way to dispose of slurry is to pump it into a tailings pond. The slurry separates in the pond. Solid tailings sink to the bottom, and water on the surface returns to the mine to be used again.
Rather than build a tailings pond, Coeur Alaska proposes to use Lower Slate Lake, located some three miles from the mine in the Tongass National Forest. This lake is small— 800 feet at its widest crossing, 2,000 feet at its longest, and 23 acres in area. See App. 138a, 212a. Though small, the lake is 51 feet deep at its maximum. The parties agree the lake is a navigable water of the United States and so is subject to the CWA. They also agree there can be no discharge into the lake except as the CWA and any lawful permit allow.
Over the life of the mine, Coeur Alaska intends to put 4.5 million tons of tailings in the lake. This will raise the lake-bed 50 feet — to what is now the lake’s surface — and will increase the lake’s area from 23 to about 60 acres. Id., at 361a (62 acres), 212a (56 acres). To contain this wider, shallower body of water, Coeur Alaska will dam the lake’s downstream shore. The transformed lake will be isolated from other surface water. Creeks and stormwater runoff will detour around it. Id., at 298a. Ultimately, lakewater will be cleaned by purification systems and will flow from the lake to a stream and thence onward. Id., at 309a-312a.
B
Numerous state and federal agencies reviewed and approved Coeur Alaska’s plans. At issue here are actions by two of those agencies: the Corps of Engineers and the EPA.
1
The CWA classifies crushed rock as a “pollutant.” 33 U. S. C. § 1362(6). On the one hand, the Act forbids Coeur Alaska’s discharge of crushed rock “[e]xcept as in compliance” with the Act. CWA § 301(a), 33 U. S. C. § 1311(a). Section 404(a) of the CWA, on the other hand, empowers the Corps to authorize the discharge of “dredged or fill material.” 33 U. S. C. § 1344(a). The Corps and the EPA have together defined “fill material” to mean any “material [that] has the effect of... [c]hanging the bottom elevation” of water. 40 CFR § 232.2. The agencies have further defined the “discharge of fill material” to include “placement of... slurry, or tailings or similar mining-related materials.” Ibid.
In these cases the Corps and the EPA agree that the slurry meets their regulatory definition of “fill material.” On that premise the Corps evaluated the mine’s plan for a §404 permit. After considering the environmental factors required by § 404(b), the Corps issued Coeur Alaska a permit to pump the slurry into Lower Slate Lake. App. 340a-378a.
In granting the permit the Corps followed the steps set forth by § 404. Section 404(b) requires the Corps to consider the environmental consequences of every discharge it allows. 33 U. S. C. § 1344(b). The Corps must apply guidelines written by the EPA pursuant to § 404(b). See ibid.; 40 CFR pt. 230 (EPA guidelines). Applying those guidelines here, the Corps determined that Coeur Alaska’s plan to use Lower Slate Lake as a tailings pond was the “least environmentally damaging practicable” way to dispose of the tailings. App. 366a. To conduct that analysis, the Corps compared the plan to the proposed alternatives.
The Corps determined that the environmental damage caused by placing slurry in the lake will be temporary. And during that temporary disruption, Coeur Alaska will divert waters around the lake through pipelines built for this purpose. Id., at 298a. Coeur Alaska will also treat water flowing from the lake into downstream waters, pursuant to strict EPA criteria. Ibid.; see Part I-B-2, infra. Though the slurry will at first destroy the lake’s small population of common fish, that population may later be replaced. After mining operations are completed, Coeur Alaska will help “reclaim]” the lake by “Mapping” the tailings with about four inches of “native material.” App. 361a; id., at 309a. The Corps concluded that
“[t]he reclamation of the lake will result in more emergent wetlands/vegetated shallows with moderate values for fish habitat, nutrient recycling, carbon/detrital export and sediment/toxicant retention, and high values for wildlife habitat.” Id., at 361a.
If the tailings did not go into the lake, they would be placed on nearby wetlands. The resulting pile would rise twice as high as the Pentagon and cover three times as many acres. Reply Brief for Petitioner Coeur Alaska 27. If it were chosen, that alternative would destroy dozens of acres of wetlands — a permanent loss. App. 365a-366a. On the premise that when the mining ends the lake will be at least as environmentally hospitable, if not more so, than now, the Corps concluded that placing the tailings in the lake will cause less damage to the environment than storing them above ground: The reclaimed lake will be “more valuable to the aquatic ecosystem than a permanently filled wetland... that has lost all aquatic functions and values.” Id., at 361a; see also id., at 366a.
2
The EPA had the statutory authority to veto the Corps permit, and prohibit the discharge, if it found the plan to have “an unacceptable adverse effect on municipal water supplies, shellfish beds and fishery areas..., wildlife, or recreational areas.” CWA § 404(c), 33 U. S. C. § 1344(c). After considering the Corps’ findings, the EPA did not veto the Corps permit, even though, in its view, placing the tailings in the lake was not the “environmentally preferable” means of disposing of them. App. 300a. By declining to exercise its veto, the EPA in effect deferred to the judgment of the Corps on this point.
The EPA’s involvement extended beyond the Agency’s veto consideration. The EPA also issued a permit of its own — not for the discharge from the mine into the lake but for the discharge from the lake into a downstream creek. Id., at 287a-331a. Section 402 grants the EPA authority to “issue a permit for the discharge of any pollutant,” “[ejxcept as provided in [CWA §404].” 33 U. S. C. § 1342(a). The EPA’s §402 permit authorizes Coeur Alaska to discharge water from Lower Slate Lake into the downstream creek, subject to strict water-quality limits that Coeur Alaska must regularly monitor. App. 303a-304a, 309a.
The EPA’s authority to regulate this discharge comes from a regulation, termed a “new source performance standard,” that it has promulgated under authority granted to it by § 306(b) of the CWA. Section 306(b) gives the EPA authority to regulate the amount of pollutants that certain categories of new sources may discharge into the navigable waters of the United States. 33 U. S. C. § 1316(b). Pursuant to this authority, the EPA in 1982 promulgated a new source performance standard restricting discharges from new froth-flotation gold mines like Coeur Alaska’s. The standard is stringent: It allows “no discharge of process wastewater” from these mines. 40 CFR § 440.104(b)(1).
Applying that standard to the discharge of water from Lower Slate Lake into the downstream creek, the EPA’s § 402 permit sets strict limits on the amount of pollutants the water may contain. The permit requires Coeur Alaska to treat the water using “reverse osmosis” to remove aluminum, suspended solids, and other pollutants. App. 298a; id., at 304a. Coeur Alaska must monitor the water flowing from the lake to be sure that the pollutants are kept to low, specified minimums. Id., at 326a-330a.
C
SEACC brought suit against the Corps of Engineers and various of its officials in the.United States District Court for the District of Alaska. The Corps permit was not in accordance with law, SEACC argued, for two reasons. First, in SEACC’s view, the permit was issued by the wrong agency — Coeur Alaska ought to have sought a §402 permit from the EPA, just as the company did for the discharge of water from the lake into the downstream creek. See Part I-B-2, supra. Second, SEACC contended that regardless of which agency issued the permit, the discharge itself is unlawful because it will violate the EPA new source performance standard for froth-flotation gold mines. (This is the same performance standard described above, which the EPA has already applied to the discharge of water from the lake into the downstream creek. See ibid.) SEACC argued that this performance standard also applies to the discharge of slurry into the lake. It contended further that the performance standard is a binding implementation of § 306. Section 306(e) of the CWA makes it “unlawful” for Coeur Alaska to “operate” the mine “in violation of” the EPA’s performance standard. 33 U. S. C. § 1316(e).
Coeur Alaska and the State of Alaska intervened as defendants. Both sides moved for summary judgment. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants.
The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit reversed and ordered the District Court to vacate the Corps of Engineers’ permit. Southeast Alaska Conservation Council v. United States Army Corps of Engs., 486 F. 3d 638, 654-655 (2007). The court acknowledged that Coeur Alaska’s slurry “facially meets the Corps’ current regulatory definition of ‘fill material,’ ” id., at 644, because it would have the effect of raising the lake’s bottom elevation. But the court also noted that the EPA’s new source performance standard “prohibits discharges from froth-flotation mills.” Ibid. The Court of Appeals concluded that “[b]oth of the regulations appear to apply in this case, yet they are at odds.” Ibid. To resolve the conflict, the court turned to what it viewed as “the plain language of the Clean Water Act.” Ibid. The court held that the EPA’s new source performance standard “applies to discharges from the froth-flotation mill at Coeur Alaska’s Kensington Gold Mine into Lower Slate Lake.” Ibid.
In addition to the text of the CWA, the Court of Appeals also relied on the agencies’ statements made when promulgating their current and prior definitions of “fill material.” These statements, in the Court of Appeals’ view, demonstrated the agencies’ intent that the EPA’s new source performance standard govern discharges like Coeur Alaska’s. Id., at 648-654.
The Court of Appeals concluded that Coeur Alaska required a § 402 permit for its slurry discharge, that the Corps lacked authority to issue such a permit under § 404, and that the proposed discharge was unlawful because it would violate the EPA new source performance standard and § 306(e).
The decision of the Court of Appeals in effect reallocated the division of responsibility that the Corps and the EPA had been following. The Court granted certiorari. 554 U. S. 931 (2008). We now hold that the decision of the Court of Appeals was incorrect.
II
The question of which agency has authority to consider whether to permit the slurry discharge is our beginning inquiry. We consider first the authority of the EPA and second the authority of the Corps. Our conclusion is that under the CWA the Corps had authority to determine whether Coeur Alaska was entitled to the permit governing this discharge.
A
Section 402 gives the EPA authority to issue “permit[s] for the discharge of any pollutant,” with one important exception: The EPA may not issue permits for fill material that fall under the Corps’ §404 permitting authority. Section 402(a) states:
“Except as provided in... [CWA §404, 33 U. S. C. § 1344], the Administrator may... issue a permit for the discharge of any pollutant,... notwithstanding [CWA § 301(a), 33 U. S. C. § 1311(a)], upon condition that such discharge will meet either (A) all applicable requirements under [CWA §301, 33 U. S. C. § 1311; CWA §302, 33 U. S. C. § 1312; CWA §306, 33 U. S. C. § 1316; CWA §307, 33 U. S. C. § 1317; CWA §308, 33 U. S. C. § 1318; CWA § 403, 33 U. S. C. § 1343], or (B) prior to the taking of necessary implementing actions relating to all such requirements, such conditions as the Administrator determines are necessary to carry out the provisions of this chapter.” 33 U. S. C. § 1342(a)(1) (emphasis added).
Section 402 thus prohibits the EPA from exercising permitting authority that is “provided [to the Corps] in” § 404.
This is not to say the EPA has no role with respect to the environmental consequences of fill. The EPA’s function is different, in regulating fill, from its function in regulating other pollutants, but the Agency does exercise some authority. Section 404 assigns the EPA two tasks in regard to fill material. First, the EPA must write guidelines for the Corps to follow in determining whether to permit a discharge of fill material. CWA § 404(b); 33 U. S. C. § 1344(b). Second, the Act gives the EPA authority to “prohibit” any decision by the Corps to issue a permit for a particular disposal site. CWA § 404(c); 33 U. S. C. § 1344(c). We, and the parties, refer to this as the EPA’s power to veto a permit.
The Act is best understood to provide that if the Corps has authority to issue a permit for a discharge under §404, then the EPA lacks authority to do so under § 402.
Even if there were ambiguity on this point, the EPA’s own regulations would resolve it. Those regulations provide that “discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States which are regulated under section 404 of CWA” “do not require [§402] permits” from the EPA. 40 CFR §122.3.
In SEACC’s view, this regulation implies that some “fill material” discharges are not regulated under §404 — else, SEACC asks, why would the regulation lack a comma before the word “which,” and thereby imply that only a subset of “discharges of... fill material” are “regulated under section 404.” Ibid.
The agencies, however, have interpreted this regulation otherwise. In the agencies’ view the regulation essentially restates the text of § 402, and prohibits the EPA from issuing permits for discharges that “are regulated under section 404.” 40 CFR § 122.3(b); cf. CWA § 402(a) (“[e]xcept as provided in... [§ 404], the Administrator may... issue a permit”). Before us, the EPA confirms this reading of the regulation. Brief for Federal Respondents 27. The Agency’s interpretation is not “plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation”; and so we accept it as correct. Auer v. Robbins, 519 U. S. 452, 461 (1997) (internal quotation marks omitted).
The question whether the EPA is the proper agency to regulate the slurry discharge thus depends on whether the Corps of Engineers has authority to do so. If the Corps has authority to issue a permit, then the EPA may not do so. We turn to the Corps’ authority under § 404.
B
Section 404(a) gives the Corps power to “issue permits... for the discharge of dredged or fill material.” 33 U. S. C. § 1344(a). As all parties concede, the slurry meets the definition of fill material agreed upon by the agencies in a joint regulation promulgated in 2002. That regulation defines “fill material” to mean any “material [that] has the effect of... [c]hanging the bottom elevation” of water — a definition that includes “slurry, or tailings or similar mining-related materials.” 40 CFR § 232.2.
SEACC concedes that the slurry to be discharged meets the regulation’s definition of fill material. Brief for Respondent SEACC et al. 20. Its concession on this point is appropriate because slurry falls well within the central understanding of the term “fill,” as shown by the examples given by the regulation. See 40 CFR § 232.2 (“Examples of such fill material include, but are not limited to: rock, sand, soil, clay... ”). The regulation further excludes “trash or garbage” from its definition. Ibid. SEACC expresses a concern that Coeur Alaska’s interpretation of the statute will lead to § 404 permits authorizing the discharges of other solids that are now restricted by EPA standards. Brief for Respondent SEACC et al. 44-45 (listing, for example, “feces and uneaten feed,” “litter,” and waste produced in “battery manufacturing”). But these extreme instances are not presented by the cases now before us. If, in a future case, a discharger of one of these solids were to seek a § 404 permit, the dispositive question for the agencies would be whether the solid at issue — for instance, “feces and uneaten feed”— came within the regulation’s definition of “fill.” SEACC cites no instance in which the agencies have so interpreted their fill regulation. If that instance did arise, and the agencies were to interpret the fill regulation as SEACC fears, then SEACC could challenge that decision as an unlawful interpretation of the fill regulation; or SEACC could claim that the fill regulation as interpreted is an unreasonable interpretation of §404. The difficulties are not presented here, however, because the slurry meets the regulation’s definition of fill.
Rather than challenge the agencies’ decision to define the slurry as fill, SEACC instead contends that §404 contains an implicit exception. According to SEACC, § 404 does not authorize the Corps to permit a discharge of fill material if that material is subject to an EPA new source performance standard.
But §404’s text does not limit its grant of power in this way. Instead, § 404 refers to all “fill material” without qualification. Nor do the EPA regulations support SEACC’s reading of § 404. The EPA has enacted guidelines, pursuant to § 404(b), to guide the Corps’ permitting decision. 40 CFR pt. 230. Those guidelines do not strip the Corps of power to issue permits for fill in cases where the fill is also subject to an EPA new source performance standard.
SEACC’s reading of § 404 would create numerous difficulties for the regulated industry. As the regulatory regime stands now, a discharger must ask a simple question — is the substance to be discharged fill material or not? The fill regulation, 40 CFR §232.2, offers a clear answer to that question; and under the agencies’ view, that answer decides the matter — if the discharge is fill, the discharger must seek a § 404 permit from the Corps; if not, only then must the dis-charger consider whether any EPA performance standard applies, so that the discharger requires a § 402 permit from the EPA.
Under SEACC’s interpretation, however, the discharger would face a more difficult problem. The discharger would have to ask — is the fill material also subject to one of the many hundreds of EPA performance standards, so that the permit must come from the EPA, not the Corps? The statute gives no indication that Congress intended to burden industry with that confusing division of permit authority.
The regulatory scheme discloses a defined, and workable, line for determining whether the Corps or the EPA has the permit authority. Under this framework, the Corps of Engineers, and not the EPA, has authority to permit Coeur Alaska’s discharge of the slurry.
Ill
A second question remains: In issuing the permit did the Corps act in violation of a statutory mandate so that the issuance was “not in accordance with law”? 5 U. S. C. §706(2)(A). SEACC contends that the slurry discharge will violate the EPA’s new source performance standard and that the Corps’ permit is made “unlawful” by CWA § 306(e). Petitioners and the agencies argue that the permit is lawful because the EPA performance standard and § 306(e) do not apply to fill material regulated by the Corps. In order to determine whether the Corps’ permit is lawful we must answer the question: Do EPA performance standards, and § 306(e), apply to discharges of fill material?
We address in turn the statutory text of the CWA, the agencies’ regulations construing it, and the EPA’s subsequent interpretation of those regulations. Because Congress has not “directly spoken” to the “precise question” of whether an EPA performance standard applies to discharges of fill material, the statute alone does not resolve the case. Chevron U S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842 (1984). We look first to the agency regulations, which are entitled to deference if they resolve the ambiguity in a reasonable manner. Ibid.; see United States v. Mead Corp., 533 U. S. 218, 226-227 (2001). But the regulations, too, are ambiguous, so we next turn to the agencies’ subsequent interpretation of those regulations. Id., at 234-238; Auer, 519 U. S., at 461. In an internal memorandum the EPA explained that its performance standards do not apply to discharges of fill material. That interpretation is not “plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulation[s],” and so we accept it as correct. Ibid, (internal quotation marks omitted). Though SEACC contends that the agencies’ interpretation is not entitled to deference because it contradicts the agencies’ published statements and prior practice, we disagree with SEACC’s reading of those statements and of the regulatory record.
A
As for the statutory argument, SEACC claims the CWA §404 permit is unlawful because § 306(e) forbids the slurry discharge. Petitioners and the federal agencies, in contrast, contend that § 306(e) does not apply to the slurry discharge.
1
To address SEACC’s statutory argument, it is necessary to review the EPA’s responsibilities under the CWA. As noted, §306 empowers the EPA to regulate the froth-flotation gold mining industry. See 33 U. S. C. § 1316(b). Pursuant to this authority, EPA promulgated the new source performance standard relied upon by SEACC. The standard is stringent. If it were to apply here, it would allow “no discharge of process wastewater” from the mine. 40 CFR § 440.104(b)(1).
The term “process wastewater” includes solid waste. So the regulation forbids not only pollutants that dissolve in water but also solid pollutants suspended in water — what the Agency terms “total suspended solids,” or TSS. See § 440.104(a) (limiting the amount of TSS from other kinds of mines); see also EPA Development Document for Effluent Limitations Guidelines and Standards for the Ore Mining and Dressing Point Source Category 157-158 (Nov. 1982) (the amount of TSS in “wastewater” from froth-flotation mines is “generally high”); id., at 175 (Table VI-6) (measuring the amounts of TSS in samples of froth-flotation mines’ discharges); id., at 194 (stating an intent to “regulat[e]” TSS); id., at 402 (evaluating the costs of constructing a “settling pond”); id., at 535 (concluding that even in mountainous regions, a froth-flotation mine will be able to construct a “tailings impoundment” to “provide a disposal area for mill tailings”).
Were there any doubt about whether the EPA’s new source performance standard forbade solids as well as soluble pollutants, the Agency’s action in these cases would resolve it. Here, the EPA’s §402 permit authorizes Coeur Alaska to discharge water from Lower Slate Lake into a downstream creek, provided the water meets the quality requirements set by the performance standard. This demonstrates that the performance standard regulates solid waste. The EPA’s permit not only restricts the amount of total suspended solids, App. 327a (Table 3), but also prohibits the mine from allowing any “floating solids” to flow from the lake. Id., at 328a. No party disputes the EPA’s authority to regulate these discharges of solid mining waste; and no party questions the validity of the EPA’s new source performance standard when it is applicable.
When the performance standard applies to a point source, § 306(e) makes it “unlawful” for that point source to violate it: “[I]t shall be unlawful for any owner or operator of any new source to operate such source in violation of any standard of performance applicable to such source.” CWA § 306(e), 33 U. S. C. § 1316(e).
SEACC argues that this provision, § 306(e), prohibits the mine from discharging slurry into Lower Slate Lake. SEACC contends the new source performance standard is, in the words of § 806(e), “applicable to” the mine. Both the text of the performance standard and the EPA’s application of it to the discharge of mining waste from Lower Slate Lake demonstrate that the performance standard is “applicable to” Coeur Alaska’s mine in some circumstances. And so, SEACC reasons, it follows that because the new source performance standard forbids even minute discharges of solid waste, it also forbids the slurry discharge, 30 percent of which is solid waste.
2
For their part, the State of Alaska and the federal agencies claim that the Act is unambiguous in the opposite direction. They rely on § 404 of the Act. As explained above, that section authorizes the Corps of Engineers to determine whether to issue a permit allowing the discharge of the slurry. Petitioners and the agencies argue that §404 grants the Corps authority to do so without regard to the EPA’s new source performance standard or the § 306(e) prohibition discussed above.
Petitioners and the agencies make two statutory arguments based on § 404’s silence in regard to § 306. First, they note that nothing in § 404 requires the Corps to consider the EPA’s new source performance standard or the § 306(e) prohibition. That silence advances the argument that §404’s grant of authority to “issue permits” contradicts §306(e)’s declaration that discharges in violation of new source per-. formance standards are “unlawful.”
Second, petitioners and the agencies point to §404(p), which protects § 404 permitees from enforcement actions by the EPA or private citizens:
“Compliance with a permit issued pursuant to this section... shall be deemed compliance, for purposes of sections 1319 [CWA §309] and 1365 [CWA §505] of this title, with sections 1311 [CWA §301], 1317 [CWA §307], and 1343 [CWA §403] of this title.” 33 U. S. C. § 1344(p).
Here again, their argument is that silence is significant. Section 404(p) protects the permittee from lawsuits alleging violations of CWA § 301 (which bars the discharge of “any pollutant” “[e]xcept as in compliance” with the Act); §307 (which bars the discharge of “toxic pollutants”); and §403 (which bars discharges into the sea). But § 404(p) does not in express terms protect the permittee from a lawsuit alleging a violation of § 306(e) or of the EPA’s new source performance standards. Section 404(p)’s silence regarding § 306 is made even more significant because a parallel provision in § 402 does protect a § 402 permittee from an enforcement action alleging a violation of §306. CWA §402(k), 33 U. S. C. § 1342(k).
In our view, Congress’ omission of §306 from §404, and its inclusion of §306 in §402(k), is evidence that Congress did not intend § 306(e) to apply to Corps § 404 permits or to discharges of fill material. If § 306 did apply, then the Corps would be required to evaluate each permit application for compliance with § 306, and issue a permit only if it found the discharge would comply with § 306. But even if that finding were made, it is not clear that the §404 permittee would be protected from a suit seeking a judicial determination that the discharge violates § 306.
3
The CWA is ambiguous on the question whether § 306 applies to discharges of fill material regulated under § 404. On the one hand, §306 provides that a discharge that violates an EPA new source performance standard is “unlawful”— without any exception for fill material. On the other hand, §404 grants the Corps blanket authority to permit the discharge of fill material — without any mention of § 306. This tension indicates that Congress has not “directly spoken” to the “precise question” whether § 306 applies to discharges of fill material. Chevron, 467 U. S., at 842.
B
Before turning to how the agencies have resolved that question, we consider the formal regulations that bear on §§306 and 404. See Mead, 533 U. S., at 234-238. The regulations, like the statutes, do not address the question whether § 306, and the EPA new source performance standards promulgated under it, applies to § 404 permits and the discharges they authorize. There is no regulation, for example, interpreting § 306(e)’s text — “standard of performance applicable to such source” — to mean that a performance standard ceases to be “applicable” the moment the discharge qualifies as fill material, which would resolve the cases in petitioners’ favor. Nor is there a regulation providing that the Corps, in deciding whether to grant a permit under § 404, must deny that permit if the discharge would violate § 306(e), which would decide the cases for SEACC.
Rather than address the tension between §§ 306 and 404, the regulations instead implement the statutory framework without elaboration on this point. Each of the two principal regulations, which have been mentioned above, seems to stand on its own without reference to the other. The EPA’s new source performance standard contains no exception for fill material; and it forbids any discharge of “process wastewater,” a term that includes solid wastes. 40 CFR §440.104(b)(1); see Part III-A-1, supra. The agencies’ joint regulation defining fill material is also unqualified. It includes “slurry, or tailings or similar mining-related materials” in its definition of a “discharge of fill material,” 40 CFR § 232.2; and it contains no exception for slurry that is regulated by an EPA performance standard.
The parties point to additional regulations, but these pro- ■ visions do not offer a clear basis of reconciliation. An EPA regulation, mentioned above, provides that “ [discharges of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States which are regulated under section 404 of CWA” “do not require [§ 402] permits” from the EPA. § 122.3. As we have explained, however, this merely states that a permit for this discharge cannot be issued by the EPA. See Part II,
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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.
At petitioner’s trial, a Government witness who had been indicted with petitioner, testified that the Government had made no promises to him with respect to the disposition of his case. Petitioner was convicted and he appealed. Meanwhile, the witness had pleaded guilty to a lesser charge contained in a superseding indictment; and at the witness’ sentencing hearing, the United States Attorney made certain statements that petitioner interpreted as proving that promises had been made to the witness prior to his testimony and that the witness had testified falsely at petitioner’s trial. Without presenting the matter to the District Court, petitioner pressed the question in the Court of Appeals. That court accepted the tendered issue, examined the transcript of the hearing at which the witness was sentenced, considered the Government’s response in the Court of Appeals and, although the prosecutor’s remarks were deemed ambiguous and the question thought to be a “close” one, concluded that no promises had been made to the witness prior to the witness’ testimony at petitioner’s trial.
Unquestionably, had there been a promise to the witness prior to his testimony, Giglio v. United States, 405 U. S. 150 (1972), and Napue v. Illinois, 360 U. S. 264 (1959), would require reversal of petitioner’s conviction. It is also clear that there was a plea bargain between the witness and the Government at some point, the question being whether it was made after or before petitioner’s trial. This factual issue was dispositive of the case, and it would have been better practice not to resolve it in the Court of Appeals based only on the materials then before the court. The issue should have been remanded for initial disposition in the District Court after an evi-dentiary hearing. We therefore grant the petition for certiorari and the motion to proceed in forma pauperis, vacate the judgment of the Court of Appeals, and remand the case to that court with instructions to remand the case to the District Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
So ordered.
The Government’s response to the petition for certiorari agrees that factfinding is the basic responsibility of district courts, rather than appellate courts, and that the Court of Appeals should not have resolved in the first instance this factual dispute which had not been considered by the District Court. See, e. g., General Electric Credit Corp. v. Robbins, 414 F. 2d 208, 211 (CA8 1969); Yanish v. Barber, 232 F. 2d 939, 946-947 (CA9 1956). See also 5A J. Moore, Federal Practice ¶ 52.06 [2] n. 1 (2d ed. 1974).
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Justice Scalia
delivered the opinion of the Court.
This case presents the question whether a party’s post-filing change in citizenship can cure a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction that existed at the time of filing in an action premised upon diversity of citizenship. See 28 U. S. C. § 1332.
I
Respondent Atlas Global Group, L. R, is a limited partnership created under Texas law. In November 1997, Atlas filed a state-law suit against petitioner Grupo Dataflux, a Mexican corporation, in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Texas. The complaint contained claims for breach of contract and in quantum meruit, seeking over $1.3 million in damages. It alleged that “[fjederal jurisdiction is proper based upon diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U. S. C. § 1332(a), as this suit is between a Texas citizen [Atlas] and a citizen or subject of Mexico [Grupo Da-taflux].” App. 19a (Complaint ¶3). Pretrial motions and discovery consumed almost three years. In October 2000, the parties consented to a jury trial presided over by a Magistrate Judge. On October 27, after a 6-day trial, the jury returned a verdict in favor of Atlas awarding $750,000 in damages.
On November 18, before entry of the judgment, Dataflux filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction because the parties were not diverse at the time the complaint was filed. See Fed. Rules Civ. Proe. 12(b)(1), (h)(3). The Magistrate Judge granted the motion. The dismissal was based upon the accepted rule that, as a partnership, Atlas is a citizen of each State or foreign country of which any of its partners is a citizen. See Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U. S. 185, 192-195 (1990). Because Atlas had two partners who were Mexican citizens at the time of filing, the partnership was a Mexican citizen. (It was also a citizen of Delaware and Texas based on the citizenship of its other partners.) And because the defendant, Dataflux, was a Mexican corporation, aliens were on both sides of the case, and the requisite diversity was therefore absent. See Mossman v. Higginson, 4 Dall. 12, 14 (1800).
On appeal, Atlas did not dispute the finding of no diversity at the time of filing. It urged the Court of Appeals to disregard this failure and reverse dismissal because the Mexican partners had left the partnership in a transaction consummated the month before trial began. Atlas argued that, since diversity existed when the jury rendered its verdict, dismissal was inappropriate. The Fifth Circuit agreed. 312 F. 3d 168, 174 (2002). It acknowledged the general rule that, for purposes of determining the existence of diversity jurisdiction, the citizenship of the parties is to be determined with reference to the facts as they existed at the time of filing. Id,., at 170. However, relying on our decision in Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U. S. 61 (1996), it held that the conclusiveness of citizenship at the time of filing was subject to exception when the following conditions are satisfied:
“(1) [A]n action is filed or removed when constitutional and/or statutory jurisdictional requirements are not met, (2) neither the parties nor the judge raise the error until after a jury verdict has been rendered, or a disposi-tive ruling has been made by the court, and (3) before the verdict is rendered, or ruling is issued, the jurisdictional defect is cured.” 312 F. 3d, at 174.
The opinion strictly limited the exception as follows: “If at any point prior to the verdict or ruling, the issue is raised, the court must apply the general rule and dismiss regardless of subsequent changes in citizenship.” Ibid.
The jurisdictional error in the present case not having been identified until after the jury returned its verdict; and the postfiling change in the composition of the partnership having (in the Court’s view) cured the jurisdictional defect; the Court reversed and remanded with instructions to the District Court to enter judgment in favor of Atlas. Ibid. We granted certiorari. 540 U. S. 944 (2008).
II
It has long been the case that “the jurisdiction of the court depends upon the state of things at the time of the action brought.” Mollan v. Torrance, 9 Wheat. 537, 539 (1824). This time-of-filing rule is hornbook law (quite literally) taught to first-year law students in any basic course on federal civil procedure. It measures all challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction premised upon diversity of citizenship against the state of facts that existed at the time of filing — whether the challenge be brought shortly after filing, after the trial, or even for the first time on appeal. (Challenges to subject-matter jurisdiction can of course be raised at any time prior to final judgment. See Capron v. Van Noorden, 2 Cranch 126 (1804).)
We have adhered to the time-of-filing rule regardless of the costs it imposes. For example, in Anderson v. Watt, 138 U. S. 694 (1891), two executors of an estate, claiming to be New York citizens, had brought a diversity-based suit in federal court against defendants alleged to be Florida citizens. When it later developed that two of the defendants were New York citizens, the plaintiffs sought to save jurisdiction by revoking the letters testamentary for one executor and alleging that the remaining executor was in fact a British citizen. The Court rejected this attempted postfiling salvage operation, because at the time of filing the executors included a New Yorker. Id., at 708. It dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction, even though the case had been filed about 5V2 years earlier, the trial court had entered a decree ordering land to be sold 4 years earlier, the sale had been made, exceptions had been filed and overruled, and the case had come to the Court on appeal from the order confirming the land sale. Id., at 698. Writing for the Court, Chief Justice Fuller adhered to the principle set forth in Conolly v. Taylor, 2 Pet. 556, 565 (1829), that “jurisdiction depending on the condition of the party is governed by that condition, as it was at the commencement of the suit.” “[Jurisdiction,” he reasoned, “could no more be given ... by the amendment than if a citizen of Florida had sued another in that court and subsequently sought to give it jurisdiction by removing from the State.” 138 U. S., at 708.
It is uncontested that application of the time-of-filing rule to this case would require dismissal, but Atlas contends that this Court “should accept the very limited exception created by the Fifth Circuit to the time-of-filing principle.” Brief for Respondents 2. The Fifth Circuit and Atlas rely on our statement in Caterpillar, supra, at 75, that “[o]nce a diversity case has been tried in federal court . . . considerations of finality, efficiency, and economy become overwhelming.” This statement unquestionably provided the ratio decidendi in Caterpillar, but it did not augur a new approach to deciding whether a jurisdictional defect has been cured.
Caterpillar broke no new ground, because the jurisdictional defect it addressed had been cured by the dismissal of the party that had destroyed diversity. That method of curing a jurisdictional defect had long been an exception to the time-of-filing rule. “[T]he question always is, or should be, when objection is taken to the jurisdiction of the court by reason of the citizenship of some of the parties, whether ... they are indispensable parties, for if their interests are sev-erable and a decree without prejudice to their rights may be made, the jurisdiction of the court should be retained and the suit dismissed as to them.” Horn v. Lockhart, 17 Wall. 570, 579 (1873). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 21 provides that “[p]arties may be dropped or added by order of the court on motion of any party or of its own initiative at any stage of the action and on such terms as are just.” By now, “it is well settled that Rule 21 invests district courts with authority to allow a dispensable nondiverse party to be dropped at any time, even after judgment has been rendered.” Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo-Larrain, 490 U. S. 826, 832 (1989). Indeed, the Court held in Newman-Green that courts of appeals also have the authority to cure a jurisdictional defect by dismissing a dispensable nondiverse party. Id., at 837.
Caterpillar involved an unremarkable application of this established exception. Complete diversity had been lacking at the time of removal to federal court, because one of the plaintiffs shared Kentucky citizenship with one of the defendants. Almost three years after the District Court denied a motion to remand, but before trial, the diversity-destroying defendant settled out of the case and was dismissed. The case proceeded to a 6-day jury trial, resulting in judgment for the defendant, Caterpillar, against Lewis. This Court unanimously held that the lack of complete diversity at the time of removal did not require dismissal of the case.
The sum of Caterpillar’s jurisdictional analysis was an approving acknowledgment of Lewis’s admission that there was “complete diversity, and therefore federal subject-matter jurisdiction, at the time of trial and judgment.” 519 U. S., at 73. The failure to explain why this solved the problem was not an oversight, because there was nothing novel to explain. The postsettlement dismissal of the diversity-destroying defendant cured the jurisdictional defect just as the dismissal of the diversity-destroying party had done in Newman-Green. In both cases, the less-than-complete diversity which had subsisted throughout the action had been converted to complete diversity between the remaining parties to the final judgment. See also Horn, supra, at 579.
While recognizing that Caterpillar is “technically” distinguishable because the defect was cured by the dismissal of a diversity-destroying party, the Fifth Circuit reasoned that “this factor was not at the heart of the Supreme Court’s analysis____” 312 F. 3d, at 172-173. The crux of the analysis, according to the Fifth Circuit, was Caterpillar’s statement that “[o]nce a diversity case has been tried in federal court . . . considerations of finality, efficiency, and economy become overwhelming.” 519 U. S., at 75. This was indeed the crux of analysis in Caterpillar, but analysis of a different issue. It related not to cure of the jurisdictional defect, but to cure of a statutory defect, namely, failure to comply with the requirement of the removal statute, 28 U. S. C. § 1441(a), that there be complete diversity at the time of removal. The argument to which the statement was directed took as its starting point that subject-matter jurisdiction had been satisfied: “ultimate satisfaction of the subject-matter jurisdiction requirement ought not swallow up antecedent statutory violations.” 519 U. S., at 74 (emphasis added). The resulting holding of Caterpillar, therefore, is only that a statutory defect — “Caterpillar’s failure to meet the § 1441(a) requirement that the case be fit for federal adjudication at the time the removal petition is filed,” id., at 73 — did not require dismissal once there was no longer any jurisdictional defect.
III
To our knowledge, the Court has never approved a deviation from the rule articulated by Chief Justice Marshall in 1829 that “[wjhere there is no change of party, a jurisdiction depending on the condition of the party is governed by that condition, as it was at the commencement of the suit.” Conolly, 2 Pet., at 565 (emphasis added). Unless the Court is to manufacture a brand-new exception to the time-of-filing rule, dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is the only option available in this case. The purported cure arose not from a change in the parties to the action, but from a change in the citizenship of a continuing party. Withdrawal of the Mexican partners from Atlas did not change the fact that Atlas, the single artificial entity created under Texas law, remained a party to the action. True, the composition of the partnership, and consequently its citizenship, changed. But allowing a citizenship change to cure the jurisdictional defect that existed at the time of filing would contravene the principle articulated by Chief Justice Marshall in Conolly We decline to do today what the Court has refused to do for the past 175 years.
Apart from breaking with our longstanding precedent, holding that “finality, efficiency, and judicial economy” can justify suspension of the time-of-filing rule would create an exception of indeterminate scope. The Court of Appeals sought to cabin the exception with the statement that “[i]f at any point prior to the verdict or ruling, the [absence of diversity at the time of filing] is raised, the court must apply the general rule and dismiss regardless of subsequent changes in citizenship,” 312 F. 3d, at 174. This limitation is unsound in principle and certain to be ignored in practice.
It is unsound in principle because there is no basis in reason or logic to dismiss preverdict if in fact the change in citizenship has eliminated the jurisdictional defect. Either the court has jurisdiction at the time the defect is identified (because the parties are diverse at that time) or it does not (because the postfiling citizenship change is irrelevant). If the former, then dismissal is inappropriate; if the latter, then retention of jurisdiction postverdict is inappropriate.
Only two escapes from this dilemma come to mind, neither of which is satisfactory. First, one might say that it is not any change in party citizenship that cures the jurisdictional defect, but only a change that remains unnoticed until the end of trial. That is not so much a logical explanation as a restatement of the illogic that produces the dilemma. There is no conceivable reason why the jurisdictional deficiency which continues despite the citizenship change should suddenly disappear upon the rendering of a verdict. Second, one might say that there never was a cure, but that the party who failed to object before the end of trial forfeited his objection. This is logical enough, but comes up against the established principle, reaffirmed earlier this Term, that “a court’s subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be expanded to account for the parties’ litigation conduct.” Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U. S. 443, 456 (2004). “A litigant generally may raise a court’s lack of subject-matter jurisdiction at any time in the same civil action, even initially at the highest appellate instance.” Id., at 455. Because the Fifth Circuit’s attempted limitation upon its new exception makes a casualty either of logic or of this Court’s jurisprudence, there is no principled way to defend it.
And principled or not, the Fifth Circuit’s artificial limitation is sure to be discarded in practice. Only 8% of diversity cases concluded in 2003 actually went to trial, and the median time from filing to trial disposition was nearly two years. See Administrative Office of the United States Courts, Statistics on Diversity Filings and Terminations in District Courts for Calendar Year 2008 (on file with the Clerk of Court). In such a litigation environment, an approach to jurisdiction that focuses on efficiency and judicial economy cannot possibly be held to the line drawn by the Court of Appeals. As Judge Garza observed in his dissent:
“[TJhere is no difference in efficiency terms between the jury verdict and, for example, the moment at which the jury retires. Nor, for that matter, is there a large difference between the verdict and mid-way through the trial... . Indeed, in complicated cases requiring a great deal of discovery, the parties and the court often expend tremendous resources long before the case goes to trial.” 312 F. 3d, at 177.
IV
The dissenting opinion rests on two principal propositions: (1) the jurisdictional defect in this case was cured by a change in the composition of the partnership; and (2) refusing to recognize an exception to the time-of-filing rule in this case wastes judicial resources, while creating an exception does not. We discuss each in turn.
A
Unlike the dissent, our opinion does not turn on whether the jurisdictional defect here contained at least “minimal diversity.” Regardless of how one characterizes the acknowledged jurisdictional defect, it was never cured. The only two ways in which one could conclude that it had been cured would be either (1) to acknowledge that a party’s post-filing change of citizenship can cure a time-of-filing jurisdictional defect, or (2) to treat a change in the composition of a partnership like a change in the parties to the action. The Court has never, to our knowledge, done the former; and not even the dissent suggests that it ought to do so in this case. The dissent diverges from our analysis by adopting the latter approach, stating that “this case seems ... indistinguishable from one in which there is a change in the parties to the action.” Post, at 591 (internal quotation marks omitted).
This equation of a dropped partner with a dropped party is flatly inconsistent with Carden. The dissent in Carden sought to apply a “real party to the controversy” approach to determine which partners counted for purposes of jurisdictional analysis. The Carden majority rejected that approach, reasoning that “[t]he question presented today is not which of various parties before the Court should be considered for purposes of determining whether there is complete diversity of citizenship .... There are not . . . multiple respondents before the Court, but only one: the artificial entity called Arkoma Associates, a limited partnership.” 494 U. S., at 188, n. 1. Today’s dissent counters that “[w]hile a partnership may be characterized as a single artificial entity, a district court determining whether diversity jurisdiction exists looks to the citizenship of the several persons composing [the entity].” Post, at 591, n. 8 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). It is true that the court “looks to” the citizenship of the several persons composing the entity, but it does so for the purpose of determining the citizenship of the entity that is a party, not to determine which citizens who compose the entity are to be treated as parties. See Carden, 494 U. S., at 188, n. 1 (“[W]hat we must decide is the . . . question of how the citizenship of that single artificial entity is to be determined”); id., at 195 (“[W]e reject the contention that to determine, for diversity purposes, the citizenship of an artificial entity, the court may consult the citizenship of less than all of the entity’s members”).
There was from the beginning of this action a single plaintiff (Atlas), which, under Carden, was not diverse from the sole defendant (Dataflux). Thus, this case fails to present “two adverse parties [who] are not co-citizens.” State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Tashire, 386 U. S. 523, 531 (1967). Contrary to the dissent’s characterization, then, this is not a case like Caterpillar or Newman-Green in which “party lineup changes . . . simply trimmed the litigation down to an ever-present core that met the statutory requirement.” Post, at 591. Rather, this is a case in which a single party changed its citizenship by changing its internal composition.
The incompatibility with prior law of the dissent’s attempt to treat a change in partners like a change in parties is revealed by a curious anomaly: It would produce a case unlike every other ease in which dropping a party has cured a jurisdictional defect, in that no judicial action (such as granting a motion to dismiss) was necessary to get the jurisdictional spoilers out of the case. Indeed, judicial action to that end was not even possible: The court could hardly have “dismissed” the partners from the partnership to save jurisdiction.
B
We now turn from consideration of the conceptual difficulties with the dissent’s disposition to consideration of its practical consequences. The time-of-filing rule is what it is precisely because the facts determining jurisdiction are subject to change, and because constant litigation in response to that change would be wasteful. The dissent would have it that the time-of-filing rule applies to establish that a court has jurisdiction (and to protect that jurisdiction from later destruction), but does not apply to establish that a court lacks jurisdiction (and to prevent postfiling changes that perfect jurisdiction). Post, at 583-584. But whether destruction or perfection of jurisdiction is at issue, the policy goal of minimizing litigation over jurisdiction is thwarted whenever a new exception to the time-of-filing rule is announced, arousing hopes of further new exceptions in the future. Cf. Dretke v. Haley, ante, at 394-395 (recognizing that the creation of exceptions to judge-made procedural rules will enmesh the federal courts in litigation testing the boundaries of each new exception). That litigation-fostering effect would be particularly strong for a new exception derived from such an expandable concept as the “efficiency” rationale relied upon by the dissent.
The dissent argues that it is essential to uphold jurisdiction in this and similar cases because dismissal followed by refiling condemns the parties to “an almost certain replay of the case, with, in all likelihood, the same ultimate outcome.” Post, at 595. But if the parties expect “the same ultimate outcome,” they will not waste time and resources slogging through a new trial. They will settle, with the jury’s prior verdict supplying a range for the award. Indeed, settlement instead of retrial will probably occur even if the parties do not expect the same ultimate outcome. When the stakes remain the same and the players have been shown each other’s cards, they will not likely play the hand all the way through just for the sake of the game. And finally, even if the parties run the case through complete “relitigation in the very same District Court in which it was first filed in 1997,” post, at 598, the “waste” will not be great. Having been through three years of discovery and pretrial motions in the current case, the parties would most likely proceed promptly to trial.
Looked at in its overall effect, and not merely in its application to the sunk costs of the present case, it is the dissent’s proposed rule that is wasteful. Absent uncertainty about jurisdiction (which the dissent’s readiness to change settled law would preserve for the future), the obvious course, for a litigant whose suit was dismissed as Atlas’s was, would have been immediately to file a new action. That is in fact what Atlas did, though it later dismissed the new case without prejudice. Had that second suit been pursued instead of this one, there is little doubt that the dispute would have been resolved on the merits by now. Putting aside the time that has passed between the Fifth Circuit’s decision and today, there were two years of wasted time between dismissal of the action and the Fifth Circuit’s reversal of that dismissal — time that the parties could have spent litigating the merits (or engaging in serious settlement talks) instead of litigating jurisdiction.
Atlas and Dataflux have thus far litigated this case for more than 6V2 years, including BV2 years over a conceded jurisdictional defect. Compared with the one month it took the Magistrate Judge to apply the time-of-filing rule and Carden when the jurisdictional problem was brought to her attention, this waste counsels strongly against any course that would impair the certainty of our jurisdictional rules and thereby encourage similar jurisdictional litigation.
We decline to endorse a new exception to a time-of-filing rule that has a pedigree of almost two centuries. Uncertainty regarding the question of jurisdiction is particularly undesirable, and collateral litigation on the point particularly wasteful. The stability provided by our time-tested rule weighs heavily against the approval of any new deviation. The judgment of the Fifth Circuit is reversed.
It is so ordered.
Title 28 U. S. C. § 1332(a)(2) provides:
“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions where the matter in controversy exceeds the sum of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs, and is between ...
“citizens of a State and citizens or subjects of a foreign state.”
See, e. g., J. Friedenthal, M. Kane, & A. Miller, Civil Procedure 27 (3d ed. 1999); C. Wright & M. Kane, Law of Federal Courts 173 (6th ed. 2002). See also 13B C. Wright, A. Miller, & E. Cooper, Federal Practice and Procedure §3608, p. 452 (1984).
The dissent asserts that Anderson is “not altogether in tune with Caterpillar and Newman-Green,” post, at 591, n. 7 (opinion of Ginsburg, J.), but the cases can easily be harmonized. Anderson did not, as the dissent suggests, refuse to give diversity-perfecting effect to the dismissal of an independent severable party; it refused to give that effect to the alteration of a coexecutorship into a lone executorship — much as we decline to give diversity-perfecting effect to the alteration of a partnership with diversity-destroying partners into a partnership without diversity-destroying partners.
Title 28 U. S. C. § 1441(a) provides, in relevant part:
“Except as otherwise expressly provided by Act of Congress, any civil action brought in a State court of which the district courts of the United States have original jurisdiction, may be removed by the defendant or the defendants, to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place where such action is pending.”
The dissent acknowledges that “[t]he Court has long applied [Chief Justice] Marshall’s time-of-filing rule categorically to postfiling changes that otherwise would destroy diversity jurisdiction,” post, at 583-584, but asserts that “[i]n contrast, the Court has not adhered to a similarly steady rule for postfiling changes in the party lineup, alterations that perfect previously defective statutory subject-matter jurisdiction,” post, at 584. The authorities relied upon by the dissent do not call into question the particular aspect of the time-of-filing rule that is at issue in this case— the principle (quoted in text) that “[w]here there is no change of party, a jurisdiction depending on the condition of the party is governed by that condition, as it was at the commencement of the suit.” Conolly, 2 Pet., at 565 (emphasis added). The dissent identifies five cases in which the Court permitted a postfiling change to cure a jurisdictional defect. Post, at 584. Every one of them involved a change of party. The dissent does not identify a single case in which the Court held that a single party’s postfiling change of citizenship cured a previously existing jurisdictional defect.
The answer to the “minimal diversity” question is not as straightforward as the dissent’s analysis suggests. We understand “minimal diversity” to mean the existence of at least one party who is diverse in citizenship from one party on the other side of the case, even though the extraconstitutional “complete diversity” required by our cases is lacking. It is possible, though far from clear, that one can have opposing parties in a two-party case who are cocitizens, and yet have minimal Article III jurisdiction because of the multiple citizenship of one of the parties. Although the Court has previously said that minimal diversity requires “two adverse parties [who] are not co-citizens,” State Farm Fire & Casualty Co. v. Tashire, 386 U. S. 523, 531 (1967), the Court did not have before it a multiple-citizenship situation.
The dissent contends that the existence of minimal diversity was clear because the rule of Carden v. Arkoma Associates, 494 U. S. 185 (1990), is not required by the Constitution. Post, at 588-590. But neither is the rule that a corporation is “a citizen of any State by which it has been incorporated and of the State where it has its principal place of business.” 28 U. S. C. § 1332(c)(1). We do not understand the inquiry into minimal diversity to proceed by hypothetically rewriting, to whatever the Constitution might allow that would support Article III jurisdiction in the particular case, all laws bearing upon the diversity question. Whether the Constitution requires it or not, Carden is the subconstitutional rule by which we determine the citizenship of a partnership — and in this case it leads to the conclusion that there were no opposing parties who were not cocitizens.
The dissent appears to leave open the possibility that this line could be crossed in a future case, contrasting Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U. S. 61 (1996), not with all cases involving a party’s change of citizenship, but with the polar extreme of “a plaintiff who moves to another State to create diversity not even minimally present when the complaint was filed,” post, at 590.
These statements from Carden rebut the dissent’s assertion that “an association whose citizenship, for diversity purposes, is determined by aggregating the citizenships of each of its members” could “[w]ith equal plausibility ... be characterized as an ‘aggregation’ composed of its members, or an ‘entity’ comprising its members.” Post, at 590, n. 6. We think it evident that Carden decisively adopted an understanding of the limited partnership as an “entity,” rather than an “aggregation,” for purposes of diversity jurisdiction. See 494 U. S., at 188, n. 1.
An additional anomaly, under the particular facts of the present ease, is that the two individual Mexican partners, whom the dissent treats like parties for purposes of enabling their withdrawal to perfect jurisdiction, were brought into the litigation personally by the court’s granting of Dataflux’s motion to add them as parties for purposes of Dataflux’s counterclaim. The motion was made and granted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 13(h), which applies only to “[plersons other than those made parties to the original action.” (Emphasis added.)
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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.
This case calls upon the Court to decide whether the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), 88 Stat. 829, as amended, 29 U. S. C. § 1001 et seq., pre-empts a Pennsylvania law precluding employee welfare benefit plans from exercising subrogation rights on a claimant’s tort recovery.
I
Petitioner, FMC Corporation (FMC), operates the FMC Salaried Health Care Plan (Plan), an employee welfare benefit plan within the meaning of ERISA, §3(1), 29 U. S. C. §1002(1), that provides health benefits to FMC employees and their dependents. The Plan is self-funded; it does not purchase an insurance policy from any insurance company in order to satisfy its obligations to its participants. Among its provisions is a subrogation clause under which a Plan member agrees to reimburse the Plan for benefits paid if the member recovers on a claim in a liability action against a third party.
Respondent, Cynthia Ann Holliday, is the daughter of FMC employee and Plan member Gerald Holliday. In 1987, she was seriously injured in an automobile accident. The Plan paid a portion of her medical expenses. Gerald Holli-day brought a negligence action on behalf of his daughter in Pennsylvania state court against the driver of the automobile in which she was injured. The parties settled the claim. While the action was pending, FMC notified the Hollidays that it would seek reimbursement for the amounts it had paid for respondent’s medical expenses. The Hollidays replied that they would not reimburse the Plan, asserting that § 1720 of Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law, 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1720 (1987), precludes subrogation by FMC. Section 1720 states that “[i]n actions arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, there shall be no right of subrogation or reimbursement from a claimant’s tort recovery with respect to . . . benefits . . . payable under section 1719.” Section 1719 refers to benefit payments by “[a]ny program, group contract or other arrangement.”
Petitioner, proceeding in diversity, then sought a declaratory judgment in Federal District Court. The court granted respondent’s motion for summary judgment, holding that § 1720 prohibits FMC’s exercise of subrogation rights on Hol-liday’s claim against the driver. The United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed. 885 F. 2d 79 (1989). The court held that §1720, unless pre-empted, bars FMC from enforcing its contractual subrogation provision. According to the court, ERISA pre-empts § 1720 if ERISA’s “deemer clause,” § 514(b)(2)(B), 29 U. S. C. § 1144(b)(2)(B), exempts the Plan from state subrogation laws. The Court of Appeals, citing Northern Group Services, Inc. v. Auto Owners Ins. Co., 833 F. 2d 85, 91-94 (CA6 1987), cert. denied, 486 U. S. 1017 (1988), determined that “the deemer clause [was] meant mainly to reach back-door attempts by states to regulate core ERISA concerns in the guise of insurance regulation.” 885 F. 2d, at 86. Pointing out that the parties had not suggested that the Pennsylvania antisubrogation law addressed “a core type of ERISA matter which Congress sought to protect by the preemption provision,” id., at 90, the court concluded that the Pennsylvania law is not pre-empted. The Third Circuit’s holding conflicts with decisions of other Courts of Appeals that have construed ERISA’s deemer clause to protect self-funded plans from all state insurance regulation. See, e. g., Baxter v. Lynn, 886 F. 2d 182, 186 (CA8 1989); Reilly v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield United of Wisconsin, 846 F. 2d 416, 425-426 (CA7), cert. denied, 488 U. S. 856 (1988). We granted certiorari to resolve this conflict, 493 U. S. 1068 (1990), and now vacate and remand.
II
In determining whether federal law pre-empts a state statute, we look to congressional intent. “ ‘Pre-emption may be either express or implied, and “is compelled whether Congress’ command is explicitly stated in the statute’s language or implicitly contained in its structure and purpose.’”” Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U. S. 85, 95 (1983) (quoting Fidelity Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. De la Cuesta, 458 U. S. 141, 152-153 (1982), in turn quoting Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U. S. 519, 525 (1977)); see also Chevron U. S. A. Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U. S. 837, 842-843 (1984) (“If the intent of Congress is clear, that is the end of the matter; for the court . . . must give effect to the unambiguously expressed intent of Congress” (footnote omitted)). We “begin with the language employed by Congress and the assumption that the ordinary meaning of that language accurately expresses the legislative purpose.” Park ’N Fly, Inc. v. Dollar Park and Fly, Inc., 469 U. S. 189, 194 (1985). Three provisions of ERISA speak expressly to the question of pre-emption:
“Except as provided in subsection (b) of this section [the saving clause], the provisions of this subchapter and subchapter III of this chapter shall supersede any and all State laws insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to any employee benefit plan.” § 514(a), as set forth in 29 U. S. C. § 1144(a) (pre-emption clause).
“Except as provided in subparagraph (B) [the deemer clause], nothing in this subchapter shall be construed to exempt or relieve any person from any law of any State which regulates insurance, banking, or securities.” § 514(b)(2)(A), as set forth in 29 U. S. C. § 1144(b)(2)(A) (saving clause).
“Neither an employee benefit plan . . . nor any trust established under such a plan, shall be' deemed to be an insurance company or other insurer, bank, trust company, or investment company or to be engaged in the business of insurance or banking for purposes of any law of any State purporting to regulate insurance companies, insurance contracts, banks, trust companies, or investment companies.” § 514(b)(2)(B), 29 U. S. C. § 1144(b)(2)(B) (deemer clause).
We indicated in Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U. S. 724 (1985), that these provisions “are not a model of legislative drafting.” Id., at 739. Their operation is nevertheless discernible. The pre-emption clause is conspicuous-for its breadth. It establishes as an area of exclusive federal concern the subject of every state law that “relate[s] to” an employee benefit plan governed by ERISA. The saving clause returns to the States the power to enforce those state laws that “regulat[e] insurance,” except as provided in the deemer clause. Under the deemer clause, an employee benefit plan governed by ERISA shall not be “deemed” an insurance company, an insurer, or engaged in the business of insurance for purposes of state laws “purporting to regulate” insurance companies or insurance contracts.
Ill
Pennsylvania’s antisubrogation law “relate[s] to” an employee benefit plan. We made clear in Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, supra, that a law relates to an employee welfare plan if it has “a connection with or reference to such a plan.” Id., at 96-97 (footnote omitted). We based our reading in part on the plain language of the statute. Congress used the words “‘relate to’ in §514(a) [the pre-emption clause] in their broad sense.” Id., at 98. It did not mean to pre-empt only state laws specifically designed to affect employee benefit plans. That interpretation would have made it unnecessary for Congress to enact ERISA § 514(b)(4), 29 U. S. C. § 1144(b)(4), which exempts from pre-emption “generally” applicable criminal laws of a State. We also emphasized that to interpret the pre-emption clause to apply only to state laws dealing with the subject matters covered by ERISA, such as reporting, disclosure, and fiduciary duties, would be incompatible with the provision’s legislative history because the House and Senate versions of the bill that became ERISA contained limited pre-emption clauses, applicable only to state laws relating to specific subjects covered by ERISA. These were rejected in favor of the present language in the Act, “indicat[ing] that the section’s pre-emptive scope was as broad as its language.” Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, 463 U. S., at 98.
Pennsylvania’s antisubrogation law has a “reference” to benefit plans governed by ERISA. The statute states that “[i]n actions arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, there shall be no right of subrogation or reimbursement from a claimant’s tort recovery with respect to . . . benefits . . . paid or payable under section 1719.” 75 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 1720 (1987). Section 1719 refers to “[a]ny program, group contract or other arrangement for payment of benefits.” These terms “includ[e], but [are] not limited to, benefits payable by a hospital plan corporation or a professional health service corporation.” § 1719 (emphasis added).
The Pennsylvania statute also has a “connection” to ERISA benefit plans. In the past, we have not hesitated to apply ERISA’s pre-emption clause to state laws that risk subjecting plan administrators to conflicting state regulations. See, e. g., Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, supra, at 95-100 (state laws making unlawful plan provisions that discriminate on the basis of pregnancy and requiring plans to provide specific benefits “relate to” benefit plans); Alessi v. Raybestos- Manhattan, Inc., 451 U. S. 504, 523-526 (1981) (state law prohibiting plans from reducing benefits by amount of workers’ compensation awards “relate[s] to” employee benefit plan). To require plan providers to design their programs in an environment of differing state regulations would complicate the administration of nationwide plans, producing inefficiencies that employers might offset with decreased benefits. See Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, 482 U. S. 1, 10 (1987). Thus, where a “patchwork scheme of regulation would introduce considerable inefficiencies in benefit program operation,” we have applied the pre-emption clause to ensure that benefit plans will be governed by only a single set of regulations. Id., at 11.
Pennsylvania’s antisubrogation law prohibits plans from being structured in a manner requiring reimbursement in the event of recovery from a third party. It requires plan providers to calculate benefit levels in Pennsylvania based on expected liability conditions that differ from those in States that have not enacted similar antisubrogation legislation. Application of differing state subrogation laws to plans would therefore frustrate plan administrators’ continuing obligation to calculate uniform benefit levels nationwide. Accord, Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., supra (state statute prohibiting offsetting worker compensation payments against pension benefits pre-empted since statute would force employer either to structure all benefit payments in accordance with state statute or adopt different payment formulae for employers inside and outside State). As we stated in Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. Coyne, supra, at 9, “[t]he most efficient way to meet these [administrative] responsibilities is to establish a uniform administrative scheme, which provides a set of standard procedures to guide processing of claims and disbursement of benefits.”
There is no dispute that the Pennsylvania law falls within ERISA’s insurance saving clause, which provides, “[ejxcept as provided in [the deemer clause], nothing in this sub-chapter shall be construed to exempt or relieve any person from any law of any State which regulates insurance,” § 514(b)(2)(A), 29 U. S. C. § 1144(b)(2)(A) (emphasis added). Section 1720 directly controls the terms of insurance contracts by invalidating any subrogation provisions that they contain. See Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, 471 U. S., at 740-741. It does not merely have an impact on the insurance industry; it is aimed at it. See Pilot Life Ins. Co. v. Dedeaux, 481 U. S. 41, 50 (1987). This returns the matter of subrogation to state law. Unless the statute is excluded from the reach of the saving clause by virtue of the deemer clause, therefore, it is not pre-empted.
We read the deemer clause to exempt self-funded ERISA plans from state laws that “regulat[e] insurance” within the meaning of the saving clause. By forbidding States to deem employee benefit plans “to be an insurance company or other insurer ... or to be engaged in the business of insurance,” the deemer clause relieves plans from state laws “purporting to regulate insurance.” As a result, self-funded ERISA plans are exempt from state regulation insofar as that regulation “relate[s] to” the plans. State laws directed toward the plans are pre-empted because they relate to an employee benefit plan but are not “saved” because they do not regulate insurance. State laws that directly regulate insurance are “saved” but do not reach self-funded employee benefit plans because the plans may not be deemed to be insurance companies, other insurers, or engaged in the business of insurance for purposes of such state laws. On the other hand, employee benefit plans that are insured are subject to indirect state insurance regulation. An insurance company that insures a plan remains an insurer for purposes of state laws “purporting to regulate insurance” after application of the deemer clause. The insurance company is therefore not relieved from state insurance regulation. The ERISA plan is consequently bound by state insurance regulations insofar as they apply to the plan’s insurer.
Our reading of the deemer clause is consistent with Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, supra. That case involved a Massachusetts statute requiring certain self-funded benefit plans and insurers issuing group health policies to plans to provide minimum mental health benefits. Id., at 734. In pointing out that Massachusetts had never tried to enforce the portion of the statute pertaining directly to benefit plans, we stated, “[i]n light of ERISA’s ‘deemer clause,’ which states that a benefit plan shall not ‘be deemed an insurance company’ for purposes of the insurance saving clause, Massachusetts has never tried to enforce [the statute] as applied to benefit plans directly, effectively conceding that such an application of [the statute] would be pre-empted by ERISA’s pre-emption clause.” Id., at 735, n. 14 (citations omitted). We concluded that the statute, as applied to insurers of plans, was not pre-empted because it regulated insurance and was therefore saved. Our decision, we acknowledged, “results in a distinction between insured and uninsured plans, leaving the former open to indirect regulation while the latter are not. ” Id., at 747. “By so doing, we merely give life to a distinction created by Congress in the ‘deemer clause,’ a distinction Congress is aware of and one it has chosen not to alter.” Ibid, (footnote omitted).
Our construction of the deemer clause is also respectful of the presumption that Congress does not intend to pre-empt areas of traditional state regulation. See Jones v. Rath Packing Co., 430 U. S., at 525. In the McCarran-Ferguson Act, 59 Stat. 33, as amended, 15 U. S. C. § 1011 et seq., Congress provided that 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.” 15 U. S. C. § 1012(a). We have identified laws governing the “business of insurance” in the Act to include not only direct regulation of the insurer but also regulation of the substantive terms of insurance contracts. Metropolitan Life Ins. Co. v. Massachusetts, supra, at 742-744. By recognizing a distinction between insurers of plans and the contracts of those insurers, which are subject to direct state regulation, and self-insured employee benefit plans governed by ERISA, which are not, we observe Congress’ presumed desire to reserve to the States the regulation of the “business of insurance.”
Respondent resists our reading of the deemer clause and would attach to it narrower significance. According to the deemer clause, “[njeither an employee benefit plan . . . nor any trust established under such a plan, shall be deemed to be an insurance company or other insurer, bank, trust company, or investment company or to be engaged in the business of insurance or banking for purposes of any law of any State purporting to regulate insurance companies [or] insurance contracts.” § 514(b)(2)(B), 29 U. S. C. § 1144(b)(2)(B) (emphasis added). Like the Court of Appeals, respondent would interpret the deemer clause to except from the saving clause only state insurance regulations that are pretexts for impinging upon core ERISA concerns. The National Conference of State Legislatures et al. as amici curiae in support of respondent offer an alternative interpretation of the deemer clause. In their view, the deemer clause precludes States from deeming plans to be insurers only for purposes of state laws that apply to insurance as a business, such as laws relating to licensing and capitalization requirements.
These views are unsupported by ERISA’s language. Laws that purportedly regulate insurance companies or insurance contracts are laws having the “appearance of” regulating or “intending” to regulate insurance companies or contracts. Black’s Law Dictionary 1236 (6th ed. 1990). Congress’ use of the word does not indicate that it directed the deemer clause solely at deceit that it feared state legislatures would practice. Indeed, the Conference Report, in describing the deemer clause, omits the word “purporting,” stating, “an employee benefit plan is not to be considered as an insurance company, bank, trust company, or investment company (and is not to be considered as engaged in the business of insurance or banking) for purposes of any State law that regulates insurance companies, insurance contracts, banks, trust companies, or investment companies.” H. R. Conf. Rep. No. 93-1280, p. 383 (1974).
Nor, in our view, is the deemer clause directed solely at laws governing the business of insurance. It is plainly directed at “any law of any State purporting to regulate insurance companies, insurance contracts, banks, trust companies, or investment companies.” § 514(b)(2)(B), 29 U. S. C. § 1144(b)(2)(B). Moreover, it is difficult to understand why Congress would have included insurance contracts in the pre-emption clause if it meant only to pre-empt state laws relating to the operation of insurance as a business. To be sure, the saving and deemer clauses employ differing language to achieve their ends — the former saving, except as provided in the deemer clause, “any law of any State which regulates insurance” and the latter referring to “any law of any State purporting to regulate insurance companies [or] insurance contracts.” We view the language of the deemer clause, however, to be either coextensive with or broader, not narrower, than that of the saving clause. Our rejection of a restricted reading of the deemer clause does not lead to the deemer clause’s engulfing the saving clause. As we have pointed out, supra, at 62-63, the saving clause retains the independent effect of protecting state insurance regulation of insurance contracts purchased by employee benefit plans.
Congress intended by ERISA to “establish pension plan regulation as exclusively a federal concern.” Alessi v. Raybestos-Manhattan, Inc., 451 U. S., at 523 (footnote omitted). Our interpretation of the deemer clause makes clear that if a plan is insured, a State may regulate it indirectly through regulation of its insurer and its insurer’s insurance contracts; if the plan is uninsured, the State may not regulate it. As a result, employers will not face “ ‘conflicting or inconsistent State and local regulation of employee benefit plans.’” Shaw v. Delta Air Lines, Inc., 463 U. S., at 99 (quoting remarks of Sen. Williams). A construction of the deemer clause that exempts employee benefit plans from only those state regulations that encroach upon core ERISA concerns or that apply to insurance as a business would be fraught with administrative difficulties, necessitating definition of core ERISA concerns and of what constitutes business activity. It would therefore undermine Congress’ desire to avoid “endless litigation over the validity of State action,” see 120 Cong. Rec. 29942 (1974) (remarks of Sen. Javits), and instead lead to employee benefit plans’ expenditure of funds in such litigation.
In view of Congress’ clear intent to exempt from direct state insurance regulation ERISA employee benefit plans, we hold that ERISA pre-empts the application of § 1720 of Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law to the FMC Salaried Health Care Plan. We therefore vacate the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
It is so ordered.
Justice Souter took no part in the consideration or decision of this case.
Section 1720 of Pennsylvania’s Motor Vehicle Financial Responsibility Law is entitled “[sjubrogation” and provides:
“In actions arising out of the maintenance or use of a motor vehicle, there shall be no right of subrogation or reimbursement from a claimant’s tort recovery with respect to workers’ compensation benefits, benefits available under section 1711 (relating to required benefits), 1712 (relating to availability of benefits) or 1715 (relating to availability of adequate limits) or benefits in lieu thereof paid or payable under section 1719 (relating to coordination of benefits).”
Section 1719, entitled “[cjoordination of benefits,” reads:
“(a) General rule. — Except for workers’ compensation, a policy of insurance issued or delivered pursuant to this subchapter shall be primary. Any program, group contract or other arrangement for payment of benefits such as described in section 1711 (relating to required benefits), 1712(1) and (2) (relating to availability of benefits) or 1715 (relating to availability of adequate limits) shall be construed to contain a provision that all benefits provided therein shall be in excess of and not in duplication of any valid and collectible first party benefits provided in section 1711, 1712 or 1715 or workers’ compensation.
“(b) Definition. — As used in this section the term ‘program, group contract or other arrangement’ includes, but is not limited to, benefits payable by a hospital plan corporation or a professional health service corporation subject to 40 Pa. C. S. Ch. 61 (relating to hospital plan corporations) or 63 (relating to professional health services plan corporations).”
The bill introduced in the Senate and reported out of the Committee on Labor and Public Welfare would have pre-empted “any and all laws of the States and of political subdivisions thereof insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to the subject matters regulated by this Act.” S. 4, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., § 609(a) (1973). As introduced in the House, the bill that became ERISA would have superseded “any and all laws of the States and of the political subdivisions thereof insofar as they may now or hereafter relate to the fiduciary, reporting, and disclosure responsibilities of persons acting on behalf of employee benefit plans.” H. R. 2, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., § 114 (1973). The bill was approved by the Committee on Education and Labor in a slightly modified form. See H. R. 2,- 93d Cong., 1st Sess., § 514(a) (1973).
H. R. 2, 93d Cong., 1st Sess., § 114 (1973); 1 Leg. Hist. 51.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
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 Whittaker
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Pursuing its statutory powers and duties to investigate subversive activities in Ohio, the Ohio Un-American Activities Commission scheduled a hearing to commence at the Stark County Courthouse on the morning of October 21, 1953, and subpoenaed these five appellants to appear and testify before it at that time and place. Each appeared with counsel, was sworn and examined. Though having both constructive and actual knowledge of Ohio’s immunity statute, each objected to most of the questions propounded on the ground that an answer would compel him to be a witness against himself, in violation of the Ohio Constitution and of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Appellants were not, in most instances, directed to answer, but in a few instances some of them (Perry, Cooper and Mladajan) were directed to answer the question, yet flatly refused to do so.
Acting pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code § 103.35, the members of the Commission who sat at the hearing authorized the chairman to cause contempt proceedings to be initiated against appellants under Ohio Rev. Code §§ 2705.02 to 2705.09, and on December 24, 1953, each appellant was separately indicted in the court of common pleas of Stark County on 10 counts — each count charging willful failure, in violation of § 2705.02, to answer a question propounded by the Commission. Upon a joint trial to the court, each appellant was convicted and sentenced on some of the counts. On consolidated appeals, the Stark County Court of Appeals affirmed, the Supreme Court of Ohio, finding no debatable constitutional question presented, dismissed appellants’ appeals to that court, 170 Ohio St. 216, 163 N. E. 2d 177, and, on appeals to this Court, we postponed further consideration of our jurisdiction to the hearing on the merits. 364 U. S. 811.
Appellants simply assert that we have jurisdiction over these appeals under 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (2). Despite the plain import of our postponing order, see Rule 16, par. 4, of this Court, they have entirely failed to show that any “timely insistence [was made] in the state courts that a state statute, as applied, is repugnant to the federal Constitution, treaties or laws.” Charleston Federal Savings & Loan Assn. v. Alderson, 324 U. S. 182, 185. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed. See Raley v. Ohio, 360 U. S. 423, 435. But since various federal constitutional claims were made below and are renewed here, 28 U. S. C. § 1257 (3), we consider the appeal papers as petitions for certiorari and, in view of the public importance of at least one of the questions presented, grant certiorari, 28 U. S. C. § 2103.
Appellants’ principal contention here is that the judgments, finding them guilty of willful refusal to answer the Commission’s questions although the Commission did not overrule their timely objections to the questions nor direct that they be answered, but appeared to sustain, or at least to acquiesce in, those objections, deprive appellants of due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. In the peculiar factual situation presented, and limited to the questions which they were not directed to answer, we have concluded that appellants are right in this contention.
Surely traditional notions of fair play contemplate that a person summoned to testify before any adjudicatory or investigatory body, including a legislative investigatory committee, may object to any question put to him upon any available ground, however tenuous. And the Ohio Commission, several times and in many ways, clearly gave appellants to understand that such was their right at this hearing. Exercising that right, if not actually accepting the Commission’s invitation, appellants, except for a few preliminary'questions, objected to most of the questions put to them, principally on the ground of the Fifth Amendment (but see note 4). With important exceptions to be noted, instead of overruling the objection or in any way directing the witness to answer the question, the Commission gave every indication that it sustained, or at least acquiesced in, the objection by immediately passing on to the next question. That process was scores of times repeated.
But, and lending emphasis to its normal acquiescence in the objections, the Commission, at times, adopted another and very different procedure. When the Commission’s counsel advised the Commission that he considered a particular question to be competent and important and asked that the witness be directed to answer it, the chairman, in each such instance, directed the witness to answer the question. And in every such instance care was taken, either by the Commission’s counsel or its chairman, to have the record show that at least a quorum of the Commission were then present and sitting. In that manner, as more fully shown in note 5, Slagle was directed to answer one question, and thereupon promptly answered it, but he was not directed to answer any other question; Bohus was not directed to answer any question; Perry was thus directed to answer the two questions that were made the subjects of Counts 1 and 2 of her indictment (she was acquitted on Count 2), but was not directed to answer the questions upon which the other eight counts of her indictment were based; Cooper was thus directed to answer the four questions that were made the subjects of Counts 1, 2, 5 and 6 of her indictment, but was not directed to answer the questions Upon which the other six counts of her indictment were based; and Mladajan was thus directed to answer the question that was made the subject of Count 6 of her indictment, but was not directed to answer the questions upon which the other nine counts of her indictment were based.
No particular form of words is necessary either to sustain or overrule an objection and thus either to excuse or require an answer to the question. All that is necessary is that the hearing tribunal make plain its disposition of the objection and whether or not an answer to the question is expected and required. If, as frequently happens, after an objection has been made, the hearing officer, addressing the examiner, merely says, “Pass on to your next question,” it would indeed be plain that he had, at least temporarily, sustained or acquiesced in the objection and was not requiring an answer to be given. That is almost precisely what happened here. Though, upon these objections being made, the Commission did not formally direct its counsel to pass on to his next question, either the counsel or some member of the Commission did in fact immediately pass on to the next question. Those objections must therefore be regarded as sustained or acquiesced in by the Commission. To hold that these witnesses, in these circumstances, willfully and contumaciously refused to answer those questions would deeply offend traditional notions of fair play and deprive them of due process.
That “a clear disposition of the witness’ objection is a prerequisite to prosecution for contempt is supported by long-standing tradition here and in other English-speaking nations. In this country the tradition has been uniformly recognized in the procedure of both state and federal courts.” Quinn v. United States, 349 U. S. 155, 167-168, and cases cited. See also Emspak v. United States, 349 U. S. 190, 202; Bart v. United States, 349 U. S. 219, 223. “Because of the [Commission’s] consistent failure to advise [appellants] of [its] position as to [their] objections, [appellants were] left to speculate about the risk of possible prosecution for contempt; [they were] not given a clear choice between standing on [their] objection [s] and compliance with a committee ruling.” Bart v. United States, supra, at 223.
In these circumstances, to hold that these witnesses willfully and contumaciously refused to answer the questions to which they objected but which they were not directed to answer would deprive them of due process in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
As to appellants’ remaining contentions, including, (1) that because the Ohio immunity statute (see note 2) does not afford immunity from federal prosecution, they could not lawfully be compelled to answer questions over their Fifth Amendment objections to them, (2) that the questions which they refused to answer were not pertinent to the inquiry, and (3) that the Commission’s investigation was without legislative purpose, the Court is equally divided.
It follows that the judgments against Slagle and Bohus must be reversed-; that the judgment against Perry must be reversed as to Counts 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9, and affirmed, by an equally divided Court, as to Count 1; that the judgment against Cooper must be reversed as to Counts 3, 4, 7, 8 and 9, and affirmed, by an equally divided Court, as to Counts 1, 2, 5 and 6; and that the judgment against Mladajan must be reversed as to Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 10, and affirmed, by an equally divided Court, as to Count 6.
Appeals dismissed and certiorari granted.
On writs of certiorari, judgments reversed as to Slagle and Bohus; judgments reversed in part and affirmed, by an equally divided Court, in part as to Perry, Cooper and Mladajan.
Mr. Justice Frankfurter took no part in the consideration or decision of these cases.
Ohio Rev. Code § 103.34 provides:
“POWERS AND DUTIES.
“The un-American activities commission shall:
“(A) Investigate, study, and analyze:
“(1) All facts relating to the activities of persons, groups, and organizations whose membership includes persons who have as their objective or may be suspected of having as their objective the overthrow or reform of our constitutional governments by fraud, force, violence, or other unlawful means ;
“ (2) All facts concerning persons, groups, and organizations, known to be or suspected of being dominated by or giving allegiance to a foreign power or whose activities might adversely affect the contribution of this state to the national defense, the safety and security of this state, the functioning of any agency of the state or national government, or the industrial potential of this state;
“(3) The operation and effect of the laws of this state, of the several other states, and of the United States, which purport to outlaw and control the activities enumerated in this section and to recommend such additional legislation or revision of existing laws as may seem advisable and necessary;
“(B) Maintain a liaison with any agency of the federal, state, or local governments in devising and promoting means of disclosing those persons and groups who seek to alter or destroy the government of this state or of the United States by force, violence, intimidation, sabotage, or threats of the same.
“The commission has such additional right, duties, and powers as are necessary to enable it fully to exercise those specifically set forth in this section and to accomplish its lawful objectives and purposes.”
Ohio Rev. Code § 101.44 provides:
“Except a person who, in writing, requests permission to appear before a committee or subcommittee of the general assembly, or of either house thereof, or who, in writing, waives the rights, privileges, and immunities granted by this section, the testimony of a witness examined before a committee or subcommittee shall not be used as evidence in a criminal proceeding against such witness, nor shall a person be prosecuted or subjected to a penalty or forfeiture on account of a transaction, matter, or thing, concerning which he testifies, or produces evidence. This section does not exempt a witness from the penalties for perjury.”
Except for a few preliminary questions, each appellant objected to and declined to answer most of the questions propounded — Slagle, 97 of the next 129 questions; Bohus, 97 of the next 99 questions; Perry, 110 of the next 118 questions; Cooper, 76 of the next 103 questions; and Mladajan, 88 of the next 123 questions.
In addition to various state grounds, each appellant based his objections to the questions on the Fifth Amendment, but Slagle also invoked the First and Fourteenth Amendments, Perry also invoked the First, Fourth, Ninth and Fourteenth Amendments, and appellant Cooper also invoked the Fourth and Ninth Amendments, to the United States Constitution.
Appellant Slagle, too, was directed by the chairman to answer one question, but he thereupon answered it. He was not directed to answer any other question.
- Appellant Bohus was not directed to answer any of the questions.
Appellant Perry was directed by the chairman to answer the question, “What is your husband’s name?” but refused to answer and that refusal was made the subject of Count 1 of the indictment against her. She was also directed to answer the question, “What are your parents’ names?” but refused to answer and that refusal was made the subject of Count 2 of the indictment. However, the trial court acquitted her on that count on the ground that the question was immaterial. She was not directed to answer any other question. •
Appellant Cooper was directed to answer the following questions:
“Where did you reside prior to September, 1948?” (Count 1.)
“What was your name at the time you were born; what was the name given you on baptism?” (Count 2.)
“Did you ever live in the City of St. Louis, Missouri?” (Count 5.)
“What is your husband’s name, Mrs. Cooper?” (Count 6.)
But she nevertheless refused to answer in each instance and those refusals were made the subjects of Counts 1, 2, 5 and 6, respectively, of the indictment against her. Although she refused, when directed, to answer another question, she was not indicted for that refusal. She was not directed to answer the questions on which Counts 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the indictment were based.
Appellant Mladajan was directed to answer the question, “Mrs. Mladajan, have you ever been in meetings at the Croatian Hall at any time except in your capacity as an employee?” but she refused to answer and that refusal was made the subject of Count 6 of the indictment against her. She was not directed to answer any other question.
Ohio Rev. Code § 103.35 provides, in relevant part, that “[i]n case of . . . the refusal of any person ... to testify to any matters regarding which he may be lawfully interrogated . . . the chairman may be authorized by a majority of the members sitting at the time the alleged offense is committed, to cause a proceeding for contempt to be filed and prosecuted in the court of common pleas of any county under sections 2705.03 to 2705.09, inclusive, of the Revised Code. . . .”
Ohio Rev. Code § 2705.02 provides, in pertinent part:
“A person guilty of any of the following acts may be punished as for a contempt:
“(C) A failure ... to answer as a witness, when lawfully required.”
Ohio Rev. Code §2705.05 provides:
“Upon the day fixed for the trial in a contempt proceeding the court shall investigate the charge, and hear any answer or testimony which the accused makes or offers.,
“The court shall then determine whether the accused is guilty of the contempt charge. If it is found that he is guilty, he may be fined not more than five hundred dollars or imprisoned not more than ten days, or both.”
Appellant Slagle was convicted on Counts 3 to 10, inclusive; Bohus was convicted on Counts 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9; Perry was convicted on Counts 1, 3, 4, 5, 7, 8 and 9; Cooper was convicted on Counts 1 to 9, inclusive; Mladajan was convicted on Counts 1 to 8, inclusive, and 10. Each was sentenced to imprisonment for 10 days on each count — the sentences on all counts, in each instance, to run concurrently — and was fined $500 on each count, but the fines, other than the first one, were remitted in each instance.
The opinion of the Stark County Court of Appeals is not reported.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
C
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Mr. Justice Nehnquist
delivered the opinion of the Court.
On March 5, 1975, respondent, a member of the police force in Muskegon, Mich., was charged in a three-count indictment with distribution of various narcotics. Both before his trial in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, and twice during the trial, respondent moved to dismiss the two counts of the indictment which concerned transactions that took place during the preceding September, on the ground that his defense had been prejudiced by prein-dictment delay. At the close of all the evidence, the court granted respondent’s motion. Although the court did not explain its reasons for dismissing the second count, it explicitly concluded that respondent had “presented sufficient proof of prejudice with respect to Count I.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 8a. The court submitted the third count to the jury, which returned a verdict of not guilty.
The Government sought to appeal the dismissals of the first two counts to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. That court, relying on our opinion in United States v. Jenkins, 420 U. S. 358 (1975), concluded that any further prosecution of respondent was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, and therefore dismissed the appeal. 544 F. 2d 903 (1976). The Government has sought review in this Court only with regard to the dismissal of the first count. We granted certiorari to give further consideration to the applicability of the Double Jeopardy Clause to Government appeals from orders granting defense motions to terminate a trial before verdict. We now reverse.
I
The problem presented by this case could not have arisen during the first century of this Court’s existence. The Court has long taken the view that the United States has no right of appeal in a criminal case, absent explicit statutory authority. United States v. Sanges, 144 U. S. 310 (1892). Such authority was not provided until the enactment of the Criminal Appeals Act, Act of Mar. 2, 1907, ch. 2564, 34 Stat. 1246, which permitted the United States to seek a writ of error in this Court from any decision dismissing an indictment on the basis of “the invalidity, or construction of the statute upon which the indictment is founded.” Our consideration of Government appeals over the ensuing years ordinarily focused upon the intricacies of the Act and its amendments. In 1971, however, Congress adopted the current language of the Act, permitting Government appeals from any decision dismissing an indictment, “except that no appeal shall lie where the double jeopardy clause of the United States Constitution prohibits further prosecution.” 18 U. S. C. §3731 (1976 ed.). Soon thereafter, this Court remarked in.a footnote., with more optimism than prescience that “[t]he end of our problems with this Act is finally in sight.” United States v. Weller, 401 U. S. 254, 255 n. 1 (1971). For in fact the 1971 amendment did not end the debate over appeals by the Government in'', criminal cases; it simply shifted the focus of the debate from j issues of statutory construction to issues as to the scope and J meaning of the Double Jeopardy Clause. • >
In our first encounter with the new statute, we concluded that “Congress intended to remove all statutory, barriers to Government appeals and to allow appeals whenever the Constitution would permit.” United States v. Wilson, 420 U. S. 332, 337 (1975). Since up to that point Government appeals had been subject to statutory restrictions independent of the Double Jeopardy Clause, our previous cases construing the statute proved to be of little assistance in determining when the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment would prohibit further prosecution. A detailed canvass of the history of the double jeopardy principles in English and American law led us to conclude that the Double Jeopardy Clause was primarily “directed at the threat of multiple prosecutions,” and posed no bar to Government appeals “where those appeals would not require a new trial.” Id., at 342. We accordingly held in Jenkins, supra, at 370, that, whether or not a dismissal of an indictment after jeopardy had attached amounted to an acquittal on the merits, the Government had no right to appeal, because “further proceedings of some sort, devoted to the resolution of factual issues going to the elements of the offense charged, would have been required upon reversal and remand.”
If Jenkins is a correct statement of the law, the judgment of the Court of Appeals relying on that decision, as it was bound to do, would in all likelihood have to be affirmed. Yet, though our assessment of the history and meaning of the Double Jeopardy Clause in Wilson, Jenkins, and Serfass v. United States, 420 U. S. 377 (1975), occurred only three Terms ago, our vastly increased exposure to the various facets of the Double Jeopardy Clause has now convinced us that Jenkins was wrongly decided. It placed an unwarrantedly great emphasis on the defendant’s right to have his guilt decided by the first jury empaneled to try him so as to include those cases where the defendant himself seeks to terminate the trial before verdict on grounds unrelated to factual guilt or innocence. We have therefore decided to overrule Jenkins, and thus to reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals in this case.
II
The origin and history of the Double Jeopardy Clause are hardly a matter of dispute. See generally Wilson; supra, at 339-340; Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, 187-188 (1957); id., at 200 (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). The constitutional provision had its origin in the three common-law pleas of autrefois acquit, autrefois convict, and pardon. These three pleas prevented the retrial of a person who had previously been acquitted, convicted, or pardoned for the same offense. As this Court has described the purpose underlying the prohibition against double jeopardy:
“The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to malee repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity, as well as enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty.” Green, supra, at 187-188.
These historical purposes are necessarily general in nature, and their application has come to abound in often subtle distinctions which cannot by any means all be traced to the original three common-law pleas referred to above.
Part of the difficulty arises from the development of other protections for criminal defendants in the years since the adoption of the Bill of Rights. At the time the Fifth Amendment was adopted, its principles were easily applied, since most criminal prosecutions proceeded to final judgment, and neither the United States nor the defendant had any right to appeal an adverse verdict. See Act of Sept. 24, 1789, ch. 20, § 22, 1 Stat. 84. The verdict in such a case was unquestionably final, and could be raised in bar against any further prosecution for the same offense.
Soon thereafter, Congress made provision for review of certain criminal cases by this Court, but only upon a certificate of division from the circuit court, and not at the instigation of the defendant. Act of Apr. 29, 1802, ch. 31, § 6, 2 Stat. 159. It was not until 1889 that Congress permitted criminal defendants to seek a writ of error in this Court, and then only in capital cases. Act of Feb. 6, 1889, ch. 113, § 6, 25 Stat. 656. Only then did it become necessary for this Court to deal with the issues presented by the challenge of verdicts on appeal.
And, in the very first case presenting the issues, United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662 (1896), the Court established principles that have been adhered to ever since. Three persons had been tried together for murder; two were convicted, the other acquitted. This Court reversed the convictions, finding the indictment fatally defective, Ball v. United States, 140 U. S. 118 (1891), whereupon all three defendants were tried again. This time all three were convicted and they again sought review here. This Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause precluded further prosecution of the defendant who had been acquitted at the original trial but that it posed no such bar to the prosecution of those defendants who had been convicted in the earlier proceeding. The Court disposed of their objection almost peremptorily:
“Their plea of former conviction cannot be sustained, because upon a writ of error sued out by themselves the judgment and sentence against them were reversed, and the indictment ordered to be dismissed.... [I] t is quite clear that a defendant, who procures a judgment against him upon an indictment to be set aside, may be tried anew upon the same indictment, or upon another indictment, for the same offence of which he had been convicted.” 163 U. S., at 671-672.
Although Ball firmly established that a successful appeal of a conviction precludes a subsequent plea of double jeopardy, the opinion shed no light on whether a judgment of acquittal could be reversed on appeal consistently with the Double Jeopardy Clause. Because of the statutory restrictions upon Government appeals in criminal cases, this Court in the years after Ball was faced with that question only in unusual circumstances, such as were present in Kepner v. United States, 195 U. S. 100 (1904). That case arose out of a criminal prosecution in the Philippine Islands, to which the principles of the Double Jeopardy Clause had been expressly made applicable by Act of Congress. Although the defendant had been acquitted in his original trial, traditional Philippine procedure provided for a trial de novo upon appeal. This Court, in reversing the resulting conviction, remarked:
“The court of first instance, having jurisdiction to try the question of the guilt or innocence of the accused, found Kepner not guilty; to try him again upon the merits, even in an appellate court, is to put him a second time in jeopardy for the same offense....” Id., at 133.
More than 50 years later, in Fong Foo v. United States, 369 U. S. 141 (1962), this Court reviewed the issuance of a writ of mandamus by the Court of Appeals for the First Circuit instructing a District Court to vacate certain judgments of acquittal. Although indicating its agreement with the Court of Appeals that the judgments had been entered erroneously, this Court nonetheless held that a second trial was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. Id., at 143. Only last Term, this Court relied upon these precedents in United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U. S. 564 (1977), and held that the Government could not appeal the granting of a motion to acquit pursuant to Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 29 where a second trial would be required upon remand. The Court, quoting language in Ball, supra, at 671, stated: “Perhaps the most fundamental rule in the history of double jeopardy jurisprudence has been that '[a] verdict of acquittal... could not be reviewed, on error or otherwise, without putting [a defendant] twice in jeopardy, and thereby violating the Constitution.’ ” 430 U. S., at 571.
These, then, at least, are two venerable principles of double jeopardy jurisprudence. The successful appeal of a judgment of conviction, on any ground other than the insufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict, Burks v. United States, ante, p. 1, poses no bar to further prosecution on the same charge. A judgment of acquittal, whether based on a jury-verdict of not guilty or on a ruling by the court that the evidence is insufficient to convict, may not be appealed and terminates the prosecution when a second trial would be necessitated by a reversal. What may seem superficially to be a disparity in the rules governing a defendant’s liability to be tried again is explainable by reference to the underlying purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause. As Kepner and Fong Foo illustrate, the law attaches particular significance to an acquittal. To permit a second trial after an acquittal, however mistaken the acquittal may have been, would present an unacceptably high risk that the Government, with its vastly superior resources, might wear down the defendant so that "even though innocent he may be found guilty.” Oreen, 356' U. S., at 188. On the other hand, to require a criminal defendant to stand trial again after he has successfully invoked a statutory right of appeal to upset his first conviction is not an act of governmental oppression of the sort against which the Double Jeopardy Clause was intended to protect. The common sense of the matter is most pithily, if not most elegantly, expressed in the words of Mr. Justice McLean on circuit in United States v. Keen, 26 F. Cas. 686 (No. 15,510) (CC Ind. 1839). He vigorously rejected the view that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibited any new trial after the setting aside of a judgment of conviction against the defendant or that it “guarantees to him the right of being hung, to protect him from the danger of a second trial.” Id., at 690.
Ill
Although the primary purpose of the Double Jeopardy Clause was to protect the integrity of a final judgment, see Crist v. Bretz, ante, at 33, this Court has also developed a body of law guarding the separate but related interest of a defendant in avoiding multiple prosecutions even where no final determination of guilt or innocence has been made. Such interests may be involved in two different situations: the first, in which the trial judge declares a mistrial; the second, in which the trial judge terminates the proceedings favorably to the defendant on a basis not related to factual guilt or innocence.
A
When a trial court declares a mistrial, it all but invariably contemplates that the prosecutor will be permitted to proceed anew notwithstanding the defendant’s plea of double jeopardy. See Lee v. United States, 432 U. S. 23, 30 (1977). Such a motion may be granted upon the initiative of either party or upon the court’s own initiative. The fact that the trial judge contemplates that there will be a new trial is not conclusive on the issue of double jeopardy; in passing on the propriety of a declaration of mistrial granted at the behest of the prosecutor or on the court’s own motion, this Court has balanced “the valued right of a defendant to have his trial completed by the particular tribunal summoned to sit in judgment on him,” Downum v. United States, 372 U. S. 734, 736 (1963), against the public interest in insuring that justice is meted out to offenders.
Our very first encounter with this situation came in United States v. Perez, 9 Wheat. 579 (1824), in which the trial judge' had on his own motion declared a mistrial because of the jury’s inability to reach a verdict. The Court-said- that trial judges might declare mistrials “whenever, in their opinion, taking all the circumstances into consideration, there is a manifest necessity for the act, or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated.” Id., at 580. In our recent decision in Arizona v. Washington, 434 U. S. 497 (1978), we reviewed this Court’s attempts to give content to the term “manifest necessity.” That case, like Doumum, supra,,.arose from a motion of the prosecution for a mistrial, and we noted that the trial court’s discretion must be exercised with a, careful regard for the interests first described in United States v. Perez. Arizona v. Washington, supra, at 514-516.
Where, on the other hand, a defendant successfully se.eks to avoid his trial prior to its conclusion by a motion for mistrial, the Double Jeopardy Clause is not offended by a second prosecution. “[A] motion by the defendant-for -mistrial is ordinarily assumed to remove any barrier to.xeprosecution, even if the defendant’s motion is necessitated by a prosecu-torial or judicial error.” United States v. Jorn, 400 U. S. 470, 485 (1971) (opinion of Harlan, J.). Such a motion,by the defendant is deemed to be a deliberate election on his part to forgo his valued right to have his guilt or innocence determined before the first trier of fact. “The important consideration, for purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause, is that the defendant retain primary control over the course to be followed in the event of such error.” United States v. Dinitz, 424 U. S. 600, 609 (1976). But “[t]he Double Jeopardy Clause does protect a defendant against governmental actions intended to provoke mistrial requests and thereby to subject defendants to the substantial burdens imposed by multiple prosecutions.” Id., at 611.
B
We turn now to the relationship between the Double Jeopardy Clause and reprosecution of a defendant who has successfully obtained not a mistrial but a termination of the trial in his favor before any determination of factual guilt or innocence. Unlike the typical mistrial, the granting of a motion such as this obviously contemplates that the proceedings will terminate then and there in favor of the defendant. The prosecution, if it wishes to reinstate the proceedings in the face of such a ruling, ordinarily must seek reversal of the decision of the trial court.
The Criminal Appeals Act, 18 U. S. C. § 3731 (1976 ed.), as previously noted, makes appealability of a ruling favorable to the defendant depend upon whether further proceedings upon reversal would be barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. Jenkins, 420 U. S., at 370, held that, regardless of the character of the midtrial termination, appeal was barred if “further proceedings of some sort, devoted to the resolution of factual issues going to the elements of the offense charged, would have been required upon reversal and remand.” However, only last Term, in Lee, supra, the Government was permitted to institute a second prosecution after a midtrial dismissal of an indictment. The Court found the circumstances presented by that case “functionally indistinguishable from a declaration of mistrial.” 432 U. S., at 31. Thus, Lee demonstrated that, at least in some cases, the dismissal of an indictment may be treated on the same basis as the declaration of a mistrial.
In the present case, the District Court’s dismissal of the first count of the indictment was based upon a claim of prein-dictment delay and not on the court’s conclusion that the Government had not produced sufficient evidence to establish the guilt of the defendant. Respondent Scott points out quite correctly that he had moved to dismiss the indictment on this ground prior to trial, and that had the District Court chosen to grant it at that time the Government could have appealed the ruling under our holding in Serfass v. United States, 420 U. S. 377 (1975). He also quite correctly points out that jeopardy had undeniably “attached” at the time the District Court terminated the trial in his favor; since a successful Government appeal would require further proceedings in the District Court leading to a factual resolution of the issue of guilt or innocence, Jenkins bars the Government’s appeal. However, our growing experience with Government appeals convinces us that we must re-examine the rationale of Jenkins in light of Lee, Martin Linen, and other recent expositions of the Double Jeopardy Clause.
IV
Our decision in Jenkins was based upon our perceptions of the underlying purposes of the Double Jeopardy Clause, see supra, at 87:
“ ‘The underlying idea, one that is deeply ingrained in at least the Anglo-American system of jurisprudence, is that the State with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense, thereby subjecting him to embarrassment, expense and ordeal and compelling him to live in a continuing state of anxiety and insecurity....’” Jenkins, supra, at 370, quoting Green, 355 U. S., at 187.
Upon fuller consideration, we are now of the view that this language from Green, while entirely appropriate in the circumstances of that opinion, is not a principle which can be expanded to include situations in which the defendant is responsible for the second prosecution. It is quite true that the Government with all its resources and power should not be allowed to make repeated attempts to convict an individual for an alleged offense. This truth is expressed in the three common-law pleas of autrefois acquit, autrefois convict, and pardon, which lie at the core of the area protected by the Double Jeopardy Clause. As we have recognized in cases from United States v. Ball, 163 U. S. 662 (1896), to Sanabria v. United States, ante, p. 54, a defendant once acquitted may not be again subjected to trial without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause.
But that situation is obviously a far cry from the present case, where the Government was quite willing to continue with its production of evidence to show the defendant guilty before the jury first empaneled to try him, but the defendant elected to seek termination of the trial on grounds unrelated to guilt or innocence. This is scarcely a picture of an all-powerful state relentlessly pursuing a defendant who had either been found not guilty or who had at least insisted on having the issue of guilt submitted to the first trier of fact. It is instead a picture of a defendant who chooses to avoid conviction and imprisonment, not because of his assertion that the Government has failed to make out a case against him, but because of a legal claim that the Government’s case against him must fail even though it might satisfy the trier of fact that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
We have previously noted that “the trial judge’s characterization of his own action cannot control the classification of the action.” Jorn, 400 U. S., at 478 n. 7 (opinion of Harlan, J.), citing United States v. Sisson, 399 U. S. 267, 290 (1970). See also Martin Linen, 430 U. S., at 571; Wilson, 420 U. S., at 336. Despite respondent’s contentions, an appeal is not barred simply because a ruling in favor of a defendant “is based upon facts outside the face of the indictment,” id., at 348, or because it “is granted on the ground... that the defendant simply cannot be convicted of the offense charged,” Lee, 432 U. S., at 30. Rather, a defendant is acquitted only when “the ruling of the judge, whatever its label, actually represents a resolution [in the defendant's favor], correct or not, of some or all of the factual elements of the offense charged.” Martin Linen, supra, at 571. Where the court, before the' jury returns a verdict, enters a judgment of acquittal pursuant to Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 29, appeal will, be barred, only when “it is plain that the District Court... evaluated the Government’s evidence and determined that it was legally] insufficient to sustain a conviction.”., 430 U. S., at 572.
Our opinion in Burks necessarily holds that there has been a “failure of proof,” ante, at 16, requiring an acquittal when the Government does not submit sufficient evidence to rebut a defendant’s essentially factual defense of insanity, though it may otherwise be entitled to have its case submitted to the jury. The defense of insanity, like the defense of entrapment, arises from “the notion that Congress could not have intended criminal punishment for a defendant who has committed all the elements of a proscribed offense,” United States v. Russell, 411 U. S. 423, 435 (1973), where other facts established to the satisfaction of the trier of fact provide a legally adequate justification for otherwise criminal acts. Such a factual finding does “necessarily establish the criminal defendant’s lack of criminal culpability,” post, at 106 (Brennan, J., dissenting), under the existing law; the fact that “the acquittal may result from erroneous evidentiary rulings or erroneous interpretations of governing legal principles,” ibid., affects the accuracy of that determination, but it does not alter its essential character. By contrast, the dismissal of an indictment for preindictment delay represents a legal judgment that a defendant, although criminally culpable, may not be punished because of a supposed constitutional violation.
We think that in a case such as this the defendant, by deliberately choosing to seek termination of the proceedings against him on a basis unrelated to factual guilt or innocence of the offense of which he is accused, suffers no injury cognizable under the Double Jeopardy Clause if the Government is permitted to appeal from such a ruling of the trial court in favor of the defendant. We do not thereby adopt the doctrine of “waiver” of double jeopardy rejected in Green., Rather, we conclude that the Double Jeopardy Clause, which guards against Government oppression, does not relieve a defendant from the consequences of his voluntary choice. In Green the question of the defendant’s factual guilt or innocence of murder in the first degree was actually submitted to the jury as a trier of fact; in the present case, respondent successfully avoided such a submission of the first count of the indictment by persuading the trial court to dismiss it on a basis which did not depend on guilt or innocence. He was thus neither acquitted nor convicted, because he himself successfully undertook to persuade the trial court not to submit the issue of guilt or innocence to the jury which had been empaneled to try him.
The reason for treating a trial aborted on the initiative of the trial judge differently from a trial verdict reversed on appeal, for purposes of double jeopardy, is thus described in Jorn, 400 U. S., at 484 (opinion of Harlan, J.):
“[I]n the [second] situation the defendant has not been deprived of his option to go to the first jury, and, perhaps, end the dispute then and there with an acquittal. On the other hand, where the judge, acting without the defendant’s consent, aborts the proceeding, the defendant has been deprived of his Valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal.5 ”
We think the same reasoning applies in pari passu where the defendant, instead of obtaining a reversal of his conviction on appeal, obtains the termination of the proceedings against him in the trial court without any finding by a court or jury as to his guilt or innocence. He has not been “deprived55 of his valued right to go to the first jury; only the public has been deprived of its valued right to “one complete opportunity to convict those who have violated its laws.55 Arizona v. Washington, 434 U. S., at 509. No interest protected by the Double Jeopardy Clause is invaded when the Government is allowed to appeal and seek reversal of such a midtrial termination of the proceedings in a manner favorable to the defendant.
It is obvious from what we have said that we believe we pressed too far in Jenkins the concept of the “defendant's valued right to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal.” Wade v. Hunter, 336 U. S. 684, 689 (1949). We now conclude that where the defendant himself seeks to have the trial terminated without any submission to either judge or jury as to his guilt or innocence, an appeal by the Government from his successful effort to do so is not barred by 18 U. S. C. §3731 (1976 ed.).
We recognize the force of the doctrine of stare decisis, but we are conscious as well of the admonition of Mr. Justice Brandéis:
“[I]n cases involving the Federal Constitution, where correction through legislative action is practically impossible, this Court has often overruled its earlier decisions. The Court bows to the lessons of experience and the force of better reasoning, recognizing that the process of trial and error, so fruitful in the physical sciences, is appropriate also in the judicial function.” Burnet v. Coronado Oil & Gas Co., 285 U. S. 393, 406-408 (1932) (dissenting opinion).
Here, “the lessons of experience” indicate that Government appeals from midtrial dismissals requested by the defendant would significantly advance the public interest in assuring that each defendant shall be subject to a just judgment on the merits of his case, without “enhancing the possibility that even though innocent he may be found guilty.” Green, 355 U. S., at 188. Accordingly, the contrary holding of United States v. Jenkins is overruled.
The judgment of the Court of Appeals is therefore reversed, and the cause is remanded for further proceedings.
It is so ordered.
A thorough account of the enactment and development of the Act is set out in Mr. Justice Harlan’s opinion for the Court in United States v. Sisson, 399 U. S. 267, 291-296 (1970).
The rule established in Wilson and Jenkins was later described in the following terms:
“[Dismissals (as opposed to mistrials) if they occurred at a stage of the proceeding after which jeopardy had attached, but prior to the factfinder’s conclusion as to guilt or innocence, were final so far as the accused defendant was concerned and could not be appealed by the Government because retrial was barred by double jeopardy. This made the issue of double jeopardy turn very largely on temporal considerations — if the Court granted an order of dismissal during the factfinding stage of the proceedings, the defendant could not be reprosecuted, but if the dismissal came later, he could.” Lee v. United, States, 432 U. S. 23, 36 (1977) (RehN-qtjist, J., concurring).
The Government contends here that the District Court in Jenkins entered a judgment of acquittal in favor of Jenkins, but our opinion in that case recognized that it could not be said with certainty whether this was the case. See Jenkins, 420 U. S., at 367.
Two years later, review was provided for all "infamous” crimes. Act of Mar. 3, 1891, ch. 517, § 5, 26 Stat. 827.
The Court thereby rejected the English rule set out in Vaux’s Case, 4 Co. Rep. 44a, 76 Eng. Rep. 992 (K. B. 1590), which refused to recognize a plea of autrefois acquit where the initial indictment had been insufficient to support a conviction. Again, this ruling provided a greater measure of protection for criminal defendants than had been known at the time of the adoption of the Constitution. A contrary ruling would have altered this Court’s task in such cases as Lee v. United States, 432 U. S. 23 (1977), and Illinois v. Somerville, 410 U. S. 458 (1973).
In so doing, the Court rejected the contention of Mr, Justice Holmes in dissent that “there is no rule that a man may not be tried twice in the same case.” 195 U. S., at 134. He went on to say:
“If a statute should give the right to take exceptions to the Government, I believe it would be impossible to maintain that the prisoner would be protected by the Constitution from being tried again. He no more would be put in jeopardy a second time when retried because of a mistake of law in his favor, than he would be when retried for a mistake that did him harm.” Id., at 135.
Mr. Justice Holmes’ concept of continuing jeopardy would have greatly simplified the matter of Government appeals, but it has never been accepted by a majority of this Court. See Jenkins, 420 U. S., at 358.
In Jenkins we had assumed that a judgment of acquittal could be appealed where no retrial would be needed on remand:
“When this principle is applied to the situation where the jury returns a verdict of guilt but the trial court thereafter enters a judgment of acquittal, an appeal is permitted. In that situation a conclusion by an appellate court that the judgment of acquittal was improper does not require a criminal defendant to submit to a second trial; the error can be corrected on remand by the entry of a judgment on the verdict.” Id,., at 365. Despite the Court’s heavy emphasis on the finality of an acquittal in Martin Linen and Sanabria v. United States, ante, p. 54, neither decision explicitly repudiates this assumption. Sanabria, ante, at 75; Martin Linen, 430 U. S., at 569-570.
Downum, in 1963, was the first case in which this Court actually reversed a subsequent conviction because of an improper declaration of a mistrial. This, too, provided greater protection for a defendant than was available at the common law. Although English precedents clearly disapproved of unnecessary mistrials, see generally Arizona v. Washington, 434 U. S., at 506-508, and nn. 21-23, the English rule at the time of the adoption of the Constitution was, as it remains today, that nothing short of a final judgment would bar further prosecution. “The fact that the jury was discharged without giving a verdict cannot be a bar to a subsequent indictment.” 11 Halsbury’s Laws of England, Criminal Law, Evidence, and Procedure ¶242 (4th ed. 1976).
In Jenkins, which was a bench trial, we had difficulty, as did the Court of Appeals in that case, in characterizing the jorecise import of the District Court’s order dismissing the indictment. The analysis that governed our disposition turned not on whether the defendant had -been acquitted but on whether the proceeding had terminated “in the defendant’s favor,” 420 U. S., at 365 n. 7, and whether “further proceedings of some sort, devoted to the resolution of factual issues going to the elements of the offense charged, would have been required upon reversal and remand,” id., at 370. We thus had no occasion to determine whether the District Court simply had made "an erroneous interpretation of the controlling law,” id., at 365 n. 7, or whether it had “resolved [controlling] issues of fact in favor of the respondent,” id., at 367; see id., at 362 n. 3.
The defense of insanity in a federal criminal prosecution was first recognized by this Court in Davis v. United States, 160 U. S. 469 (1895). Mr. Justice Harlan’s opinion for the Court construed federal law in light of the larger body of common law in other jurisdictions, and concluded:
“One who takes human life cannot be said to be actuated by malice aforethought, or to have deliberately intended to take life, or to have 'a wicked, depraved, and malignant heart,’ or a heart'regardless of society duty and fatally bent on mischief’ unless at the time he had sufficient mind to comprehend the criminality or the right and wrong of such an act.” Id., at 485.
While Congress has never made explicit statutory provision for this affirmative defense or any other, it has recognized the validity of the defense by regulating its use in federal prosecutions. Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 12.2 (a).
While an acquittal on the merits by the trier of fact “can never represent a determination that the criminal defendant is innocent in any absolute sense,” post, at 107 (BreNNAN, J., dissenting), a defendant who has been released by a court for reasons required by the Constitution or laws, but which are unrelated to factual guilt or innocence, has not been determined to be innocent in any sense of that word, absolute or otherwise. In other circumstances, this Court has had no difficulty in distinguishing between those rulings which relate to “the ultimate question of guilt or innocence
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
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 Rehnqtjist
delivered the opinion of the, Court.
The Freedom of Information Act, 5 U. S. C. § 552, empowers federal courts to order an “agency”, to produce “agency records improperly withheld” from an individual requesting access. § 552 (a)(4)(B). We hold here that written data generated, owned, and possessed by a privately controlled organization receiving federal study grants aré not “agency records” within the meaning of the Act when copies of those data have not been obtained by a federal agency subject to the FOIA. Federal participation in the generation of the data by means of a grant from the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. (HEW) does not make the private organization a federal “agency” within the terms of the Act. Nor does this federal funding in combination with a federal right of access render the data “agency records” of HEW, which is a federal “agency” under the terms of the Act.
I
In 1959, a group of private physicians and scientists specializing in the treatment of diabetes formed the University Group Diabetes Program (UGDP). The UGDP conducted a long-term study of the effectiveness of five diabetes treatment regimens. Two of these treatment regimens involved diet control in combination with the administration of either tolbutamide, or phenformin hydrochloride, both “oral hypoglycemic” drugs. The UGDP’s participating physicians were located at 12 clinics nationwide and the study was coordinated at the Coordinating Center of the University of Maryland.
The study generated more than 55 million records documenting the treatment of over 1,000 diabetic patients who were monitored for a 5- to 8-year period. In 1970, the TJGDP presented the initial results of its study indicating that the treatment of adult-onset diabetics with tolbutamide increased the risk of death from cardiovascular disease over that present when diabetes was treated by the other methods studied. The TJGDP later expanded these findings to report a similarly increased incidence of heart disease when patients were treated with phenformin hydrochloride. These findings have in turn generated substantial professional debate.
The Committee on the Care of the Diabetic (CCD), a national association of physicians involved in the treatment of diabetes mellitus patients, have been among those critical of the TJGDP study. CCD requested the TJGDP to grant it access to the raw data in order to facilitate its review of the TJGDP findings, but TJGDP has declined to comply with that request. CCD therefore sought to obtain the information under the Freedom of Information Act. The essential facts are not in dispute, and we hereafter set forth those relevant to our decision.
The TJGDP study has been solely funded by federal grants in the neighborhood of $15 million between 1961 and 1978. These grants were awarded TJGDP by the National Institute of Arthritis, Metabolism, and Digestive Diseases (NIAMDD), a federal agency, pursuant to the Public Health Service Act, 42 U. S. C. § 241 (c). NIAMDD has not only awarded the federal grants to TJGDP, but has exercised a certain amount of supervision over the funded activity. Federal regulations governing supervision of grantees allow for the review of periodic reports submitted by the grantee and on-site visits, and require agency approval of major program or budgetary changes. 45 CFR §§ 74.80-74.85 (1979); 42 CFR § 52.20 (b) (1979). It is undisputed, however, both that the day-to-day administration of grant-supported activities is in the hands of a grantee, and that NIAMDD’s supervision of UGDP conformed to these regulations.
The grantee has also retained control of its records: the patient records and raw data generated by UGDP have at all times remained in the possession of that entity, and neither the NIAMDD grants nor related regulations shift ownership of such data to the Federal Government. NIAMDD does, however, have a right of access to the data in order to insure compliance with the grant. 45 CFR § 74.24 (a) (1979). And the Government may obtain permanent custody of the documents upon request. § 74.21 (c). But NIAMDD has not exercised its right either to review or to obtain permanent custody of the data.
Although no employees of the NIAMDD have reviewed the UGDP records, the Institute did contract in 1972 with another private grantee, the Biometric Society, for an assessment of the validity of the UGDP study. The Biometric Society was given direct access to the UGDP raw data by the terms of its contract with NIAMDD. The contract with the Biometric Society, however, did not require the Society to seek access to the UGDP raw data, nor did it require that any data actually reviewed be transmitted to the NIAMDD. While the Society did review some UGDP data, it did not submit any raw data reviewed by it to the NIAMDD. The Society issued a report to the Institute in 1974 concluding that the UGDP results were “mixed” but “moderately strong.”
An additional connection between the Federal Government and the UGDP study has occurred through the activities of the Food and Drug Administration. After the FDA was apprised of the UGDP results, the agency issued a statement recommending that physicians use tolbutamide in the treatment of diabetes only in limited circumstances. After the UGDP reported finding a similarly higher incidence of cardiovascular disease with the administration of phenformin, the FDA proposed changes in the labeling of these oral hypoglycemic drugs to warn patients of cardiovascular hazards. FDA Drug Bulletin (June 23, 1971). The FDA deferred further action on this labeling proposal, however, until the Biometric Society completed its review of the UGDP study.
After the Biometric study was issued, FDA renewed its proposal to require a label warning that oral hypoglyeemics should be used only in cases of adult-onset, stable diabetes that could not be treated adequately by a combination of diet and insulin. The FDA clearly relied on the UGDP study in renewing this position. 40 Fed. Reg. 28587, 28591 (1975). At the time the proposal was published, the FDA invited public comment. In response to criticism of the UGDP study and the Biometric Society’s audit, the FDA conducted its own audit of the UGDP study pursuant to a delegation of NIAMDD’s authority to audit grantee records. In conducting this audit, the FDA examined and copied a small sample of the UGDP raw data. This audit report has been made available for public inspection. 43 Fed. Reg. 52733 (1978).
Although this labeling proposal has not yet become final, other FDA regulatory action has been taken. On July 25, 1977, the Secretary of HEW suspended the New Drug Application for phenformin, one of the oral hypoglycemic medications studied by the UGDP. The decision was premised in part on the findings of the UGDP study. See Order of the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare, July 25, 1977. After the Secretary’s temporary order of suspension was issued, proceedings before the FDA continued.'The Administrative Law Judge ordered the FDA to produce all UGDP data in its possession. The FDA then produced those portions of the UGDP raw data which the agency had copied, abstracted, or directly transferred to Government' premises during its audit. The ALJ found that the HEW suspension order was supported by the evidence. On November 15,1978, the Commissioner of Food and Drugs affirmed the ALJ’s finding that phenformin was not shown to be safe and ordered it withdrawn from the market. 44 Fed. Reg. 20967 (1979). This decision was not based substantially on the UGDP study.
Petitioners had long since initiated a series of FOIA requests seeking access to the UGDP raw data. On August 7, 1975, HEW denied their request for the UGDP data on the grounds that no branch of HEW had ever reviewed or seen the raw data; that the FDA’s proposed relabeling action relied on the UGDP published reports and not on an analysis of the underlying data; that the data were the property of the UGDP, a private group; and that the agencies were not required to acquire and produce those data under the FOIA. The following month petitioners filed this FOIA suit in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia to require HEW to make available all of the raw data compiled by UGDP. The District Court granted summary judgment in favor of respondents, holding that HEW properly denied the request on the ground that the patient data did not constitute “agency records” under the FOIA.
The Court of Appeals affirmed on the same rationale. Forsham v. Califano, 190 U. S. App. D. C. 231, 587 F. 2d 1128 (1978). The court found that although NIAMDD is a federal agency, its grantees are not federal agencies. The court rejected the petitioners’ argument that the UGDP’s records were nevertheless also the federal agency’s records. Although HEW has a right of access to the documents, the court reasoned that this right did not render the documents “agency records” since the FOIA only applies to records which have been “created or obtained... in the course of doing its work.” Id., at 239, 587 F. 2d, at 1136. The dissenting judge concluded that the UGDP data were “agency records” under the FOIA since the Government had been “significantly involved” in the study through its funding, access to the raw data, and reliance on the study in its regulatory actions.
II
As we hold in the companion case of Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, ante, p. 136, it must be established that an “agency” has “improperly withheld agency records” for an individual to obtain access to documents through an FOIA action. We hold here that HEW need not produce the requested data because they are not “agency records” within the meaning of the FOIA. In so holding, we reject three separate but related claims of petitioners: (1) the data they seek are “agency records” because they were at least “records” of UGDP, and UGDP in turn received its funds from a federal agency and was subject to some supervision by the agency in its use of those funds; (2) the data they seek are “agency records” because HEW, concededly a federal agency, had sufficient authority under its grant agreement to have obtained the data had it chosen to do so; and (3) the data are “agency records” because they formed the basis for the published reports of UGDP, which in turn were relied upon by the FDA in the actions described above.
Congress undoubtedly sought to expand public rights of access to Government information when it enacted the Freedom of Information Act, but that expansion was a finite one. Congress limited access to “agency records,” 5 U. S. C. § 552 (a)(4)(B), but did not provide any definition of “agency records” in that Act. The use of the word “agency” as a modifier demonstrates that Congress contemplated some relationship between an “agency” and the “record” requested under the FOIA. With due regard for the policies and language of the FOIA, we conclude that data generated by a privately controlled organization which has received grant funds from an agency (hereafter grantee), but which data has not at any time been obtained by the agency, are not “agency records” accessible under the FOIA.
A
We first examine petitioners’ claim that the data were at least records of UGDP, and that the federal funding and supervision of UGDP alone provides the close connection necessary to render its records “agency records” as that term is used in the Freedom of Information Act. Congress did not define “agency record” under the FOIA, but it did define “agency.” The definition of “agency” reveals a great deal about congressional intent as to the availability of records from private grantees under the FOIA, and thus, a great deal about the relevance, of federal funding and supervision to the definitional scope of “agency records.” Congress excluded private grantees from FOIA disclosure obligations by excluding them from the definition of “agency,” an action consistent with its prevalent practice of preserving grantee autonomy. It has, for example, disclaimed any federal property rights in grantee records by virtue of its funding. We cannot agree with petitioners in light of these circumstances that the very federal funding and supervision which Congress found insufficient to make the grantee an agency subject to the FOIA nevertheless makes its records accessible under the same Act.
Under 5 U. S. C. § 552 (e) an “agency” is defined as
“any executive department, military department, Government corporation, Government controlled corporation, or other establishment in the executive branch of the Government..., or any independent regulatory agency.”
The legislative history indicates unequivocally that private organizations receiving federal financial assistance grants are not within the definition of “agency.” In their Report, the conferees stated that they did “not intend to include corporations which receive appropriated funds but are neither chartered by the Federal Government nor controlled by it, such as the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.” H. Conf. Rep. No. 93-1380, pp. 14-15 (1974), reprinted in Freedom of Information Act and Amendments of 1974 Source Book 231-232 (Jt. Comm. Print 1975). Through operation of this exclusion, Congress chose not to confer any direct public rights of access to such federally funded project information.
This treatment of federal grantees under the FOIA is consistent with congressional treatment of them in other areas of federal law. Grants of federal funds generally do not create a partnership or joint venture with the recipient, nor do they serve to convert the acts of the recipient from private acts to governmental acts absent extensive, detailed, and virtually day-to-day supervision. United States v. Orleans, 425 U. S. 807, 818 (1976). Measured by these standards, the UGDP is not a federal instrumentality or an FOIA agency.
Congress could have provided that the records generated by a federally funded grantee were federal property even though the grantee has not been adopted as a federal entity. But Congress has not done so, reflecting the same regard for the autonomy of the grantee’s records as for the grantee itself. Congress expressly requires an agency to use “procurement contracts” when the “principal purpose of the instrument is the acquisition... of property or services for the direct benefit or use of the Federal Government....” Federal Grant and Cooperative Agreement Act of 1977, § 4, 92 Stat. 4, 41 U. S. C. § 503 (1976 ed., Supp. II).. In contrast, “grant agreements” must be used when money is given to a recipient “in order to accomplish a public purpose of support or stimulation authorized by Federal statute, rather than acquisition... of property or services....” § 5, 41 U. S. C. § 504 (1976 ed., Supp. II). As in this case, where a grant was used, there is no dispute that the documents created are the property of the recipient, and not the Federal Government. See 45 CFR § 74.133 (1979). The HEW regulations do retain a right to acquire the documents. Those regulations, however, clearly demonstrate that unless and until that right is exercised, the records are only the “records of grantees.” 45 CFR § 74.24 (1979). Therefore, were petitioners to prevail in this action, they would have obtained a right of access to some 55 million documents created, owned, and possessed by a private recipient of federal funds. While this fact itself-is not dispositive of the outcome, it is nonetheless an important consideration when viewed in light of these congressional attempts to maintain the autonomy of federal grantees and their records.
The fact that Congress has chosen not to make a federal grantee an “agency” or to vest ownership of the records in the Government does not resolve with mathematical precision the question of whether the granting agency’s funding and supervisory activities nevertheless make the grantee’s records “agency records.” Records of a nonagency certainly could become records of an agency as well. But if Congress found that federal funding and supervision did not justify direct access to the grantee’s records, as it clearly did, we fail to see why we should nevertheless conclude that those identical activities were intended to permit indirect access through an expansive definition of “agency records.” Such a con-elusion would not implement the intent of Congress; it would defeat it.
These considerations do not finally conclude the inquiry, for conceivably other facts might indicate that the documents could be “agency records” even though generated by a private grantee. The definition of “agency” and congressional policy towards grantee records indicate, however, that Congress did not intend that grant supervision short of Government control serve as. a sufficient basis to make the private records “agency records” under the Act, and reveal a congressional determination to keep federal grantees free from the direct obligations imposed by the TOLA. In ascertaining the intended expanse of the term “agency records” then, we must, of course, construe the Act with regard both for the congressional purpose of increasing public access to governmental records and for this equally explicit purpose of retaining grantee autonomy.
B
Petitioners seek to prevail on their second and third theories, even though their first be rejected, by invoking a broad definition of “agency records,” so as to include all documents created by a private grantee to which the Government has access, and which the Government has used.' We do not believe that this broad definition of “agency records,” a term undefined in the FOIA, is supported by either the language of that Act or its legislative history. We instead agree with the opinions of the courts below that Congress contemplated that an agency must first either create or obtain a record as a prerequisite to its becoming an “agency record” within the meaning of the FOIA. While it would be stretching the ordinary meaning of the words to call the data in question here “agency records,” we need not rest our conclusions solely on the “plain language” rule of statutory construction. The use of the term “record” by Congress in two other Acts, and the structure and legislative history of the FOIA alike support the same conclusion.
Although Congress has supplied no definition of agency records in the FOIA, it has formulated a definition in other Acts. The Records Disposal Act, in effect at the time Congress enacted, the Freedom of Information Act, provides the following threshold requirement for agency records:
“'records’ includes all books, papers, maps, photographs, machine readable materials, or other documentary materials, regardless of physical form or characteristics, made or received by an agency of the United States Government under Federal law or in connection with the transaction of public business... 44 U. S. C. § 3301.
(Emphasis added.)
The Attorney General’s Memorandum on the Public Information Section of the Administrative Procedure Act 23-24 (1967), S. Doc. No. 93-82, pp. 222-223 (1974), concludes that Congress intended this aspect of the Records Act definition to apply to the Freedom of Information Act.
The same standard emerges in the Presidential Records Act of 1978. The term “presidential records” is defined as “documentary materials... created or received by the President....” 44 U. S. C. 1 2201 (2) (1976 ed., Supp. II). (Emphasis added.) While these definitions are not disposi-tive of the proper interpretation of congressional use of the word in the FOIA, it is not insignificant that Congress has associated creation or acquisition with the concept of a governmental record. The text, structure, and legislative history of the FOIA itself reinforce that significance in this case.
The only direct reference to a definition of records in the legislative history, of which we are aware, occurred during the Senate hearings leading to the enactment of FOIA. A representative of the Interstate Commerce Commission commented that “[s]ince the word ‘records’... is not defined, we assume that it includes all papers which an agency preserves in the performance of its functions.” Administrative Procedure Act: Hearings on S. 1160 et al. before the Subcommittee on Administrative Practice and Procedure of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 244 (1965). The legislative history of the FOIA abounds with other references to records acquired by an agency. For example, the legislative Reports clarify that confidential information “submitted... to a Government... agency,” “obtained by the Government,” or “given to an agency” otherwise subject to disclosure, was made exempt. S. Rep. No. 813, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 9 (1965), reprinted in Freedom of Information Act Source Book, S. Doc. No. 93-82, p. 44 (Comm. Print 1974); H. R. Rep. No. 1497, 89th Cong., 2d Sess. (1966), reprinted in Source Book, at 31.
Section 552 (b)(4) provides the strongest structural support for this construction. This section exempts trade secrets and commercial or financial information “obtained from a person.” This exemption was designed to protect confidential information “submitted” by a borrower to a lending agency or “obtained by the Government” through questionnaires or other inquiries, where such information “would customarily not be released to the public by the person from whom it was obtained.” S. Rep. No. 813, supra, at 9; H. R. Rep. No. 1497, supra, at 10. It is significant that Congress did not include a similar exemption for confidential information contained in records which had never been “obtained from a person.” It is obvious that this omission does not reflect a congressional judgment that records remaining in private control are not similarly deserving of this exemption, but rather a judgment that records which have never passed from private to agency control are not agency records which would require any such exemption. This possessory emphasis is buttressed by similar considerations implicit in the use of the word “withholding” in the statutory framework. See Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, ante, p. 136.
The same focus emerges in a congressional amendment to the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. That Act had provided its own standards for public access to documents generated by the Act. Congress amended the Act to provide:
“For purposes of [the FOIA] the term'records’ includes, all applications, statements, reports, contracts, correspondence, notices, and other documents filed with or otherwise obtained by the Commission pursuant to this chapter or otherwise.” (Emphasis added.) 15 U. S. C. § 78x.
We think that the weight this construction lends to our conclusion is overborne neither by an agency’s potential access to the grantee’s information nor by its reliance on that information in carrying out the various duties entrusted to it by Congress. The Freedom of Information Act deals with “agency records,” not information in the abstract. Petitioners place great reliance on the fact that HEW has a right of access to the data, and a right if it so chooses to obtain permanent custody of the UGDP records. 45 CFR §§ 74.24. 74.21 (1979). But in this context the FOIA applies to records which have been in fact obtained, and not to records which merely could have been obtained. To construe the FOIA to embrace the latter class of documents would be to extend the reach of the Act beyond what we believe Congress intended. We rejected a similar argument in NLRB v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U. S. 132, 161-162 (1975), by holding that the FOIA imposes no duty on the agency to create records. By ordering HEW to exercise its right of access, we effectively would be compelling the agency to “create” an agency record since prior to that exercise the record was not a record of the agency. Thus without first establishing that the agency has created or obtained the document, reliance or use is similarly irrelevant.
We think the foregoing reasons dispose of all petitioners’ arguments. We therefore conclude that the data petitioners seek are not “agency records” within the meaning of the FOIA. UGDP is not a “federal agency” as that term is defined in the FOIA, and the data petitioners seek have not been created or obtained by a federal agency. Having failed to establish this threshold requirement, petitioners’ FOIA claim must fail, and the judgment of the Court of Appeals is accordingly
Affirmed.
Mr. Justice Brennan,
with whom Mr. Justice Marshall joins, dissenting.
I agree with the Court that “[rjecords of a nonagency certainly could become records of an agency as well.” Ante, at 181. But the Court does not explain why such a conversion does not occur in this case. Because I believe we should articulate standards under which to analyze such cases and because I believe that under a proper test UGDP’s data should be treated as “agency records,” I dissent.
I
The Court argues at length that UGDP is not an agency. But whether or not UGDP is an “agency” is simply not at issue in this case. Rather, the only question is whether data generated in the course of this UGDP study are “agency records.”
The Court concedes, of course, that the statute itself does not define “agency records.” Therefore, our task is to construe the statutory language consistently with the purposes of FOIA. As detailed in the dissenting opinion below, Forsham v. Califano, 190 U. S. App. D. C. 231, 244-245, 587 F. 2d 1128, 1141-1142 (1978) (Bazelon, J., dissenting), FOIA is a broad enactment meant to open the processes of Government to public inspection. It reflects a finding that if left to themselves agencies would operate in near secrecy. FOIA was, therefore, enacted to provide access to information to enable “an informed electorate,” so “vital to the proper operation of a democracy,” to govern itself. S. Rep. No. 813, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1965). Nothing whatever in the legislative history suggests that Congress meant to allow agencies to insulate important steps in decisionmaking on the basis of the technical niceties of who “owns” crucial documents.
Where the nexus between the agency and the requested information is close, and where the importance of the information to public understanding of the decisions or the operation of the agency is great, I believe the congressional purposes require us to hold that the information sought is an “agency record” within the meaning of POIA.
Admittedly, this test does not establish a bright line, but the evaluation of a calculus of relevant factors is nothing new to the law. The first such factor is the importance of the record to an understanding of Government activities. If, for instance, the significance of the record is limited to understanding the workings of the nonagency, the public has no FOIA-protected interest in access. The weight to be given this factor can be tested by examining the role accorded the material in agency writings and the extent to which the agency reached its conclusions in reliance upon the particular source.
Mere materiality of information, standing alone, of course, is not enough. POIA does not give the public any unrestricted right to examine all data relied on by an agency. Congress required that the information constitute an “agency record.” Thus, another necessary factor is'that there be a link between the agency and the record. Nothing in FOIA or its history suggests, however, that the connection must amount to outright possession or creation. Instead, again drawing from the legislative purposes, I believe the link must be such that the agency has treated the record as if it were part of the regulatory process, as if it were in effect a record which exists to serve the regulatory process. Government by secrecy is no less destructive of democracy if it is carried on within agencies or within private organizations serving agencies. The value of the record to the electorate is not affected by whether the relationship between the agency and the private organization is governed formally by a procurement contract, a “joint venture” agreement, or a grant. The existence of this factor can be tested by examining, inter alia, the degree to which the impetus for the creation of the record came from the agency or was developed independently, the degree to which the creation of the record was funded publicly or privately, the extent of governmental supervision of the creation of the record, and the extent of continuing governmental control over the record.
II
On the facts of this case, I would conclude that UGDP’s raw data are records of HEW. Both HEW and the FDA have taken significant actions in complete reliance on the UGDP study. The FDA has directly endorsed the study’s conclusions and, in reliance thereon, sought mandatory labeling warnings on the drugs criticized by the UGDP. HEW cited the UGDP study as one of its basic sources when it suspended one of the drugs as an immediate hazard. The suggestion that these administrative actions relied solely on the published reports and not on the underlying raw data at issue here is unrealistic. The conclusions can be no stronger or weaker than the data on which they are based. One cannot even begin to evaluate an agency action without access to the raw data on which the conclusions were based, especially in a case such as this where the data are nonduplicable. The importance of the raw data in evaluating derivative conclusions was recognized by the FDA when it employed another independent organization, the Biometric Society, to check UGDP’s work. FDA secured access for the Society to the raw data, and the Society used a sample of the data.
This case is set against the background of an intense, often bitter, battle being waged in the medical community over the validity of the UGDP study and the correct treatment regimen for diabetes. By endorsing the UGDP study the Federal Government has aligned itself on one side of the fight and has all but outlawed the regimen recommended by the other side. Petitioners in this case are medical scientists seeking to resolve questions that have been raised about the scientific and statistical methods underlying an agency’s conclusions. This seems to me to be an archetypical instance of the need for public dissemination of the information.
Even so, I doubt that the information could be held to be an “agency record” had the Government not been so deeply involved in its creation. Petitioners have argued that the National Institutes of Health, in effect, did create these records. The agency not only completely funded the project’s operation, but initiated the project and took responsibility for developing its research protocol as well. See Forsham v. Califano, 190 U. S. App. D. C., at 251, 587 F. 2d, at 1148 (Bazelon, J., voting for rehearing). They contend further that, beyond the normal level of NIH involvement in its grantees’ studies set out by the Court, ante, at 173, the NIH exercised continuing supervision over this study through a “Policy Advisory Board” as a condition of the grant renewals. Forsham v. Califano, supra. Finally, as the Court also acknowledges, there is no question that the Government has full access to the data under the terms of the grant and under federal regulations. Indeed, if it so chose, the Government could obtain permanent custody of the data merely by requesting it from UGDP. Thus, the data remain with the grantee only at the pleasure of the' Government. In my view the record abundantly establishes that these data were developed with public funds and with Government assistance and, in large part, for governmental purposes. Therefore, I would hold that they are agency records, and I respectfully dissent.
Ill
I emphasize that the standards I suggest do not mean opening to the public the files of all grantees or of all who submit information to the Government. In many cases grantees’ records should not be treated as agency records. But the Court’s approach must inevitably undermine FOIA’s great purpose of exposing Government to the people. It is unavoidable that as the work of federal agencies mushrooms both in quantity and complexity the agencies must look to outside organizations to assist in governmental tasks. Just as the explosion of federal agencies, which are not directly responsible to the electorate, worked to hide the workings of the Federal Government from voters before enactment of FOIA, S. Rep. No. 813, 89th Cong., 1st Sess., 3 (1965), the understandable tendency of agencies to rely on nongovernmental grantees to perform myriad projects distances the electorate from important information by one more step. If the records of such organizations, when drawn directly into the regulatory process, are immune from public inspection, then government by secrecy must surely return.
The NIAMDD is one of several Institutes of the National Institutes of Health (NIH). It is authorized by statute to conduct and fund research on diabetes and other diseases. 42 U. S. C. §§ 289a, 289c-1. The NIH are a component of the federal Public Health Service, which is itself a part of the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. See Reorg. Plan No. 3 of 1966, 3 CFR 1023 (1966-1970 Comp.), note Mowing 42 U. S. C. §202, and Reorganization Order of April 1, 1968, 33 Fed. Reg. 5426.
Petitioners do contend that the federal supervision of the UGDP study was substantial and more extensive than that ordinarily exercised. They do not, however, maintain that there was day-to-day supervision. See infra, at 180, and n. 11.
Prior to the FDA’s decision to defer action, petitioners in this case sued the FDA to enjoin the proposed labeling, contesting the validity of the UGDP study. The First Circuit remanded the case to the FDA for exhaustion of administrative remedies. Bradley v. Weinberger, 483 F. 2d 410 (1973).
The order of the Commissioner discounts reliance on the TJGDP study. The order states that the AU was correct in concluding that from “an evidentiary standpoint” the “lack of availability of underlying data casts considerable doubt on the reliability of the TJGDP conclusions.” 44 Fed. Reg. 20969 (1979). The ALJ did permit reference to the TJGDP study as a basis for expert opinion. The Commissioner concluded that this use of the study was permissible since the data underlying expert opinions need not always be admitted to substantiate the opinions. Nearly 400 published articles were included in the record of the phenformin proceeding and none of the articles was accompanied by the raw data on which they were based. The Commissioner noted that the ALJ referenced the TJGDP study in only one paragraph of his eightr-page summary.
The Commissioner concluded that the agency.was not required to submit the TJGDP data since it had not relied upon that data, but only upon the actual study. 21 CFR § 12.85 (1979). Nevertheless, the Commissioner stated that he “reviewed the testimony of the Bureau of Drug’s expert witnesses and [found] that their reliance upon the TJGDP study was not substantial and cannot reasonably be characterized as pivotal to the opinions expressed by those witnesses.” 44 Fed. Reg. 20969 (1979).
The denial of. this FOIA request preceded the FDA’s audit of the UGDP data.
The court opinion also suggested that a document 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:
|
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 Kennedy
delivered the opinion of the Court.
The issue presented is whether a district court may invoke its supervisory power to dismiss an indictment for prosecuto-rial misconduct in a grand jury investigation, where the misconduct does not prejudice the defendants. .
r — i
In 1982, after a 20-month investigation conducted before two successive grand juries, eight defendants, including petitioners William A. Kilpatrick, Decían J. O’Donnell, Sheila C. Lerner, and The Bank of Nova Scotia, were indicted on 27 counts. The first 26 counts charged all defendants with conspiracy and some of them with mail and tax fraud. Count 27 charged Kilpatrick with obstruction of justice. The United States District Court for the District of Colorado initially dismissed the first 26 counts for failure to charge a crime, improper pleading, and, as to charges against the bank, for failure to allege that the bank or its agents had the requisite knowledge and criminal intent. Kilpatrick was tried and convicted on the obstruction of justice count.
The Government appealed the dismissal of the first 26 counts. Before oral argument, however, the Court of Appeals granted a defense motion to remand the case to the District Court for a hearing on whether prosecutorial misconduct and irregularities in the grand jury proceedings were additional grounds for dismissal. United States District Judge Fred M. Winner first presided over the post-trial motions and granted a new trial to Kilpatrick on the obstruction of justice count. The cases were later reassigned to United States District Judge John L. Kane, Jr., to complete the post-trial proceedings. After 10 days of hearings, Judge Kane dismissed all 27 counts of the indictment. The District Court held that dismissal was required for various violations of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6. 594 F. Supp. 1324, 1353 (1984). Further, it ruled dismissal was proper under the “totality of the circumstances,” including the “numerous violations of Rule 6(d) and (e), Fed. R. Crim. P., violations of 18 U. S. C. §§ 6002 and 6003, violations of the Fifth and Sixth Amendments to the United States Constitution, knowing presentation of misinformation to the grand jury and mistreatment of witnesses.” Ibid. We shall discuss these findings in more detail below.
The District Court determined that “[a]s a result of the conduct of the prosecutors and their entourage of agents, the indicting grand jury was not able to undertake its essential mission” to act independently of the prosecution. Ibid. In an apparent alternative holding, the District Court also ruled that
“[t]he supervisory authority of the court must be used in circumstances such as those presented in this case to declare with unmistakable intention that such conduct is neither ‘silly’ nor ‘frivolous’ and that it will not be tolerated.” Ibid.
The Government appealed once again, and a divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed the order of dismissal. 821 F. 2d 1456 (CA10 1987). The Court of Appeals first rejected the District Court’s conclusion that the violations of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6 were an independent ground for dismissal of the indictment. It then held that “the totality of conduct before the grand jury did not warrant dismissal of the indictment,” id., at 1473, because “the accumulation of misconduct by the Government attorneys did not significantly infringe on the grand jury’s ability to exercise independent judgment.” Id., at 1474. Without a showing of such an infringement, the court held, the District Court could not exercise its supervisory authority to dismiss the indictment. Id., at 1474-1475.
The dissenting judge rejected the “view of the majority that prejudice to the defendant must be shown before a court can exercise its supervisory powers to dismiss an indictment on the basis of egregious prosecutorial misconduct.” Id., at 1476. In her view, the instances of prosecutorial misconduct relied on by the District Court pervaded the grand jury proceedings, rendering the remedy of dismissal necessary to safeguard the integrity of the judicial process notwithstanding the absence of prejudice to the defendants. Id., at 1479-1480.
We hold that, as a general matter, a district court may not dismiss an indictment for errors in grand jury proceedings unless such errors prejudiced the defendants.
II
In the exercise of its supervisory authority, a federal court “may, within limits, formulate procedural rules not specifically required by the Constitution or the Congress.” United States v. Hasting, 461 U. S. 499, 505 (1983). Nevertheless, it is well established that “[e]ven a sensible and efficient use of the supervisory power ... is invalid if it conflicts with constitutional or statutory provisions.” Thomas v. Arn, 474 U. S. 140, 148 (1985). To allow otherwise “would confer on the judiciary discretionary power to disregard the considered limitations of the law it is charged with enforcing.” United States v. Payner, 447 U. S. 727, 737 (1980). Our previous cases have not addressed explicitly whether this rationale bars exercise of a supervisory authority where, as here, dismissal of the indictment would conflict with the harmless-error inquiry mandated by the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
We now hold that a federal court may not invoke supervisory power to circumvent the harmless-error inquiry prescribed by Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(a). Rule 52(a) provides that “[a]ny error, defect, irregularity or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded.” The Rule was promulgated pursuant to 18 U. S. C. §687 (1946 ed.) (currently codified, as amended, at 18 U. S. C. § 3771), which invested us with authority “to prescribe, from time to time, rules of pleading, practice, and procedure with respect to any or all proceedings prior to and including verdict. .. Like its present-day successor, § 687 provided that after a Rule became effective “all laws in conflict therewith shall be of no further force and effect.” It follows that Rule 52 is, in every pertinent respect, as binding as any statute duly enacted by Congress, and federal courts have no more discretion to disregard the Rule’s mandate than théy do to disregard constitutional or statutory provisions. The balance struck by the Rule between societal costs and the rights of the accused may not casually be overlooked “because a court has elected to analyze the question under the supervisory power.” United States v. Payner, supra, at 736.
Our conclusion that a district court exceeds its powers in dismissing an indictment for prosecutorial misconduct not prejudicial to the defendant is supported by other decisions of this Court. In United States v. Mechanik, 475 U. S. 66 (1986), we held that there is “no reason not to apply [Rule 52(a)] to ‘errors, defects, irregularities, or variances’ occurring before a grand jury just as we have applied it to such error occurring in the criminal trial itself.” Id., at 71-72. In United States v. Hasting, 461 U. S., at 506, we held that “[supervisory power to reverse a conviction is not needed as a remedy when the error to which it is addressed is harmless since, by definition, the conviction would have been obtained notwithstanding the asserted error.” We stated that deterrence is an inappropriate basis for reversal where “means more narrowly tailored to deter objectionable prosecutorial conduct are available.” Ibid. We also recognized that where the error is harmless, concerns about the “integrity of the [judicial] process” will carry less weight, ibid., and that a court may not disregard the doctrine of harmless error simply “in order to chastise what the court view[s] as prosecuto-rial overreaching.” Id., at 507. Unlike the present cases, see infra, at 258-259, Hasting involved constitutional error. It would be inappropriate to devise a rule permitting federal courts to deal more sternly with nonconstitutional harmless errors than with constitutional errors that are likewise harmless.
Having concluded that our customary harmless-error inquiry is applicable where, as in the cases before us, a court is asked to dismiss an indictment prior to the conclusion of the trial, we turn to the standard of prejudice that courts should apply in assessing such claims. We adopt for this purpose, at least where dismissal is sought for nonconstitutional error, the standard articulated by Justice O’Connor in her concurring opinion in United States v. Mechanik, supra. Under this standard, dismissal of the indictment is appropriate only “if it is established that the violation substantially influenced the grand jury’s decision to indict,” or if there is “grave doubt” that the decision to indict was free from the substantial influence of such violations. United States v. Mechanik, supra, at 78. This standard is based on our decision in Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U. S. 750, 758-759 (1946), where, in construing a statute later incorporated into Rule 52(a), see United States v. Lane, 474 U. S. 438, 454-455 (1986) (Brennan, J., concurring and dissenting), we held that a conviction should not be overturned unless, after examining the record as a whole, a court concludes that an error may have had “substantial influence” on the outcome of the proceeding. 328 U. S., at 765.
To be distinguished from the cases before us are a class of cases in which indictments are dismissed, without a particular assessment of the prejudicial impact of the errors in each case, because the errors are deemed fundamental. These cases may be explained as isolated exceptions to the harmless-error rule. We think, however, that an alternative and more clear explanation is that these cases are ones in which the structural protections of the grand jury have been so compromised as to render the proceedings fundamentally unfair, allowing the presumption of prejudice. See Rose v. Clark, 478 U. S. 570, 577-578 (1986). These cases are exemplified by Vasquez v. Hillery, 474 U. S. 254, 260-264 (1986), where we held that racial discrimination in selection of grand jurors compelled dismissal of the indictment. In addition to involving an error of constitutional magnitude, other remedies were impractical and it could be presumed that a discriminatorily selected grand jury would treat defendants unfairly. See United States v. Mechanik, supra, at 70-71, n. 1. We reached a like conclusion in Ballard v. United States, 329 U. S. 187 (1946), where women had been excluded from the grand jury. The nature of the violation allowed a presumption that the defendant was prejudiced, and any inquiry into harmless error would have required unguided speculation. Such considerations are not presented here, and we review the alleged errors to assess their influence, if any, on the grand jury’s decision to indict in the factual context of the cases before us.
III
Though the standard we have articulated differs from that used by the Court of Appeals, we reach the same conclusion and affirm its decision reversing the order of dismissal. We review the record to set forth the basis of our agreement with the Court of Appeals that prejudice has not been established.
The District Court found that the Government had violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) by: (1) disclosing grand jury materials to Internal Revenue Service employees having civil tax enforcement responsibilities; (2) failing to give the court prompt notice of such disclosures; (3) disclosing to potential witnesses the names of targets of the investigation; and (4) instructing two gránd jury witnesses, who had represented some of the defendants in a separate investigation of the same tax shelters, that they were not to reveal the substance of their testimony or that they had testified before the grand jury. The court also found that the Government had violated Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(d) in allowing joint appearances by IRS agents before the grand jury for the purpose of reading transcripts to the jurors.
The District Court further concluded that one of the prosecutors improperly argued with an expert witness during a recess of the grand jury after the witness gave testimony adverse to the Government. It also held that the Government had violated the witness immunity statute, 18 U. S. C. §§6002, 6003, by the use of “pocket immunity” (immunity granted on representation of the prosecutor rather than by order of a judge), and that the Government caused IRS agents to mischaracterize testimony given in prior proceedings. Furthermore, the District Court found that the Government violated the Fifth Amendment by calling a number of witnesses for the sole purpose of having them assert their privilege against self-incrimination and that it had violated the Sixth Amendment by conducting postindictment interviews of several high-level employees of The Bank of Nova Scotia. Finally, the court concluded that the Government had caused IRS agents to be sworn as agents of the grand jury, thereby elevating their credibility.
As we have noted, no constitutional error occurred during the grand jury proceedings. The Court of Appeals concluded that the District Court’s findings of Sixth Amendment postindictment violations were unrelated to the grand jury’s independence and decisionmaking process because the alleged violations occurred after the indictment. We agree that it was improper for the District Court to cite such matters in dismissing the indictment. The Court of Appeals also found that no Fifth Amendment violation occurred as a result of the Government’s calling seven witnesses to testify despite an avowed intention to invoke their Fifth Amendment privilege. We agree that, in the circumstances of these cases, calling the witnesses was not error. The Government was not required to take at face value the unsworn assertions made by these witnesses outside the grand jury room. Once a witness invoked the privilege on the record, the prosecutors immediately ceased all questioning. Throughout the proceedings, moreover, the prosecution repeated the caution to the grand jury that it was not to draw any adverse inference from a witness’ invocation of the Fifth Amendment. App. 109, 130-131, 131-132, 155, 169-170.
In the cases before us we do not inquire whether the grand jury’s independence was infringed. Such an infringement may result in grave doubt as to a violation’s effect on the grand jury’s decision to indict, but we did not grant certiorari to review this conclusion. We note that the Court of Appeals found that the prosecution’s conduct was not “a significant infringement on the grand jury’s ability to exercise independent judgment,” 821 F. 2d, at 1475, and we accept that conclusion here. Finally, we note that we are not faced with a history of prosecutorial misconduct, spanning several cases, that is so systematic and pervasive as to raise a substantial and serious question about the fundamental fairness of the process which resulted in the indictment.
We must address, however, whether, despite the grand jury’s independence, there was any misconduct by the prosecution that otherwise may have influenced substantially the grand jury’s decision to indict, or whether there is grave doubt as to whether the decision to indict was so influenced. Several instances of misconduct found by the District Court — that the prosecutors manipulated the grand jury investigation to gather evidence for use in civil audits; violated the secrecy provisions of Rule 6(e) by publicly identifying the targets and the subject matter of the grand jury investigation; and imposed secrecy obligations in violation of Rule 6(e) upon grand jury witnesses — might be relevant to an allegation of a purpose or intent to abuse the grand jury process. Here, however, it is plain that these alleged breaches could not have affected the charging decision. We have no occasion to consider them further.
We are left to consider only the District Court’s findings that the prosecutors: (1) fashioned and administered unauthorized “oaths” to IRS agents in violation of Rule 6(c); (2) caused the same IRS agents to “summarize” evidence falsely and to assert incorrectly that all the evidence summarized by them had been presented previously to the grand jury; (3) deliberately berated and mistreated an expert witness for the defense in the presence of some grand jurors; (4) abused its authority by providing “pocket immunity” to 23 grand jury witnesses; and (5) permitted IRS agents to appear in tandem to present evidence to the grand jury in violation of Rule 6(d). We consider each in turn.
The Government administered oaths to IRS agents, swearing them in as “agents” of the grand jury. Although the administration of such oaths to IRS agents by the Government was unauthorized, there is ample evidence that the jurors understood that the agents were aligned with the prosecutors. At various times a prosecutor referred to the agents as “my agent(s),” App. 96, 98, 99, 108, 110, 113, 114,' 115, 117, 137, 153, 163, 165, 171, 176, and, in discussions with the prosecutors, grand jurors referred to the agents as “your guys” or “your agents.” Id., at 117, 157. There is nothing in the record to indicate that the oaths administered to the IRS agents caused their reliability or credibility to be elevated, and the effect, if any, on the grand jury’s decision to indict was negligible.
The District Court found that, to the prejudice of petitioners, IRS agents gave misleading and inaccurate summaries to the grand jury just prior to the indictment. Because the record does not reveal any prosecutorial misconduct with respect to these summaries, they provide no ground for dismissing the indictment. The District Court’s finding that the summaries offered by IRS agents contained evidence that had not been presented to the grand jury in prior testimony boils down to a challenge to the reliability or competence of the evidence presented to the grand jury. We have held that an indictment valid on its face is not subject to such a challenge. United States v. Calandra, 414 U. S. 338, 344-345 (1974). To the extent that a challenge is made to the accuracy of the summaries, the mere fact that evidence itself is unreliable is not sufficient to require a dismissal of the indictment. See Costello v. United States, 350 U. S. 359, 363 (1956) (holding that a court may not look behind the indictment to determine if the evidence upon which it was based is sufficient). In light of the record, the finding that the prosecutors knew the evidence to be false or misleading, or that the Government caused the agents to testify falsely, is clearly erroneous. Although the Government may have had doubts about the accuracy of certain aspects of the summaries, this is quite different from having knowledge of falsity.
The District Court found that a prosecutor was abusive to an expert defense witness during a recess and in the hearing of some grand jurors. Although the Government concedes that the treatment of the expert tax witness was improper, the witness himself testified that his testimony was unaffected by this misconduct. The prosecutors instructed the grand jury to disregard anything they may have heard in conversations between a prosecutor and a witness, and explained to the grand jury that such conversations should have no influence on its deliberations. App. 191. In light of these ameliorative measures, there is nothing to indicate that the prosecutor’s conduct toward this witness substantially affected the grand jury’s evaluation of the testimony or its decision to indict.
The District Court found that the Government granted “pocket immunity” to 23 witnesses during the course of the grand jury proceedings. Without deciding the propriety of granting such immunity to grand jury witnesses, we conclude the conduct did not have a substantial effect on the grand jury’s decision to indict, and it does not create grave doubt as to whether it affected the grand jury’s decision. Some prosecutors told the grand jury that immunized witnesses retained their Fifth Amendment privilege and could refuse to testify, while other prosecutors stated that the witnesses had no Fifth Amendment privilege, but we fail to see how this could have had a substantial effect on the jury’s assessment of the testimony or its decision to indict. The significant point is that the jurors were made aware that these witnesses had made a deal with the Government.
Assuming the Government had threatened to withdraw immunity from a witness in order to manipulate that witness’ testimony, this might have given rise to a finding of prejudice. There is no evidence in the record, however, that would support such a finding. The Government told a witness’ attorney that if the witness “testified for Mr. Kilpat-rick, all bets were off.” The attorney, however, ultimately concluded that the prosecution did not mean to imply that immunity would be withdrawn if his client testified for Kil-patrick, but rather that his client would be validly subject to prosecution for perjury. 594 F. Supp., at 1338. Although the District Court found that the Government’s statement was interpreted by the witness to mean that if he testified favorably for Kilpatrick his immunity would be withdrawn, ibid., neither Judge Winner nor Judge Kane made a definitive finding that the Government improperly threatened the witness. The witness may have felt threatened by the prosecutor’s statement, but his subjective fear cannot be ascribed to governmental misconduct and was, at most, a consideration bearing on the reliability of his testimony.
Finally, the Government permitted two IRS agents to appear before the grand jury at the same time for the purpose of reading transcripts. Although allowing the agents to read to the grand jury in tandem was a violation of Rule 6(d), it was not prejudicial. The agents gave no testimony of their own during the reading of the transcripts. The grand jury was instructed not to ask any questions and the agents were instructed not to answer any questions during the readings. There is no evidence that the agents’ reading in tandem enhanced the credibility of the testimony or otherwise allowed the agents to exercise undue influence.
In considering the prejudicial effect of the foregoing instances of alleged misconduct, we note that these incidents occurred as isolated episodes in the course of a 20-month investigation, an investigation involving dozens of witnesses and thousands of documents. In view of this context, those violations that did occur do not, even when considered cumulatively, raise a substantial question, much less a grave doubt, as to whether they had a substantial effect on the grand jury’s decision to charge.
Errors of the kind alleged in these cases can be remedied adequately by means other than dismissal. For example, a knowing violation of Rule 6 may be punished as a contempt of court. See Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 6(e)(2). In addition, the court may direct a prosecutor to show cause why he should not be disciplined and request the bar or the Department of Justice to initiate disciplinary proceedings against him. The court may also chastise the prosecutor in a published opinion. Such remedies allow the court to focus on the culpable individual rather than granting a windfall to the unprejudiced defendant.
IV
We conclude that the District Court had no authority to dismiss the indictment on the basis of prosecutorial misconduct absent a finding that petitioners were prejudiced by such misconduct. The prejudicial inquiry must focus on whether any violations had an effect on the grand jury’s decision to indict. If violations did substantially influence this decision, or if there is grave doubt that the decision to indict was free from such substantial influence, the violations cannot be deemed harmless. The record will not support the conclusion that petitioners can meet this standard. The judgment of the Court of Appeals 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 Stevens
delivered the opinion of the Court.
Acting on the recommendation of the Chief of Police, the City Manager of Marion, N. C., terminated petitioner's employment as a policeman without affording him a hearing to determine the sufficiency of the cause for his discharge. Petitioner brought suit contending that since a city ordinance classified him as a “permanent employee,” he had a constitutional right to a pretermin-ation hearing. During pretrial discovery petitioner was advised that his dismissal was based on a failure to follow certain orders, poor attendance at police training classes, causing low morale, and conduct unsuited to an officer. Petitioner and several other police officers filed affidavits essentially denying the truth of these charges. The District Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed, and we granted certiorari, 423 U. S. 890.
The questions for us to decide are (1) whether petitioner’s employment status was a property interest protected by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and (2) assuming that the explanation for his discharge was false, whether that false explanation deprived him of an interest in liberty protected by that Clause.
I
Petitioner was employed by the city of Marion as a probationary policeman on June 9, 1969. After six months he became a permanent employee. He was dismissed on March 31, 1972. He claims that he had either an express or an implied right to continued employment.
A city ordinance provides that a permanent employee may be discharged if he fails to perform work up to the standard of his classification, or if he is negligent, inefficient, or unfit to perform his duties. Petitioner first contends that even though the ordinance does not expressly so provide, it should be read to prohibit discharge for any other reason, and therefore to confer tenure on all permanent employees. In addition, he contends that his period of service, together with his “permanent” classification, gave him a sufficient expectancy of continued employment to constitute a protected property interest.
A property interest in employment can, of course, be created by ordinance, or by an implied contract. In either case, however, the sufficiency of the claim of entitlement must be decided by reference to state law. The North Carolina Supreme Court has held that an enforceable expectation of continued public employment in that State can exist only if the employer, by statute or contract, has actually granted some form of guarantee. Still v. Lance, 279 N. C. 254, 182 S. E. 2d 403 (1971). Whether such a guarantee has been given can be determined only by an examination of the particular statute or ordinance in question.
On its face the ordinance on which petitioner relies may fairly be read as conferring such a guarantee. However, such a reading is not the only possible interpretation; the ordinance may also be construed as granting no right to continued employment but merely conditioning an employee’s removal on compliance with certain specified procedures. We do not have any authoritative interpretation of this ordinance by a North Carolina state court. We do, however, have the opinion of the United States District Judge who, of course, sits in North Carolina and practiced law there for many years. Based on his understanding of state law, he concluded that petitioner “held his position at the will and pleasure of the city.” This construction of North Carolina law was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, albeit by an equally divided court. In comparable circumstances, this Court has accepted the interpretation of state law in which the District Court and the Court of Appeals have concurred even if an examination of the state-law issue without such guidance might have justified a different conclusion.
In this case, as the District Court construed the ordinance, the City Manager's determination of the adequacy of the grounds for discharge is not subject to judicial review; the employee is merely given certain procedural rights which the District Court found not to have been violated in this case. The District Court's reading of the ordinance is tenable; it derives some support from a decision of the North Carolina Supreme Court, Still v. Lance, supra; and it was accepted by the Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. These reasons are sufficient to foreclose our independent examination of the state-law issue.
Under that view of the law, petitioner’s discharge did not deprive him of a property interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.
II
Petitioner’s claim that he has been deprived of liberty has two components. He contends that the reasons given for his discharge are so serious as to constitute a stigma that may severely damage his reputation in the community; in addition, he claims that those reasons were false.
In our appraisal of petitioner’s claim we must accept his version of the facts since the District Court granted summary judgment against him. His evidence established that he was a competent police officer; that he was respected by his peers; that he made more arrests than any other officer on the force; that although he had been criticized for engaging in high-speed pursuits, he had promptly heeded such criticism; and that he had a reasonable explanation for his imperfect attendance at police training sessions. We must therefore assume that his discharge was a mistake and based on incorrect information.
In Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564, we recognized that the nonretention of an untenured college teacher might make him somewhat less attractive to other employers, but nevertheless concluded that it would stretch the concept too far “to suggest that a person is deprived of 'liberty’ when he simply is not rehired in one job but remains as free as before to seek another.” Id., at 575. This same conclusion applies to the discharge of a public employee whose position is terminable at the will of the employer when there is no public disclosure of the reasons for the discharge.
In this case the asserted reasons for the City Manager’s decision were communicated orally to the petitioner in private and also were stated in writing in,answer to interrogatories after this litigation commenced. Since the former communication was not made public, it cannot properly form the basis for a claim that petitioner’s interest in his “good name, reputation, honor, or integrity” was thereby impaired. And since the latter communication was made in the course of a judicial proceeding which did not commence until after petitioner had suffered the injury for which he seeks redress, it surely cannot provide retroactive support for his claim. A contrary evaluation of either explanation would penalize forthright and truthful communication between employer and employee in the former instance, and between litigants in the latter.
Petitioner argues, however, that the reasons given for his discharge were false. Even so, the reasons stated to him in private had no different impact on his reputation than if they had been true. And the answers to his interrogatories, whether true or false, did not cause the discharge. The truth or falsity of the City Manager’s statement determines whether or not his decision to discharge the petitioner was correct or prudent, but neither enhances nor diminishes petitioner’s claim that his constitutionally protected interest in liberty has been impaired. A contrary evaluation of his contention would enable every discharged employee to assert a constitutional claim merely by alleging that his former supervisor made a mistake.
The federal court is not the appropriate forum in which to review the multitude of personnel decisions that are made daily by public agencies. We must accept the harsh fact that numerous individual mistakes are inevitable in the day-to-day administration of our affairs. The United States Constitution cannot feasibly be construed to require federal judicial review for every such error. In the absence of any claim that the public employer was motivated by a desire to curtail or to penalize the exercise of an employee’s constitutionally protected rights, we must presume that official action was regular and, if erroneous, can best be corrected in other ways. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment is not a guarantee against incorrect or ill-advised personnel decisions.
The judgment is affirmed.
So ordered.
He relied on 42 U. S. C. § 1983, invoking federal jurisdiction under 28 U. S. C. § 1343 (3). He sought reinstatement and back-pay. The defendants were the then City Manager, Chief of Police, and the city of Marion, Since the city is not a “person” within the meaning of the statute, it was not a proper defendant. Monroe v. Pape, 365 U. S. 167, 187-192.
377 F. Supp. 501 (WD3STC 1973).
A three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals affirmed, with one judge dissenting, 498 F. 2d 1341 (CA4 1974); then, after granting a rehearing en banc, the court affirmed without opinion by an equally divided court.
“[N]or shall any State deprive any person of fife, liberty, or property, without due process of law . . . .” U. S. Const., Arndt. 14.
Article II, § 6, of the Personnel Ordinance of the city of Marion, reads as follows:
“Dismissal. A permanent employee whose work is not satisfactory over a period of time shall be notified in what way his work is deficient and what he must do if his work is to be satisfactory. If a permanent employee fails to perform work up to the standard of the classification held, or continues to be negligent, inefficient, or unfit to perform his duties, he may be dismissed by the City Manager. Any discharged employee shall be given written notice of his discharge setting forth the effective date and reasons for his discharge if he shall request such a notice.”
In Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U. S. 593, 601, the Court said that a “person's interest in a benefit is a 'property' interest for due process purposes if there are . . . rules or mutually explicit understandings that support his claim of entitlement to the benefit and that he may invoke at a hearing.”
“Property interests, of course, are not created by the Constitution. Rather, they are created and their dimensions are defined by existing rules or understandings that stem from an independent source such as state law — rules or understandings that secure certain benefits and that support claims of entitlement to those benefits.” Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U. S. 564, 577.
This is not the construction which six Members of this Court placed on the federal regulations involved in Arnett v. Kennedy, 416 U. S. 134. In that case the Court concluded that because the employee could only be discharged for cause, he had a property interest which was entitled to constitutional protection. In this case, a holding that as a matter of state law the employee “held his position at the will and pleasure of the city” necessarily establishes that he had no property interest. The Court’s evaluation of the federal regulations involved in Arnett sheds no light on the problem presented by this case.
“Under the law in North Carolina, nothing else appearing, a contract of employment which contains no provision for the duration or termination of employment is terminable at the will of either party irrespective of the quality of performance by the other party. By statute, G. S. § 115-142 (b), a county board of education in North Carolina may terminate the employment of a teacher at the end of the school year without filing charges or giving its reasons for such termination, or granting the teacher an opportunity to be heard. Still v. Lance, 279 N. C. 254, 182 S. E. 2d 403 (1971).
“It is clear from Article II, Section 6, of the City’s Personnel Ordinance, that the dismissal of an employee does not require a notice or a hearing. Upon request of the discharged employee, he shall be given written notice of his discharge setting forth the effective date and the reasons for the discharge. It thus appears that both the city ordinance and the state law have been complied with.
“It further appears that the plaintiff held his position at the will and pleasure of the city.” 377 F. Supp., at 504.
See United States v. Durham Lumber Co., 363 U. S. 522. In Propper v. Clark, 337 U. S. 472, 486-487, the Court stated: “The precise issue of state law involved, i. e., whether the temporary receiver under § 977-b of the New York Civil Practice Act is vested with title by virtue of his appointment, is one which has not been decided by the New York courts. Both the District Court and the Court of Appeals faced this question and answered it in the negative. In dealing with issues of state law that enter into judgments of federal courts, we are hesitant to overrule decisions by federal courts skilled in the law of particular states unless their conclusions are shown to be unreasonable.” In Township of Hillsborough v. Cromwell, 326 U. S. 620, 629-630, the Court stated: “Petitioner makes an extended argument to the effect that Duke Power Co. [v. State Board, 129 N. J. L. 449, 30 A. 2d 416, 131 N. J. L. 275, 36 A. 2d 201,] is not a controlling precedent on the local law question on which the decision below turned. On such questions we pay great deference to the views of the judges of those courts ‘who are familiar with the intricacies and trends of local law and practice.’ Huddleston v. Dwyer, 322 U. S. 232, 237. We are unable to say that the District Court and the Circuit Court of Appeals erred in applying to this case the rule of Duke Power Co. v. State Board, which involved closely analogous facts.” And in MacGregor v. State Mut. Life Assur. Co., 315 U. S. 280, 281, the Court stated: “No decision of the Supreme Court of Michigan, or of any other court of that State, construing the relevant Michigan law has been brought to our attention. In the absence of such guidance, we shall leave undisturbed the interpretation placed upon purely local law by a Michigan federal judge of long experience and by three circuit judges whose circuit includes Michigan.”
In granting summary judgment for respondents, the District Court was required to resolve all genuine disputes as to material facts in favor of petitioner. Fed. Rule Civ. Proc. 56 (c); Arnett v. Kennedy, supra, at 139-140.
See Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U. S. 433, 437, and the discussion of the interest in reputation allied to employment in Paul v. Davis, 424 U. S. 693.
Indeed, the impact on petitioner’s constitutionally protected interest in liberty is no greater even if we assume that the City Manager deliberately lied. Such fact might conceivably provide the basis for a state-law claim, the validity of which would be entirely unaffected by our analysis of the federal constitutional question.
The cumulative impression created by the three dissenting opinions is that this holding represents a significant retreat from settled practice in the federal courts. The fact of the matter, however, is that the instances in which the federal judiciary has required a state agency to reinstate a discharged employee for failure to provide a pretermination hearing are extremely rare. The reason is clear. For unless we were to adopt Mr. Justice BreNNAN’s remarkably innovative suggestion that we develop a federal common law of property rights, or his equally far-reaching view that almost every discharge implicates a constitutionally protected liberty interest, the ultimate control of state personnel relationships is, and will remain, with the States; they may grant or withhold tenure at their unfettered discretion. In this case, whether we accept or reject the construction of the ordinance adopted by the two lower courts, the power to change or clarify that ordinance will remain in the hands of the City Council of the city of Marion.
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
D
|
sc_issuearea
|
What follows is an opinion from the Supreme Court of the United States. Your task is to determine the issue area of the Court's decision. Determine the issue area on the basis of the Court's own statements as to what the case is about. Focus on the subject matter of the controversy rather than its legal basis. In specifying the issue in a legacy case, choose the one that best accords with what today's Court would consider it to be. Choose among the following issue areas: "Criminal Procedure" encompasses the rights of persons accused of crime, except for the due process rights of prisoners. "Civil rights" includes non-First Amendment freedom cases which pertain to classifications based on race (including American Indians), age, indigency, voting, residency, military or handicapped status, gender, and alienage. "First Amendment encompasses the scope of this constitutional provision, but do note that it need not involve the interpretation and application of a provision of the First Amendment. For example, if the case only construe a precedent, or the reviewability of a claim based on the First Amendment, or the scope of an administrative rule or regulation that impacts the exercise of First Amendment freedoms. "Due process" is limited to non-criminal guarantees. "Privacy" concerns libel, comity, abortion, contraceptives, right to die, and Freedom of Information Act and related federal or state statutes or regulations. "Attorneys" includes attorneys' compensation and licenses, along with trhose of governmental officials and employees. "Unions" encompass those issues involving labor union activity. "Economic activity" is largely commercial and business related; it includes tort actions and employee actions vis-a-vis employers. "Judicial power" concerns the exercise of the judiciary's own power. "Federalism" pertains to conflicts and other relationships between the federal government and the states, except for those between the federal and state courts. "Federal taxation" concerns the Internal Revenue Code and related statutes. "Private law" relates to disputes between private persons involving real and personal property, contracts, evidence, civil procedure, torts, wills and trusts, and commercial transactions. Prior to the passage of the Judges' Bill of 1925 much of the Court's cases concerned such issues. Use "Miscellaneous" for legislative veto and executive authority vis-a-vis congress or the states.
Per Curiam.
In March 1972, in Johnson County, Ark., respondent was charged by information with the crime of embezzlement. With the assistance of counsel, respondent entered into plea negotiations with the prosecuting attorney, and the parties reached an agreement that respondent would enter a plea of guilty on the understanding that the prosecutor would recommend a 15-year prison sentence, with 10 years suspended. Approximately two weeks later, the prosecuting attorney asked respondent’s counsel whether respondent would be willing to make a statement concerning the crimes. Although counsel advised respondent of his Fifth Amendment privilege and informed him that the terms of the negotiated plea bargain were available regardless of his willingness to comply with the prosecuting attorney’s request, the respondent agreed to make a statement confessing to the crime charged. The record discloses that the statement was made under oath in the office of respondent’s counsel, with counsel present, and after respondent had been advised of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U. S. 436 (1966).
Respondent subsequently withdrew from the plea bargain, retained new counsel, and demanded a jury trial. The trial court ruled, after hearing evidence outside the presence of the jury, that respondent had confessed voluntarily. The statement was admitted at trial, and respondent was convicted and sentenced to 21 years’ imprisonment. On appeal, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed. Ross v. State, 257 Ark. 44, 514 S. W. 2d 409 (1974). This Court denied certiorari. 421 U. S. 931 (1975).
Respondent then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the United States District Court for the Western District of Arkansas challenging the state court’s finding of voluntariness. 28 U. S. C. § 2254. The District Court held an evidentiary hearing, and on May 23, 1975, denied the petition, agreeing with the state court that the confession was voluntary and therefore admissible. Mobley ex rel. Ross v. Meek, 394 F. Supp. 1219 (1975).
The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed, finding the statement inadmissible because “it . . . was made in connection with an offer to plead guilty and after a [plea] bargain had been agreed upon.” 531 F. 2d 924, 926 (1976). It made no difference, in the court’s view, that the confession was not an express precondition of the plea bargain; the confession became “part and parcel” of the plea bargain because “[the] confession would [not] have been made at the request of the prosecution but for the plea bargain.” Ibid, (emphasis added). Since the plea bargain had not been executed, the court found the confession involuntary and therefore inadmissible.
The only question in this case is whether a confession is per se inadmissible in a criminal trial because it was made subsequent to an agreed upon plea bargain that did not call for such a confession. We conclude that the Court of Appeals erred when it held that any statement made as a result of a plea bargain is inadmissible.
The Court of Appeals reasoned that respondent’s confession was involuntary because it was made “as a result of the plea bargain” and would not have been made “but for the plea bargain.” Id., at 927, 926. But causation in that sense has never been the test of voluntariness. See Brady v. United States, 397 U. S. 742, 749-750 (1970). The test is whether the confession was “ ‘extracted by any sort- of threats or violence, [or] obtained by any direct or implied promises, however slight, [or] by the exertion of any improper influence.’ ” Bram v. United States, 168 U. S. 532, 542-543 (1897); see Brady v. United States, supra, at 753. The existence of the bargain may well have entered into respondent’s decision to give a statement, but counsel made it clear to respondent that he could enforce the terms of the plea bargain whether or not he confessed. The confession thus does not appear to have been the result of “ ‘any direct or implied promises’ ” or any coercion on the part of the prosecution, and was not involuntary. Bram v. United States, supra, at 542-543.
The petition for a writ of certiorari is granted, the judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
Me. Justice Stewaet dissents. Agreeing with the reasoning of the Court of Appeals, he would affirm its judgment.
It is so ordered.
Counsel for respondent testified at the federal habeas corpus hearing that the prosecuting attorney asked for the statement in order to complete his file "as to actually what occurred and how [respondent] took the money and used it.” 1 Record 37.
In response to questions asked by the prosecuting attorney at this meeting, respondent said that his confession was voluntary and that he had not been promised anything in return for making the confession. Mobley ex rel. Ross v. Meek, 394 F. Supp. 1219, 1221-1222 (WD Ark. 1975).
This case does not involve the admissibility at trial of a guilty plea subsequently withdrawn by leave of court. That issue was settled in Kercheval v. United States, 274 U. S. 220 (1927), which held that such pleas could not be used as evidence of guilt at a subsequent trial. Nor does this case involve the admissibility in criminal trials of statements made during the plea negotiation process. See Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 11 (e) (6); Moulder v. State, 154 Ind. App. 248, 289 N. E. 2d 522 (1972) ; ABA Project on Standards for Criminal Justice, Pleas of Guilty § 3.4 (Approved Draft of 1968),
Question: What is the issue area of the decision?
A. Criminal Procedure
B. Civil Rights
C. First Amendment
D. Due Process
E. Privacy
F. Attorneys
G. Unions
H. Economic Activity
I. Judicial Power
J. Federalism
K. Interstate Relations
L. Federal Taxation
M. Miscellaneous
N. Private Action
Answer:
|
A
|
sc_issuearea
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.